I have been having trouble trying to figure out the antecedent of the word "he" in a particular verse of the Bible. I was wondering if you could help.

The passage is Daniel 9:25–27:

v. 25) Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

v. 26) And 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 the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

v. 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 the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

My question is, to whom does "he" in verse 27 refer? is it "Messiah" or is it the "prince that shall come"?

  • That's a question that might upset some apple carts! Jake, would you please hit the "edit" button and indicate which translation you are citing? It is a requirement on this site and helps people answer the question. Thanks.
    – Ruminator
    Commented Apr 21, 2018 at 19:26
  • There are roughly 490 years, spanning from the first year of Darius II (423 BC), when Daniel's vision takes place (9:1, 11:1-4), to the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple in AD 70. It is also worth noting that the Greek Septuagint reads anointing instead of anointed in 9:26.
    – Lucian
    Commented Sep 4, 2020 at 15:05

13 Answers 13


Critical scholarship sees Daniel 7-12 as almost wholly concerned with the events surrounding Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabean Revolt. This view is not evident in translations of Daniel 9 such as found in the KJV because of erroneous punctuation.

A common trait in this genre is vaticinium ex eventu, 'after the fact' prophecy. The pattern is common in the apocalyptic genre: the anonymous author is living in a period of crisis, adopts the identity of a revered figure of the long-distant past as a framework for the message they have to write, and then 'predict' a series of historical events, culminating with the crisis at hand.

This trait is seen in the Apocalypse of Weeks and the Animal Apocalypse, both found in the compilation text 1 Enoch. In these texts, the authors wrote as if they were Enoch, 'predicting' major events in the biblical narrative between the creation of Adam and the era of the Maccabean Revolt. It is also evident throughout 4 Ezra, especially chapters 11-12, where Ezra 'predicts' the rise and fall of the Roman emperors from Julius Caesar up to about AD 95-100.

Also relevant to your question, the pseudonymous Letter of Jeremiah reinterprets Jeremiah 25.9-12 and 29.10, changing the original 'seventy years' into the substantially longer 'seven generations'. Scholars tend to agree that the Letter of Jeremiah was written circa 320-300 BC, roughly seven (forty-year) generations after Babylon's destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC.

Like the Letter of Jeremiah, Daniel 9 reinterprets the seventy years of Jeremiah's prophecy into seventy 'weeks'. However, Daniel 7-12 is a textbook case of a Second Temple-era apocalypse, and Daniel 9.24-27 is a clear, though brief example of vaticinium ex eventu, culminating with the Maccabean Revolt.

In this interpretation, the 'prince who is to come' in verse 26 is Antiochus Epiphanes, and he is the antecedent of 'he' in verse 27. The 'covenant' he makes was some sort of social agreement between Antiochus and local Judeans who had abandoned Torah observance, as mentioned in 1 Maccabees 1.10-15:

From them came forth a sinful root, Antiochus Epiphanes, son of King Antiochus; he had been a hostage in Rome. He began to reign in the one hundred and thirty-seventh year of the kingdom of the Greeks. In those days certain renegades came out from Israel and misled many, saying, ‘Let us go and make a covenant with the Gentiles around us, for since we separated from them many disasters have come upon us.’ This proposal pleased them, and some of the people eagerly went to the king, who authorized them to observe the ordinances of the Gentiles. So they built a gymnasium in Jerusalem, according to Gentile custom, and removed the marks of circumcision, and abandoned the holy covenant. They joined with the Gentiles and sold themselves to do evil.
  • 2
    Critical scholarship doesn't believe in prophecy so of course they would think this. But Daniel was given This prophecy of things ahead of his time by the angel Gabriel. This explanation you gave doesn't fulfill the things that were supposed to be fulfilled by these 70 weeks. As In the end of sin, atonement, and everlasting righteousness.
    – diego b
    Commented Jan 8, 2018 at 6:17

It has been widely taught by modern writers that the ‘coming prince’ spoken about refers to the final Antichrist. The story goes that the clock stopped after the 69th week and the last week - the 70th - has been projected forward 2000 years into the future, after which it resumes when Antichrist is revealed.

Apart from the obvious difficulty of jamming a two-thousand year wedge into God’s timeline, it confuses the prophecy’s real intent. The central person is Christ, not Antichrist, and the prince who was to come refers to Titus, who came forty years after the ‘weeks’ were over.

The traditional view of this passage, held by the Church until last century, was that Christ was the one who confirmed the covenant! Christ was the one who caused sacrifice to cease! Christ was the one who made the temple obsolete! In the midst of the 70th week God caused the great curtain of the temple to be torn from top to bottom indicating that sacrifice (as far as He was concerned) had come to an end. The atonement was complete! Shortly afterward the ‘other prince’, Titus the Roman, came and destroyed the temple altogether.

I believe that the historical explanation flows into events as they unfolded better than modern theories. For example, the destruction is attributed to “the people of the prince,” not to the prince himself. Such a distinction would be superfluous, if it were not for the fact that Titus had instructed his troops to preserve the temple, but they disobeyed orders and torched it anyway. The people of the prince did it!

I would like to offer the following text of Daniel 9:26,27 (N.K.J.Version, with my bracketed notes added)

"After the sixty-two weeks Messiah (Jesus) shall be cut off, but not for himself; and the people (Roman troops in ad 70) of the prince who is to come (Titus, a roman general and prince) shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, and till the end of the war desolations are determined.

He (Messiah) shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; but in the middle of the week (3½ yrs after his revealing) shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. (temple curtain torn) And on the wing of abominations (ongoing animal atonement an abomination) shall be one who makes desolate, (Titus destroys temple) even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate. (judgement on Jerusalem)

  • This answer could be improved with more sources but even as it is it is a solid, valuable answer.
    – Ruminator
    Commented Apr 21, 2018 at 19:33
  • Might there be 2,000 years wedged between Dan 7:24 and 25? Or between 21 and 22? If not, when God caused the great curtain to be torn 'in the midst of the 70th week,' did He also make somebody 'speak things against the Most High and wear out the saints of the Most High; and his intention will be to change the times and the law; and they will be given into his hand for a time and times and half a time' (25)? Or should that be some different 3 1/2 years? Also, can the traditional view clarify for us 9:27: how did Messiah 'confirm a covenant with many for [7 years]'? Did He in the Gospels? thanx
    – Walter S
    Commented Feb 28, 2020 at 1:16

The 'he' in verse 27 refers to the 'prince that shall come'. We can show this three ways. Bear with me. This is long.

The first and most obvious way is that 'the prince that shall come' is the last person mentioned in verse 26 before the pronoun 'he' is used in verse 27 and so 'the prince that shall come' is most naturally who 'he' refers to. That is not definite though.

The second and third way come from the context. Context is critical. You reference verse 25 and verse 26 in order to explain verse 27, but we really need to go back to the beginning of the chapter.

What started Daniel's conversation with Gabriel?

Daniel 9:1

In the first year of Darius, son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, who hath been made king over the kingdom of the Chaldeans,

in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, have understood by books the number of the years, in that a word of Jehovah hath been unto Jeremiah the prophet, concerning the fulfilling of the wastes of Jerusalem – seventy years;


Daniel was reading Jeremiah 25:9-13 where it says the same thing it says here - God sentenced the land of Judah to destruction for 70 years.

Afterward Daniel was moved to pray, and what does he pray about for 16 verses?

Daniel 9:3-19


and I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes.

And I pray to Jehovah my God, and confess, and say: ‘I beseech Thee, O Lord God, the great and the fearful, keeping the covenant and the kindness to those loving Him, and to those keeping His commands;

we have sinned, and done perversely, and done wickedly, and rebelled, to turn aside from Thy commands, and from Thy judgments:

and we have not hearkened unto Thy servants the prophets, who have spoken in Thy name unto our kings, our heads, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land.

‘To Thee, O Lord, is the righteousness, and to us the shame of face, as at this day, to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to all Israel, who are near, and who are far off, in all the lands whither Thou hast driven them, in their trespass that they have trespassed against Thee.

‘O Lord, to us is shame of face, to our kings, to our heads, and to our fathers, in that we have sinned against Thee.

‘To the Lord our God are the mercies and the forgivenesses, for we have rebelled against Him,

and have not hearkened to the voice of Jehovah our God, to walk in His laws, that He hath set before us by the hand of His servants the prophets;

and all Israel have transgressed Thy law, to turn aside so as not to hearken to Thy voice; and poured on us in the execration, and the oath, that is written in the law of Moses, servant of God, because we have sinned against Him.

‘And He confirmeth His words that He hath spoken against us, and against our judges who have judged us, to bring in upon us great evil, in that it hath not been done under the whole heaven as it hath been done in Jerusalem,

as it is written in the law of Moses, all this evil hath come upon us, and we have not appeased the face of Jehovah our God to turn back from our iniquities, and to act wisely in Thy truth.

And Jehovah doth watch for the evil, and bringeth it upon us, for righteous is Jehovah our God concerning all His works that He hath done, and we have not hearkened to His voice.

And now, O Lord our God, who hast brought forth Thy people from the land of Egypt by a strong hand, and dost make for Thee a name as at this day, we have sinned, we have done wickedly.


Pay extra attention to this part:


‘O Lord, according to all Thy righteous acts, let turn back, I pray Thee, Thine anger and Thy fury from Thy city Jerusalem, Thy holy mount, for by our sins, and by the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and Thy people are for a reproach to all our neighbours;

and now, hearken, O our God, unto the prayer of Thy servant, and unto his supplication, and cause Thy face to shine on Thy sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lord’s sake.

‘Incline, O my God, Thine ear, and hear, open Thine eyes and see our desolations, and the city on which Thy name is called; for not for our righteous acts are we causing our supplications to fall before Thee, but for Thy mercies that are many.

O lord, hear, O Lord, forgive; O Lord, attend and do; do not delay, for Thine own sake, O my God, for Thy name is called on Thy city, and on Thy people.

Daniel started this chapter reading Jeremiah’s prophecy about the destruction of Jerusalem and how long before the destruction would end. Daniel then prayed to God about the destruction of Jerusalem and begged him to bring the destruction to an end. And then what happened?

Daniel 9:20-24


And while I am speaking, and praying, and confessing my sin, and the sin of my people Israel, and causing my supplication to fall before Jehovah my God, for the holy mount of my God,

yea, while I am speaking in prayer, then that one Gabriel, whom I had seen in vision at the commencement, being caused to fly swiftly, is coming unto me at the time of the evening present.

And he giveth understanding, and speaketh with me, and saith, ‘O Daniel, now I have come forth to cause thee to consider understanding wisely;

at the commencement of thy supplications [again, what was Daniel praying about?] hath the word come forth, and I have come to declare it, for thou art greatly desired, and understand thou concerning the matter, and consider concerning the appearance.

‘Seventy weeks [sevens] are determined for thy people, and for thy holy city, to shut up the transgression, and to seal up sins, and to cover inquity, and to bring in everlasting judgment [ancient justice], and to seal up vision and prophet and to anoint the holy of holies.


Here is an excerpt from Gesenius Lexicon that shows the "everlasting judgment" should be "ancient justice". Notice how he says it has to have this meaning and then he says it can't have this meaning and why.

enter image description here

Daniel 9:25 (the edits are mine):


And thou dost know, and dost consider wisely, from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem till Messiah the Leader [anointed prince] is seven weeks [sevens], and sixty and two weeks [sevens]: the broad place hath been built again, and the rampart, even in the distress of the times.


There is such a strong tradition saying that this must refer to Jesus Christ that even Robert Young did not translate this literally in his literal translation. For instance, the word "Messiah" only shows up in these two verses (Daniel 9:25-26) and Psalms 2. (In King James, the word Messiah is only used in Daniel 9-25-26.) Everywhere else that Hebrew word (משיח) appears, Young translated that word into "anointed". He should have done that here too.

Also there is no definite article - no "the" (in Hebrew, no ה) - in that phrase. It should just be "anointed leader", not "the anointed leader".

In addition, Gabriel said the 7 sevens was "from the going forth of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" to the anointed leader. Which word was Gabriel referring to? The same word that started this whole thing.

Read Daniel 9:2 again:


in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, have understood by books the number of the years, in that a word of Jehovah hath been unto Jeremiah the prophet, concerning the fulfilling of the wastes of Jerusalem -- seventy years;


The same Hebrew word (דבר) is translated into "word" in verse 2 and 25.

There would be 70 years between when Jerusalem was destroyed and then rebuilt, but 7 sevens into it - or 49 years into it - an anointed leader would come on the scene. Who was that?

Isaiah 44:26-28, 45:1


Confirming the word of His servant, The counsel of His messengers it perfecteth, Who is saying of Jerusalem, She is inhabited, And of cities of Judah, They shall be built, and her wastes I raise up,

Who is saying to the deep, Be dry, and thy rivers I cause to dry up,

Who is saying of Cyrus, My shepherd, And all my delight He doth perfect, So as to say of Jerusalem, Thou art built, And of the temple, Thou art founded.

Thus said Jehovah, To His anointed, to Cyrus, Whose right hand I have laid hold on, To subdue nations before him, Yea, loins of kings I loose, To open before him two-leaved doors, Yea, gates are not shut:


Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians around 585 BC. Cyrus took power around 536 BC. That is a 49 year difference. And it was in the first year of his reign that he decreed the Jews could return to their land.

2Chronicles 36:22


And in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, at the completion of the word of Jehovah in the mouth of Jeremiah, hath Jehovah waked up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, and he causeth an intimation to pass over into all his kingdom, and also in writing, saying,

'Thus said Cyrus king of Persia, All kingdoms of the earth hath Jehovah, God of the heavens, given to me, and He hath laid a charge on me to build to Him a house in Jerusalem, that is in Judah; who is among you of all His people? Jehovah his God is with him, and he doth go up.'

Also Ezra 1:1-4:

And in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, at the completion of the word of Jehovah from the mouth of Jeremiah, hath Jehovah waked up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, and he causeth an intimation to pass over into all his kingdom, and also in writing, saying,

'Thus said Cyrus king of Persia, All kingdoms of the earth hath Jehovah, God of the heavens, given to me, and He hath laid a charge on me to build to Him a house in Jerusalem, that is in Judah;

who is among you of all His people? His God is with him, and he doth go up to Jerusalem, that is in Judah, and build the house of Jehovah, God of Israel -- He is God -- that is in Jerusalem.

'And every one who is left, of any of the places where he is a sojourner, assist him do the men of his place with silver, and with gold, and with goods, and with beasts, along with a free-will offering for the house of God, that is in Jerusalem.'


After this period of 7 sevens (49 years), there would be another period of 62 sevens (434 years) in which the broad place (plaza) and the walls/moat would be rebuilt. Josephus says Pompey had a hard time filling in the moat to conquer Jerusalem and take the temple because of its immense size. Strabo says the moat was 60 feet deep and 250 feet wide. The city walls and the moat around the walls were huge. It would have taken some time to finish them, especially with all the political turmoil that nation had to deal with in that interval.

Daniel 9:26


And after sixty and two weeks [sevens], cut off is Messiah [anointed], and the city and the holy place are not his [literally, "and he has not"], the Leader who hath come doth destroy the people; and its end is with a flood, and till the end is war, determined are desolations.


There was an anointed person (verse 25) before the 62 sevens (434 years). After the 62 sevens (434 years) there is another anointed person (verse 26) who is cut off.

The 10-word phrase Robert Young translated as 'and the city and the holy place are not his' comes from 2 Hebrews words:

  • ועין literally 'and there is not'
  • לו literally 'to him'

"And there is not to him", i.e "and he has not".

Putting that all together: After the 62 sevens (434 years), another anointed person comes on the scene. He is cut off (he dies), and he has not (he has no descendants), and the leader who comes (comes in his place) destroys the people.

This is the second way to show 'he' in verse 27 refers to 'the prince who shall come'. The anointed/Messiah mentioned in verse 26 is dead by verse 27.

Antiquities of the Jews 13.11.1:

Now when their father Hyrcanus was dead, the eldest son Aristobulus, intending to change the government into a kingdom, for so he resolved to do, first of all put a diadem on his head [he was the high priest - anointed],

four hundred eighty and one years and three months after the people had been delivered from the Babylonish slavery, and were returned to their own country again.

This Aristobulus loved his next brother Antigonus, and treated him as his equal; but the others he held in bonds.

He also cast his mother into prison, because she disputed the government with him; for Hyrcanus had left her to be mistress of all.

He also proceeded to that degree of barbarity, as to kill her in prison with hunger; nay, he was alienated from his brother Antigonus by calumnies, and added him to the rest whom he slew; yet he seemed to have an affection for him, and made him above the rest a partner with in the kingdom.

Those calumnies he at first did not give credit to, partly because he loved him, and so did not give heed to what was said against him, and partly because he thought the reproaches were derived from the envy of the relaters.

But when Antigonus was once returned from the army, and that feast was then at hand when they make tabernacles to [the honor of God,] it happened that Aristobulus was fallen sick, and that Antigonus went up most splendidly adorned, and with his soldiers about him in their armor, to the temple to celebrate the feast, and to put up many prayers for the recovery of his brother, when some wicked persons, who had a great mind to raise a difference between the brethren, made use of this opportunity of the pompous appearance of Antigonus, and of the great actions which he had done, and went to the king, and spitefully aggravated the pompous show of his at the feast, and pretended that all these circumstances were not like those of a private person; that these actions were indications of an affectation of royal authority; and that his coming with a strong body of men must be with an intention to kill him; and that his way of reasoning was this: That it was a silly thing in him, while it was in his power to reign himself, to look upon it as a great favor that he was honored with a lower dignity by his brother.

Aristobulus yieled to these imputations, but took care both that his brother should not suspect him, and that he himself might not run the hazard of his own safety; so he ordered his guards to lie in a certain place that was under ground, and dark; (he himself then lying sick in the tower which was called Antonia;) and he commanded them, that in case Antigonus came in to him unarmed, they should not touch any body, but if armed, they should kill him; yet did he send to Antigonus, and desired that he would come unarmed; but the queen, and those that joined with her in the plot against Antigonus, persuaded the messenger to tell him the direct contrary: how his brother had heard that he had made himself a fine suit of armor, that he might see how fine it was.

So Antigonus suspecting no treachery, but depending on the good-will of his brother, came to Aristobulus armed, as he used to be, with his entire armor, in order to show it to him; but when he was come to the place which was called Strato’s Tower, where the passage happened to be exceeding dark, the guards slew him; which death of his demonstrates that nothing is stronger than envy and calumny, and that nothing dose more certainly divide the good-will and natural affections of men than those passions.


But Aristobulus repented immediately of this slaughter of his brother; on which account his diseases increased upon him, and he was disturbed in his mind, upon the guilt of such wickedness, insomuch that his entrails were corrupted by his intolerable pain, and he vomited blood: at which time one of the servants that attended upon him, and was carrying his blood away, did, by Divine Providence, as I cannot but suppose, slip down, and shed part of his blood at the very place where there were spots of Antigonus’s blood, there slain, still remaining; and when there was a cry made by the spectators, as if the servant had on purpose shed the blood on that place, Aristobulus heard it, and inquired what the matter was; and as they did not answer him, he was the more earnest to know what it was, it being natural to men to suspect that what is concealed is very bad: so upon his threatening, and forcing them by terrors to speak, they at length told him the truth; whereupon he shed many tears, in that disorder of mind which arose from his consciousness of what he had done, and gave a deep groan, and said, “I am not therefore, I perceive, to be concealed from God, in the impious and horrid crimes I have been guilty of; but a sudden punishment is coming upon me for the shedding the blood of my relations. And now, O thou most impudent body of mine, how long wilt thou retain a soul that ought to die, in order to appease the ghosts of my brother and my mother?

Why dost thou not give it all up at once? And why do I deliver up my blood drop by drop to those whom I have so wickedly murdered?”

In saying which last words he died, having reigned a year.

He was called a lover of the Grecians; and he conferred many benefits on his own country, and made war against Iturea, and added a great part of it to Judea, and compelled the inhabitants, if they would continue in that country, to be circumcised, and to live according to the Jewish laws.

He was naturally a man of candor, and of great modesty, as Strabo bears witness, in the name of Timagenes; who says thus: “This man was a person of candor, and very serviceable to the Jews; for he added a country to them, and obtained a part of the nation of the Itureans for them, and bound them to them by the bond of circumcision of their genitals.”

Antiquities of the Jews 13.13.1:

When Aristobulus was dead, his wife Salome, who, by the Greeks, was called Alexandra, let his brethren out of prison, (for Aristobulus had kept them in bonds, as we have said already,) and made Alexander Janneus king, who was the superior in age and in moderation.

This child happened to be hated by his father as soon as he was born, and could never be permitted to come into his father’s sight till he died.

The occasion of which hatred is thus reported: when Hyrcanus chiefly loved the two eldest of his sons, Antigonus and Aristobulus, God appeared to him in his sleep, of whom he inquired which of his sons should be his successor.

Upon God’s representing to him the countenance of Alexander, he was grieved that he was to be heir of all his goods, and suffered him to brought up in Galilee.

However, God did not deceive Hyrcanus; for after the death of Aristobulus, he certainly took the kingdom; and one of his brethren, who affected the kingdom, he slew; and the other, who chose to live a private and quiet life, he had in esteem.


Continuing Daniel 9 again:


And he hath strengthened a covenant with many -- one week, and in the midst of the week he causeth sacrifice and present to cease, and by the wing of abominations he is making desolate, even till the consummation, and that which is determined is poured on the desolate one.'

The Hebrew word translated into 'week' twice in verse 27 is a different Hebrew word that means a literal Sunday-to-Saturday 7-day week. The instance at the beginning of verse 27 it is שביע - 'week' - and in the second instance, it is the same Hebrew word with a ה prepended - השביע - 'the week'.

Deuteronomy 31:9-13 describes the covenant this anointed leader was confirming:


And Moses writeth this law, and giveth it unto the priests (sons of Levi, those bearing the ark of the covenant of Jehovah), and unto all the elders of Israel,

and Moses commandeth them, saying, ‘At the end of seven years, in the appointed time, the year of release, in the feast of booths,[a week long celebration]

in the coming in of all Israel to see the face of Jehovah in the place which He chooseth, thou dost proclaim this law before all Israel, in their ears.

‘Assemble the people, the men, and the women, and the infants, and thy sojourner who is within thy gates, so that they hear, and so that they learn, and have feared Jehovah your God, and observed to do all the words of this law;

and their sons, who have not known, do hear, and have learned to fear Jehovah your God all the days which ye are living on the ground whither ye are passing over the Jordan to possess it.’


Antiquities of the Jews 13.13.1 records this man destroying the people, confirming the covenant, and causing the sacrifice to cease in the middle of the week [an actual week]:

As to Alexander, his own people were seditious against him; for at a festival which was then celebrated [Feast of Tabernacles], when he stood upon the altar, and was going to sacrifice, the nation rose upon him, and pelted him with citrons which they then had in their hands, because the law of the Jews required that at the feast of tabernacles every one should have branches of the palm tree and citron tree; which thing we have elsewhere related.

They also reviled him, as derived from a captive, and so unworthy of his dignity and sacrificing.

At this he was in a rage, and slew of them about six thousand.

He also built a partition-wall of wood round the altar and the temple, as far as that partition within which it was only lawful for the priests to enter; and by this means he obstructed the multitude from coming at him.

He also maintained foreigners of Pisidiae and Cilicia; for as to the Syrians, he was at war with them, and so made no use of them.

He also overcame the Arabians; such as the Moabites, and Gileadites, and made them bring tribute.

Moreover he demolished Amathus: while Theodorus durst not fight with him. But as he had joined battle with Obedas, King of the Arabians, and fell into an ambush, in places that were rugged and difficult to be travelled over, he was thrown down into a deep valley, by the multitude of the camels, at Gadara, a village of Gilead, and hardly escaped with his life.

From thence he fled to Jerusalem. Where, besides his other ill success, the nation insulted him, and he fought against them for six years, and slew no fewer than fifty thousand of them.

And when he desired that they would desist from their ill will to him, they hated him so much the more, on account of what had already happened.

And when he had asked them what he ought to do? They all cried out, that he ought to kill himself. They also sent to Demetrius Eucerus, and desired him to make a league of mutual defence with them.

Antiquities of the Jews 13.14.1:

So Demetrius came with an army, and took those that invited him, and pitched his camp near the city Shechem; upon which Alexander, with his six thousand two hundred mercenaries, and about twenty thousand jews, who were of his party, went against Demetrius, who had three thousand horsemen, and forty thousand footmen.

Now there were great endeavors used on both sides, - Demetrius trying to bring off the mercenaries that were with Alexander, because they were Greeks, and Alexander trying to bring off the Jews that were with Demetrius.

However, when neither of them could persuade them so to do, they came to battle, and Demetrius was the conqueror; in which all Alexander’s mercernaries were killed, when they had given demonstration of their fidelity and courage. A great number of Demetrius’s soldiers where slain also.

Finally, recall Gabriel tells Daniel that 'he' (the same he you asked about) in verse 27 is making desolate, even till the consummation. Consummation of what? Consummation of the 70 sevens!

Antiquities of the Jews 13.14.2:

Now as Alexander fled to the mountains, six thousand of the Jews hereupon came together [from Demetrius] to him out of pity at the change of his fortune; upon which Demetrius was afraid, and retired out of the country; after which the Jews fought against Alexander, and being beaten, were slain in great numbers in the several battles which they had;

and when he had shut up the most powerful of the in the city Bethome, he besieged them therein; and whe he had taken the city, and gotten the men into his power, he brought them to Jerusalem, and did one of the most barbarous actions in the world to them; for as he was feasting with his concubines, in the sight of all the city, he ordered about eight hundred of them to be crucified; and while they were living, he ordered the throats of their children and wives to be cut before their eyes.

This was indeed by way of revenge for the injuries they had done him; which punishment yet was of an inhuman nature, though we suppose that he had been never so much distressed, as indeed he had been, by his wars with them, for he had by their means come to the last degree of hazard, both of his life and of his kingdom, while they were not satisfied by themselves only to fight against him, but introduced foreigners also for the same purpose; nay, at length they reduced him to that degree of necessity, that he was forced to deliver back to the king of Arabia the land of Moab and Gilead, which he had subdued, and the places that were in them, that they might not join with them in the war against him, as they had done ten thousand other things that tended to affront and reproach him.

However, this barbarity seems to have been without necessity, on which account he bare the name of a Thracian among the Jews whereupon the solders that had fought against him, being about eight thousand in number, ran away by night, and continued fugitives all the time that Alexander lived; who being now freed from any further disturbance from them, reigned the rest of his time in utmost tranquility.

And so the third way to show that 'he' refers to the 'prince who shall comes' is that in all of this, and it was the prince that came after the one who died who caused the massive destruction.


I agree with M. Justice – Jesus is the ‘He’ of Daniel 9:27

Part of the question and for me the most important part is how Jesus matches up to this last seven.

For this we need to include Daniel 9:24

“Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place.”

decreed as we have seen, references the word sent by God, that later sprouts, buds and flourishes. The ‘decree’ does not need to therefore refer to a decree or edict set by some earthly king. If we see it in line with the pronouncements to other kingdoms in the book of Daniel (empires of Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome that are no more) then this would be very worrying. But the end spoken of here, is wrapped up in the ‘kernel of wheat that falls to the ground and dies’ from John 12:24.

Your people are Daniel’s people, the Jews.

Your holy city is Jerusalem and is at the heart of the Jewish people. Often in scripture, Jerusalem or Zion, is synonymous with a people; the Jews or Church. But here, since ‘your people’ has already been mentioned, it is therefore referring to the place only.

To put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness is the price paid by Jesus dying on the cross for our sins.

To bring in everlasting righteousness is the empowerment to do what is right; the right standing that we can have before God who sees that are sins are no more. God’s justice is satisfied by his son’s sacrifice.

For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First, he says: “This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds.” Then he adds: “Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more.”
And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary. Hebrews 10:15-18

To seal up vision and prophecy is that in Jesus all vision and prophecy has its fulfilment.

Anoint the Most Holy place [or just Most Holy]. The word ‘anoint’ needs to be understood in the sense of an instrument, being an object or a person, used for God’s special purpose. Here it speaks of Jesus as high priest anointed (Exodus 29:21) to enter the Most Holy place, but best explained in Hebrews:

He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! Hebrews 9:12-14 NIV

It's clear that the word is focused on the ending of the Old Covenant and bringing in the New Covenant. It is concerned primarily with people of the Old and New Covenant, but also brings along with it the end of reliance on sacrifices for sin at the temple. Jesus here is the focus; his death is the biggest watershed moment in history. And as said, we can read the whole Book of Daniel (including the seventy ‘sevens’) in respect to judgement and how the judgement is answered by Jesus death.

Moving onto Daniel 9:27

He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.

He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. - The Good News is that Jesus brings a New Covenant into force for many in the duration of the ‘seven’. John the Baptist speaks after centuries of not hearing from God in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, 26 AD link here. We don’t know how long John preached but 26 AD corresponds with the last seven up to 33 AD. He calls for repentance, to prepare the way for Jesus and paraphrases Isaiah, saying, “And all people will see God’s salvation”:

A voice of one calling: “In the wilderness prepare the way for the Lord; make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be raised up, every mountain and hill made low; the rough ground shall become level, the rugged places a plain. And the glory of the Lord will be revealed, and all people will see it together. For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.” Isaiah 40:3-5

The ESV uses instead “for half the week” that Jesus puts and end to sacrifice and offering, this would fit well marry well with the Jesus ministry between 29 AD and 33 AD that forgives people of their sins and heal them of their diseases. This is keeping with his proclamation of the Year of the LORD’s favour read from Isaiah:

The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour. Luke 4:18-19

And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him. – This verse is quite confusing and has lead to different translations and interpretations. Referring to the ESV again may help to understand this verse.

And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator. Daniel 9:27 ESV

The KJV uses the term ‘overspreading’ instead of ‘wing’ and the end is poured out on the desolate.

and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. Daniel 9:27 KJV

God can swiftly deliver healing or judgement with references to the wing and wind. Compare this with words of David’s Song where he has cried for help.

In my distress I called to the Lord; I called out to my God. From his temple he heard my voice; my cry came to his ears. The earth trembled and quaked, the foundations of the heavens shook; they trembled because he was angry… He mounted the cherubim and flew; he soared on the wings of the wind… The valleys of the sea were exposed and the foundations of the earth laid bare at the rebuke of the Lord, at the blast of breath from his nostril. He reached down from on high and took hold of me; he drew me out of deep waters. He rescued me from my powerful enemy, from my foes, who were too strong for me. 2 Samuel 22:7-8,11,16-18

Here speaking of the great day of the LORD:

For behold, the day is coming, burning like an oven, when all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble. The day that is coming shall set them ablaze, says the Lord of hosts, so that it will leave them neither root nor branch. But for you who fear my name, the sun of righteousness shall rise with healing in its wings. You shall go out leaping like calves from the stall. And you shall tread down the wicked, for they will be ashes under the soles of your feet, on the day when I act, says the Lord of hosts. Malachi 4:1-3

The Psalms relates these wings with the wind.

He makes the clouds his chariot and rides on the wings of the wind. He makes winds his messengers, flames of fire his servants. Psalm 104:3-4

Hosea warns Israel of Judgement using the imagery of the wind.

A whirlwind will sweep them away, and their sacrifices will bring them shame. Hosea 4:19

This verse speaks of eagle with wings spread ready to swoop and judgement of the whirlwind for the breaking of the Old Covenant.

Put the trumpet to your lips! An eagle is over the house of the Lord because the people have broken my covenant and rebelled against my law...They sow the wind and reap the whirlwind. Hosea 8:1…7

The end is decreed with the judgement fallen on Jesus who takes our sins away in the New Covenant. Though Hosea was speaking to Ephraim (the northerly 10 tribes) and God’s use of Assyria to bring judgement, the same could be applied to Judah with the eagle representing the Roman forces exacting God’s judgement.

The judgement is poured out on the desolate (as taken from the KJV) as the one who is left with nothing (Daniel 9:26); Jesus and Jews with the temple of the Old Covenant; the veil in the temple is torn down from top to bottom – the temple is torn down with no stone left on top of another. Jesus the High Priest and the Lamb that is sacrificed, tore down the barrier and gives us an everlasting righteousness by the blood of the Lamb.

Later, knowing that everything had now been finished, and so that Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, ‘I am thirsty.’ A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips. When he had received the drink, Jesus said, ‘It is finished.’ With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. John 19:28-30

To further emphasize that Jesus is the ‘end point’ for sin for those who believe in him; we can see that the whole of the book of Daniel can be interpreted firstly to take us to the inception of the everlasting kingdom when Jesus came and died for us. There are few exceptions, Daniel 9:26 is one of them that fast forwards to the destroying of the Temple in 70 AD, but this Jesus adequately connects with his own body being destroyed – saying the old sacrifices at the temple are finished with.

Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." John 2:19

Going on from the time Jesus rose from the dead and approached the Ancient of Days to be given authority, glory, and sovereign power (Daniel 7:13-14), we can indeed focus on the patterns brought forth out of the book of Daniel and interpret them alongside scripture that is directed towards the endtimes. For instance, the ‘beasts’ (a product of the tyrant kings) are allowed to live a period of time (Daniel 7:12) are judged by God - we are made more aware of the sinister power lurking behind the beasts. So, we know better how to interpret the Book of Revelation, when more beasts and anti-christs (against Christ) are cited.

I have now to give my summary to Daniel to show most of its historical context (Summary of Daniel). The crucial element is the statue in Daniel 2 – after this is set the other chapters start to agree. For example, Greece as the iron legs in Daniel 2 corresponds to the Daniel 7 and the 3rd and 4th beasts of Alexander and Ptolemy & Seleucid Dynasties (predominantly Antiochus Epiphanes IV), and Antiochus Epiphanes IV again is mentioned in Daniel 11 and Daniel 12.

Finally, there will be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron – for iron breaks and smashes everything – and as iron breaks things to pieces, so it will crush and break all the others. Daniel 2:40

After that, I looked, and there before me was another beast, one that looked like a leopard. And on its back it had four wings like those of a bird. This beast had four heads, and it was given authority to rule. After that, in my vision at night I looked, and there before me was a fourth beast – terrifying and frightening and very powerful. It had large iron teeth; it crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. It was different from all the former beasts, and it had ten horns. While I was thinking about the horns, there before me was another horn, a little one, which came up among them; and three of the first horns were uprooted before it. This horn had eyes like the eyes of a human being and a mouth that spoke boastfully. Daniel 7:6-8


The answer by SMJT below is consistent with true Church historical prophetic interpretation and confirmed fulfillment. Christ used the Roman armies as His people to accomplish His purpose of the destruction of the old covenant spiritual and physical economies. There is only one prince identified in the passage of verses 24-27, and it is Messiah. The difference in capitalization of the initial "p" in prince between its first and second occurrences is irrelevant; a decapitalized "p" associated with Christ is seen in Revelation 1:5. Thus the antecedent of "he" in all instances is the most recent occurrence of "prince", who is Messiah throughout the passage.

Attempts to disembody and futurize the 70th week, and attribute "he" to antichrist, are characteristic of modernist interpretation of the last less than 200 years.

  • Daniel futurized in over half his chapters, about events to happen in his own lifetime, to events distant and similar (chs 2, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12). Even 'true Church prophetic interpretation' might agree that Dan predicts the resurrection of all (Dan 12:2; Jn 5:28-29) and 'the end' (Dan 12:4, 9). Unless...not? (Mt 27:52-53.) Is it rather 'the end'...of the OT? Since Rv mentions the '3 1/2 years' even more than Dan does, is Rv mostly 'pastizing'? When the Lord in Mt 24 cited Dan 9 in reply to the question about 'His coming and the end of the age,' did He mean His death? Or was A.D. 70 His return?
    – Walter S
    Commented Feb 29, 2020 at 0:00

The "prince that shall come" is the most recent antecedent of "he", which refers to a future Antichrist, also referred to by several other titles such as little horn, man of sin, beast, etc. But this is not the only way to see that the "he" is not the Messiah. Compare 9:27 with 11:31. In 9:27 the one who confirms the covenant is also the one who stops the sacrifice. In 11:31 the one responsible for stopping the sacrifice also places the abomination of desolation. So the one who stops the sacrifice and places the abomination of desolation also confirms the covenant.


What SMJT has stated is exegetically and contextually sound. His understanding is my own understanding, namely that the "he" refers to the Messiah which is Jesus Christ. There is more than one excellent argument for this. There is also more than one argument against the "he" being "the prince" or the antichrist. What SMJT has argued is the grammatical argument and it is sound. I will repeat it in my own words.

GRAMMAR In verse 26, "the prince" functions only as a possessive modifier—that's it. This is significant, because the antecedent largely matches its pronoun not only in number and gender but in case. Contrary to what you often hear, the antecedent is not always the nearest chronological match. Context is more important than chronology folks. Now, the "he" of verse 27 is in the subjective case, meaning it is active and it is doing the action; it is the subject of the first half of the verse. Notice that it says he will make (verb), whereas "the prince" does nothing in the second clause of verse 26. The prince simply modifies the identity of the subject, i.e. "the people". In fact, if you remove the words "of the prince who is to come" from verse 26, it changes very little substantively. What this all means is that the "he" is a singular, masculine, subjective pronoun. Grammatically, this means that its antecedent must also be a singular, masculine, subjective word. The only option is the "Messiah" in 26.

CONTEXT, THEME, and STRUCTURE Beyond this, the broader context within the passage is plainly Messianic. Much of the content of the 6 clauses in verse 24 speak of the work of the Messiah in judgment or salvation (more on that later). There is a strong Messianic thrust and expectation in this prophecy, which I think likely contributed to the Messianic expectation we find in the first century throughout the gospels. It also contains a chiastic structure, which is not uncommon in scripture. A chiastic structure is not linear like we often see in the epistles, where point A leads to point B which leads to point C. Instead, a chiastic structure follows a pattern similar to this: A B C D D C B A. It loops back around and gives you another perspective on a theme or idea. Research the chiasms in Daniel's 70 Weeks and prepare to be stunned. It's inescapable. It also supports the "he" being the Messiah, not the prince.

SIGNIFICANCE OF SEVEN The number 7 is extremely significant. If there is one number that belongs to God, it is the number 7. From Genesis to Revelation, 7 is littered throughout the bible and it represents purity, perfection, completion, finality, fullness. In this passage, it is not simply 7, but 7x70. In other words, it is taken to the tenth degree and multiplied by itself. Furthermore, 7 corresponds to the Sabbath day (7th day), the Sabbath year (7th year), and the Jubilee year (the last year of 7 cycles of 7 Sabbath years). Research the Jubilee year and then consider this question, "What would be the spiritual fulfillment of this, and when might it happen?" (Hint: It has to do with Christ).

CHRONOLOGICAL HARMONY What is the number of the last week of the prophecy? It is the 70th week. And when is the action of verse 27 taking place? During the last week, or the 70th week. And when does the Messiah arrive in verse 25 and 26? He arrives after 7 and 62 weeks have transpired; this makes 69 weeks, which leaves only 1 week remaining. In other words, Christ comes... at the start of the 70th week. This is the apex of the entire timeline which is based on God's number that relates to perfection and completion and fullness, a theme already established in the 6 clauses of verse 24. Now, what does Galatians 4 tell us? It says "at the fullness of time" God sent His Son. Should we be surprised at all! Are you starting to see the depth of this?

I will work through a few negative arguments. That is to say, I will state the popular dispensational interpretation of this passage and then refute it.

1. The "he" is "the prince" because it is the nearest antecedent. (v27 & 26) Again, this restricts the identity of the antecedent simply to the nearest singular male word, which ignores rules of grammar, the context of the immediate passage, and the broader OT and NT context. This assumes that the nearest antecedent in this regard must be "the prince" over against what is usually a match in case and function (Messiah). In other words, "he" is in the subjective case while "the prince" is not. By contrast, the "Messiah" is in the subjective case in verse 26; therefore, it is an exact match in case, function, gender, person, and number.

2. The "he" is the antichrist and he forms a peace treaty with Israel. (v27) Quick question: Would you come to that conclusion if you only looked at the text? Do you see the antichrist here? Do you see the words "peace treaty" here? Does it say "Israel" or "the many"? It says "the many". One would think if the Holy Spirit wanted to refer to Israel he would use the antecedent word for them found in verse 24, "your people". But He doesn't. Here's what the text actually says, "he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week". That's it. It's not a peace treaty and it's not with Israel. It's a covenant with the many.

By saying "the many", it's almost as if God is intentionally leaving this open to those filthy Gentiles, who wouldn't you know, are a part of the New Covenant. Which is made in? Christ's blood and sacrifice! Which did what? Put a stop to sacrifice and offering under the Old Covenant (FOR ALL TIME per Hebrews 10) . And when did this occur? At the end of Christ's 3.5 yr ministry. Which is exactly in the midst of one week (7 years). Wow. That's so intriguing. It's almost like this harmonizes completely with what verse 27 says and what we know from the NT?

3. The putting a stop to sacrifice and offering is the Antichrist revealing himself in the third temple and demanding to be worshiped as God. Again, does the text say or even imply such a thing? No, it doesn't. Does the bible make mention of a rebuilt, physical third temple in Jerusalem? No, it doesn't. The temple is fulfilled in Christ and His church (we are the temple of the Spirit). We worship how? In Spirit and truth, not by journeying to Jerusalem every year for the Day of Atonement. Why? Because it's ultimate fulfillment is in the Atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ (and so is the Sabbath Day, Sabbath Year, and Jubilee Year)! Understand?

Furthermore, Jews cannot lawfully reinstitute the temple and its ordinances because they don't know who is a Levite and God has already proclaimed it done away with. It's amazing to me that people literally deduce and infer, from their dispensational hermeneutic less than 2 centuries old which stands against historical interpretation, that the temple must be rebuilt all based on a complete misinterpretation of this text, and they do this against clear NT teaching that the Mosaic Law and Old Covenant was only until Christ (Galatians 3) and is now no more (Hebrews 9, or really the entire book of Hebrews).

More than that, they necessarily and inescapably must place the 70th week in our future, which means it is 2000+ years removed from its actual context. This completely undermines the time-consecutive and time-sensitive nature of the prophecy. Folks, Gabriel gives us not one, not two, not three, but FOUR distinct and exact time references (v24 "70 weeks", v25 "7 and 62 weeks", v26 "after 62 weeks", v27 "one week"), almost as if to say "There's no way you can miss this". If there is a time gap, it's likely only 40 years (a second exodus and time of testing and probation for God's people)—from the death of Christ (destruction of the true temple, 30 AD) to the Siege of Jerusalem (destruction of the apostate temple, 70 AD). Daniel's 70 weeks is more than just the passage. It is the end and fulfillment of so much in scripture.

The day that the temple was destroyed in 586 BC and 70 AD was the 9th of Av. According to the Talmud this is also the day that the Israelites dealt faithlessly with God and refused to enter the Promised Land. Question: in the context of the book of Daniel, where are the Jews? They are in exile in Babylon. Why? Because they have transgressed the covenant. They were rebellious and apostate by and large, save for a few. Therefore, God did as he promised; he cursed them, the land spat them out of its mouth, and they were handed over to their enemies. Specifically, this is what happened: God used foreign and pagan gentile people as a tool of judgment against his chosen people, Israel, due to their religious and spiritual apostasy and transgression. Note well the precedent, also done with the Assyrians.

Fast forward to the first century AD. What happens? Christ came as a Jew among Jews. He came to his own and they received him not. It was the unknown day of divine visitation. Not only do they not receive him, but they reject him. But how is this rejection manifested? They refused to acknowledge who he is—the Messiah— and believe in him. So their rejection and hatred culminates until... they use the gentile Romans as a tool of execution and judgment to put him to death for blasphemy (we might rightly say for apostasy, in their eyes). So they act as God against God (recall the precedent). Surely this demands greater judgment than any previous transgression. Now, what do you think God will do in response? I will tell you—the exact same thing: he uses the gentile Romans in 70 AD as a tool to execute judgment against his people. What they did to Christ, God does to them and in greater measure.

When you understand these things it brings a deeper understanding of many of the parables and sayings of Jesus; things like "the vineyard owner will kill those wicked servants", "the kingdom will be taken from you and given to a people producing its fruits", "judge not lest you be judged", "with the measure you use it will be measured to you", "you reap what you sow", "God will reward each according to his deeds", etc. See the righteous judgment of God meted out against his people and be in awe!

Salvation and judgment are often inseparable in scripture. Really, salvation presupposes judgment. We see this in the Garden. Adam falls and God comes to curse (judge) him yet also to cover him with skins (salvation). At the Red Sea, the same waters that provided salvation for the Israelites also executed judgment upon the Egyptians. You need to see this thread and recognize its significance. Christ was judged on our behalf so that we can be saved; he took the wrath of God and now we receive the grace of God. The majority of the Jews rejected their Messiah, thus bringing and inviting inevitable judgment upon themselves which was prophesied by Christ in the Olivet Discourse, among other places in scripture.

In that Discourse, Christ warns his contemporary disciples at that time and in that generation to flee when they saw certain things. History records that this did happen (Josephus, Eusebius, Tacitus); namely, that the Christians fled the city of Jerusalem during a temporary reprieve that occurred while the city was under siege and they fled to the mountainous area of Pella. What is spoken of in Daniel 9:27 is what Christ relates to his disciples as part of the events that will take place in that generation. Implication: putting the 70th week in the future is contradictory to a clear and literal interpretation of the very words of Jesus (and Daniel 9:24-27).

There's so much more that could be said. Please know that the dispensational understanding of Daniel's 70 Weeks was not the common interpretation until about two centuries ago. I state with supreme confidence that one would not find the antichrist or a peace treaty that is projected 2000+ years into the future if you would simply come to the text as it stands and seek to understand it.

Take comfort and have joy that Christ came at the zenith of the 70 Weeks to be the true Israel, to fulfill the law, to obey the will of God from the heart, to keep the Sabbath day and year and to bring the ultimate spiritual fulfillment of the Jubilee, to lead his people out of slavery to sin in spiritual Egypt, to be the living and breathing temple of God dwelling with his people by the Spirit, leading them along in this desert-wilderness world, sustaining us with daily bread and water from his rich Word, until we reach the Promised Land of Heaven, and inherit the infinite treasure and blessings of God forevermore. The Old Covenant is abolished and put away. The New Covenant is saying, "Behold, he makes all things new." The spiritual realities in Christ are packed with glories. Don't starve yourself of them.


Isaiah 10:5-7
5O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation. 6I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets. 7Howbeit he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so; but it is in his heart to destroy and cut off nations not a few.

If a subjective pronoun can only ever refer to the last subjective noun, then does the "he" of v.7 refer to the "I" of v.6 rather than to the "him" of v.6?

  • Welcome to BH.SE Please take the tour to get a feel for how this site functions. I have added quote formatting to the Bible text you have used. Don't forget to identify the version.
    – enegue
    Commented Aug 13, 2020 at 14:34
  • I do not see how this answers the question. Could you please edit this answer so that it relates to the question being asked : Daniel 9:27. The above may (or may not) be an example of what you are trying to say but you have not made that clear. Please see the Tour and the Help (below, bottom right) as to the purpose and the functioning of the site. Welcome to BH.
    – Nigel J
    Commented Aug 14, 2020 at 4:03
  • I'm sorry but I honestly do not understand what was vague or unclear about the question. I have no idea how to clarify it further. Commented Dec 28, 2021 at 0:54

What is the antecedent of “he” in Daniel 9:27?

The antecedent of "He " is Jesus the Messiah.

The angel Gabriel referred to as "man Gabriel"(Vs 21) because he appeared in human form said to Daniel.

Daniel 9:24-27 (NASB)

Seventy Weeks and the Messiah

24 “Seventy [weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to [b]finish the transgression, to [c]make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place. 25 So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress.

For this to be accomplished the "Messiah" had to die. But when? The critical time was at the half of the week, that is, the middle of the last week, ( the 70 th week). (Each day of the week in this prophecy is one year so the middle of the week means three and a half years.) So as prophesied, early in 33 C.E., Christ was cut off when he died, giving his human life as a ransom for mankind. (Isaiah 53:8; Matthew 20:28)

26 Then after the sixty-two weeks, the Messiah will be cut off and have [i]nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end [k]there will be war; desolations are determined. 27 And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who [m]makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who [n]makes desolate.”

  • Ozzie- There are a number of theologians who regard the antecedent of "he" (used twice in verse 27) as being in reference to Jesus the Messiah, rather than the prince who is to come. The prince who is to come is the Roman General Titus. Before I even knew about BH, I wrote a 4000 plus word essay on the "Seventy Weeks" prophecy, which took parts of several months to write and edit,and re-edit. You can see the essay on this site, as I transferred it here. It was my second foray. I utilized it in my answer to: "Are the 70 weeks of Daniel & Jeremiah prophecies about the Babylonian exile..." Commented Aug 14, 2020 at 6:01
  • ....following on, maybe you can be the first to comment??? Commented Aug 14, 2020 at 6:04

"He" is Satan. Be patient to read below.

(Daniel 9:26 NIV); "After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. "

the Anointed One will be put to death - Understood as Jesus died for us on the cross in 33AD;

The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. - Understood as Titus of Rome destroy Jerusalem and Holy Temple in 70AD;

The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. - This is a long period before the last seven. In this period, the world is in turmoil, then the last seven (The end) will suddenly come (like a flood), that Jesus described it came like a thief that nobody knows when except the Father.

Then Daniel 9:27 described the final seven: "He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him."

As there is a long period of time in between 9:26 and 9:27, the pronoun "He" has no connection to anyone in 9:26. We have to go to the Book of Revelation, the happenings in end time to find the answer.

In chapter 12, there is an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. It is Satan. In chapter 13, there is a beast coming out of the sea. It had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on its horns. It is Satan again but disguise in another form. The dragon gives his authority to the beast for 42 months, which is half of the last 7. In chapter 17, there is a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns, carrying a woman bearing the name "Babylon the Great, the mother of Prostitutes". This particular beast the angel had given an explanation, recorded in Revelation 17:8-14

8 The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and yet will come up out of the Abyss and go to its destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because it once was, now is not, and yet will come.

9 “This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits.

10 They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for only a little while.

11 The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction.

12 “The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast.

13 They have one purpose and will give their power and authority to the beast.

14 They will wage war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will triumph over them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings—and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers.”

I must say, these verses are very difficult to comprehend. I roughly understand the scarlet beast is another disguise of Satan, but in more complicated form. If the time draw near, maybe I can recognise.

Now is the answer to the question. Sorry for having this long introduction.

Note in Revelation 17:13, the ten horns (world leaders) have one purpose and will give their power and authority to the beast. This is the covenant between Satan (or anti-Christ) and the world leaders. Therefore, Satan is "He" and the world leaders are the "Many". The purpose, as described in Revelation 17:14, is to defeat the 2nd coming of Christ (the Lamb).

So good to know, the end time apocalypse last only 7 years. The first half of the seven may be difficult to Christians. The final half will be the hardest. Jesus had told us: “If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened " (Matthew 24:22 NIV). Indeed, it needs great strength and strong faith to see the wrath of God pouring to this world. If it was coming in our time, stay strong. After 42 months, we will see the New Jerusalem.


I would guess the most important question to ask is: Who is the one who can/will violate the covenant? Can/does God break covenants? The one who confirms the covenant, is also the one who breaks it.

Daniel 9:27

And he will confirm a covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come the one who makes desolate, until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, gushes forth on the one who makes desolate.

He will put a stop. (Sounds forceful). For 3 1/2 years, he will have no trouble with Israel, and will not bother them. Then, he violates the covenant that he has confirmed. If God doesn't/can't break a covenant because of His faithfulness, may God never be called unfaithful, can this "he" be the Messiah Jesus?

He will confim a covenant with the many for one week, but... (important conjunction here) in the middle of that week he will put a stop to sacrifices and grain offerings. It is my belief that God cannot break a covenant, that is, God cannot be a covenant breaker. It is Israel that broke the covenant between God and Israel. In this passage, it is the one who confirms/makes the covenant with Israel that also breaks the covenant.


As has been noted by others, the word "he" is NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT. One could still make sense of the sentence by simply reading it as "A (or The) covenant is confirmed...", "and in the midst of the week (does not have to the exact midpoint) there is cause for the sacrifices to cease (the cross), and because of overspreading abominations (40 more years of rejection), it shall be made desolate, even until the consummation (which may also be read as "marriage union" although others will not like that idea)..."

Let's focus on the specific and unique word used for "prince" (should be anointed leader) in Daniel 9:25 and 26. Strong's 5057 (nagid) indicates it is also used ONE other time in Daniel 11:22 as the "prince of the covenant" and so this verse squarely comes into play here as referring to the very same "anointed prince" from vs 25 & 26 and also provides a tie-in with the person involved with the covenant of vs 27. Notice the word "broken". This refers to having your leadership or control taken away. This also happened at the cross as Jesus was taken away to make room for the Holy Spirit (John ch. 14-16).

Daniel 11 continues from this point and speaks of a covenant between the King of the North and of the South (note = not Israel), but it will fail and inserted within the text we see that the end will still come at some later time. In Daniel 11:28 the King returns with his "heart against the holy covenant", and again in vs 30 we see he has "indignation against the holy covenant" and this time also "have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant". Here, now (in vs 31) the sanctuary (miqdas or temple) is polluted, the daily sacrifice is taken away, and the Abomination of Desolation is placed. Remember Jesus spoke of this directly after He was asked when the temple would be destroyed (Matt 23-24). The AoD is a one-time event within the context of prophecy and Jesus refers to it as happening to His generation. The rest of the NT has NO FURTHER REFERENCES TO IT AS HAPPENING DURING THE "END TIME" (most importantly the book of Revelation!).

That marks the events of 70ad and the subsequent verses provide some insight into the start of the Church Age. Notice again, many phrases inserted that say something like "yet for a time appointed" which means those events happen long before the tribulation and 2nd coming. The "time of the end" has yet to be proclaimed until vs 40. Notice the AOD was LAST mentioned way back in vs 31. Chapter 12 begins with the phrase "at that time". Which time? ANSWER= the time of the end (tribulation & 2nd coming).

In summary, (this writing is merely to ADD to the things that have all ready been said) the context within the Daniel prophecy supports the "he" to be Jesus far more convincingly than it does the A/C.

  • "As has been noted by others, the word "he" is NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT." That's not really true. Hebrew doesn't need overt pronouns because the subject pronoun is inflected on the verb. The verb וְהִגְבִּ֥יר is a hiphil verb, which is an active caustive verb, and the subject is third person masculine singular, or 'he'. It would need to be the hophal form for the meaning to be the passive of "A (or The) covenant is confirmed...".
    – curiousdannii
    Commented Feb 27, 2020 at 2:58

In grammar, the personal, third person, masculine, singular, subject pronoun “he” in Dan. 9:27 must agree with its antecedent subject noun; not just any noun, but a “subject” noun. Therefore, “he” does NOT refer to the noun “Prince” in the second sentence of verse 26, because it is NOT a subject noun. It is an object noun. Prince is the object of the people who are the subject in this sentence and who do the destroying for the Prince. You can always tell the subject of the sentence by who or what is doing the action of the verb. In this case, it is “the people” who do the destroying. The noun “Prince,” by the very nature of the case, cannot and does not agree with the subject pronoun “he.” And since “people” is not a singular, masculine, subject noun, we must look for what is called in grammar: a more distant antecedent subject noun. And THAT subject noun is the Messiah in the first sentence of verse 26. As it turns out, grammatically speaking, the Messiah who is “cut-off” is “he” who in fact confirms (or gives strength to) a covenant for one week, causing (in God’s mind) both sacrifices and offerings to cease in the midst of that week by the Messiah being cut-off in order to ratify that covenant.

But, in context, the Messiah is also “the Prince” referred to in verse 24. But as we can clearly see, it is not as the “Prince” or Ruler that the Messiah (Christ) would confirm this blood covenant. It was to be as the Messiah the Suffering Servant. This is why, I believe, that “Prince” isn’t associated with “he” in verse 27 which has to do with the Messiah’s priestly sacerdotal ministry, and not with His kingly ruling ministry as the Judge of all the earth. Because of the Jews rejection of Christ, He would reject them in the overthrowing of their theocracy in 70 AD. Thus, the seventy weeks have been fulfilled in Christ as both Priest and King. And these passages in Daniel are what Christ refers to in Mat. 24:15; Mk. 13:14 and Lke. 21:20. The other abominations of desolations that Daniel refers to in 8:8-14; 11:31 and 12:7, 11 are in fact referring to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. And Albert Barnes in his Barnes’ Notes commentary articulates all this very well. It is good “critical scholarship.” And it is a good place to start when studying all of this. It is in public domain and can be accessed pretty much anywhere online. Biblehub.com is just one of those sites.

Now, if “Prince” in verse 26, is “Messiah the Prince” in verse 24, many question how these “people” (which are armies) can be considered Christ’s (or God's) armies. But the Scriptures are replete with God using the heathen armies of one nation to overthrow another nation. Isaiah 10 is just one good example of this where the Lord uses the Assyrians as His “axe“ and “club” to judge Israel with. And concerning king Nebuchadnezzar of the Babylonians overthrowing other nations, including Israel, God said “he did it for me” (Ezk. 29:20). Many more OT examples could be given of this. Likewise, in Mat 22:7, because of the Jews rejection of Christ and His servants, He states how, “The King became angry. He sent his soldiers, killed those murderers, and burned their city” (GWT).” What king might we ask? In context, God. And God is Christ, and Christ is God. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all co-regents. And Christ is King now, not just later as many erroneously contend (see Mk. 16:19; Jhn. 18:37b; 19:12b, 21b; Acts 2:29-36; 5:31; 17:7; 1Tim. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:3; 8:1; 12:2; Rev. 3:21; 17:14; 19:16, et al).

This is a subject that is very dear to my heart, and for which I have spent a great deal of time upon in my book called: The People of the Prince, the Coming One! It can be purchased at Lulu Press and in any bookstore. But be forewarned. It is not for the faint of heart. Your mind will be exercised to think in a manner that most have never thought before.

  • If "[70 7s] are apportioned for your people and for your holy city, to close the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make propitiation for iniquity, and to bring in the righteousness of the ages, and to seal up vision and prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies" (Dan 9:24), then how might the "mystery, that hardness has come upon Israel in part, until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in; and thus all Israel will be saved" (Rm 11:25-26), fit in? Did that also transpire in the 1st century A.D? Or is that a future apportionment to Israel, to Judah? Thanks if you might know
    – Walter S
    Commented Feb 29, 2020 at 3:50

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.