The last blood sacrifice

[placebofactor]

Daniel 9:26, “After threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.”

Daniel 9:27, “And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation (in the temple) to cease,”

Question 1: Who is the “he” referred to in verse 27 who will confirm the covenant? The answer is found in verse 26.
Question 2: Who will the covenant be between?
Question 3: Who made the last Temple sacrifice and offering that would be accepted by the Father?
Question 4: And will the covenant be part of the 70 weeks of years (490 years)?

[placebofactor]

Will you at least admit that the people who came to destroy the temple were the Roman Legions led by General Titus? If you do not think it was the Lord who sent the Legions in to fulfil the two prophecies mentioned above, then it was Titus. The problem with that is Titus was not a prince; he was a general...

I believe it was the Romans. And it could be that Titus was a general then. But, general is also like a servant for a higher person. In this case I think the prince means the emperor and the Legions were emperors men.

Also, the word prince can mean in this case leader, ruler, captain, prince. Titus can be called a leader.

So, the bottom line is, you want to take the glory of prophecy coming to pass from the Lord and give it to Titus; is that what you're saying?

[1213]

So, the bottom line is, you want to take the glory of prophecy coming to pass from the Lord and give it to Titus; is that what you're saying?

No. I don't think there is any glory for a person who leads people to destroy the temple.

[placebofactor]

So, the bottom line is, you want to take the glory of prophecy coming to pass from the Lord and give it to Titus; is that what you're saying?

No. I don't think there is any glory for a person who leads people to destroy the temple.

The Lord's prophecy coming to its fulfillment is the glory that belongs to the Lord.

Now someone sent the Roman Legions to destroy the city and the Temple. It was either Titus, who would be numbered with the people, his father Vespasian, ruler of Rome, or Messiah, the prince? Remember, Titus did not want the Temple destroyed, but the Lord prophesied it would be destroyed, and God's will rules over men.

[placebofactor]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #13]


This is my last word on question 1.
The following is a pattern that is repeated throughout Scripture: God accomplishes His purposes through the actions of earthly nations and rulers, even when those rulers are not consciously serving Him.

God calls the Assyrian Empire "the rod of mine anger" in Isaiah 10, using Assyria to judge the northern kingdom, while later judging Assyria itself for its arrogance. He repeatedly refers to Nebuchadnezzar as "My servant" (Jeremiah 25:9; 27:6), even though Nebuchadnezzar did not know or worship the God of Israel.

Also, in the New Testament, earthly authorities unknowingly carry out God's redemptive plan in the crucifixion of Christ; see Acts 2:23; 4:27–28. Seen in that biblical pattern, we can argue that the Romans were likewise instruments in God's judgment on Jerusalem.

Regarding Daniel 9:26, "...the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary..." The verse distinguishes the prince from the people. Titus was one of the people; he was part of the Roman force, and the text itself does not explicitly say Titus is the prince. That’s an inference many commentators make because Titus commanded the siege. My understanding is that the "prince" is the Messiah introduced in verse 25, and the Romans are His people in the sense that they are under His sovereign authority and carrying out His announced judgment.

This interpretation fits Jesus' own words in the Gospels. He declares in Matthew 23:38, "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.” He then immediately predicts that in Matthew 24:2, "There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

When Jerusalem fell in AD 70, those words came to pass. Whether one says "Titus destroyed the Temple" from the historical perspective or "the Lord judged Jerusalem through the Romans" from the theological perspective depends on the level of explanation being emphasized. Scripture often presents both simultaneously.

Also, Titus' wanted to preserve the Temple, yet it was destroyed. This assessment strengthens the idea that events unfolded according to God's decree rather than merely according to Roman intentions. As for the scattering of the Jewish people, passages such as Deuteronomy 28, the Gospel of Luke 21:24, and Daniel's prophecy are understood together by those who see 70 A.D. as the climactic covenant judgment on Jerusalem.

Jesus says in Luke 21:24 that Jerusalem would be "Trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled," connecting the destruction with a prolonged period in Israel's history.

So, I do not separate "the prince that shall come" from "Messiah the Prince." Instead, verse 25 and 26: the Messiah is the prince, and the Romans are simply the instrument by which He fulfills His own prophecy and executes covenant judgment. This preserves the centrality of Christ as the active Lord of history rather than making a Roman general the primary figure in the fulfillment of the prophecy.

Also, the lowercase "prince" in the KJV is not because the original Hebrew requires it. Hebrew has no uppercase or lowercase letters. The above challenges that interpretive decision by arguing that the nearest and most significant antecedent is the Messiah, whose authority extends over the Roman armies that carried out His foretold judgment.

[1213]

...Titus did not want the Temple destroyed...

How do you know that?

[placebofactor]

[Replying to 1213 in post #15]

Josephus Flavius, is the primary ancient historian who recorded the events of the First Jewish–Roman War, explicitly states that Titus did not want the Temple destroyed. In his Jewish War (Book 6, chapters 249–266), Josephus describes how, after the Romans had breached Jerusalem’s defenses.

I have answered all your questions, and you have given me nothing to disprove what I have given you. Now let's move on to question 2.

"Who was it that was to confirm what covenant with whom for one week (7 years), causing the Temple sacrifices and the oblation to cease after 3 1/2 years, because he was "cut off," leaving 3 1/2 years to finish the Seventy weeks or 490-years of Daniel 9:24?"

When asked, "What does it mean that the sacrifices ceased?" It means they were no longer being accepted by the LORD. Isaiah 1:11-13-15 and Malachi 1:10, the LORD is speaking to priests: "I have no pleasure in you, --- neither will I accept an offering at your hand." Malachi 2:2, "I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because you do not lay it to heart."

[1213]

Josephus Flavius, is the primary ancient historian who recorded the events of the First Jewish–Roman War, explicitly states that Titus did not want the Temple destroyed....

If that would be true, I don't think he would then have done it.

[placebofactor]

Josephus Flavius, is the primary ancient historian who recorded the events of the First Jewish–Roman War, explicitly states that Titus did not want the Temple destroyed....

If that would be true, I don't think he would then have done it.

If the will of General Titus was greater than the will of God, then the temple would have remained standing.

[1213]

Josephus Flavius, is the primary ancient historian who recorded the events of the First Jewish–Roman War, explicitly states that Titus did not want the Temple destroyed....

If that would be true, I don't think he would then have done it.

If the will of General Titus was greater than the will of God, then the temple would have remained standing.

Not necessary, Titus just would not have been destroying it.

[placebofactor]

Josephus Flavius, is the primary ancient historian who recorded the events of the First Jewish–Roman War, explicitly states that Titus did not want the Temple destroyed....

If that would be true, I don't think he would then have done it.

If the will of General Titus was greater than the will of God, then the temple would have remained standing.

Not necessary, Titus just would not have been destroying it.

1213, I notice you never have an answer for anything. You sit on the other side of a keyboard and write out your responses, rejecting what can be proven by historical sources. If you are not capable of accepting historical evidence or what the Bible has to teach, I'm wasting my time, and at 89 years of age, I have little to waste. Is anyone else interested in this subject?