Daniel 9:27 (NET Bible)

27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one week. But in the middle of that week, he will bring sacrifices and offerings to a halt. On the wing[ of abominations will come[c] one who destroys until the decreed end is poured out on the one who destroys.”

1/ Which covenant was confirmed, "with the many" for one week? (Daniel 9:27)

2/Who does the many (people) refer to, and why did God extend the period?

3/ Is the covenant in force today?

  • 1
    these are three HUGE questions. Could I suggest that you break these into three? Otherwise we will never get to the end.
    – Dottard
    Aug 14 '20 at 20:58
  • 1
    See hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/49799/… Does this help?
    – Dottard
    Aug 14 '20 at 21:45
  • The destruction of the Second Jerusalem Temple (AD 70) took place in the middle of the First Jewish-Roman War (AD 66-73). Going back 490 years from AD 70 we arrive in 420 BC. Now, the vision of Daniel 9 takes place in the first year of Darius II (423 BC), as can be deduced by comparing 9:1 with 11:1-4.
    – Lucian
    Aug 15 '20 at 4:07
  • @Lucian- I'm afraid that you have your Darius's mixed up. Darius the Mede and Darius II, are two different leaders. And the 490 years started in 444 BC, with Artaxerxes second degree, NOT HIS FIRST. The first 483 years of which ended in 33 AD, with Christ's crucifixion. The last 7 years (after an/the intermittent gap) most likely encompassing 66 AD thru 73 AD. These 490 years are all referred to in my essay (as mentioned in my answer here) in no uncertain terms. Aug 15 '20 at 10:41
  • @Dottard- Just acknowledged your second comment above. I went and looked at your answer that you reference, which was truly amazing but then why am I not surprised. I will go now and vote it up, which I should have done when I first looked at it. Aug 15 '20 at 10:47
  1. Jesus confirmed his covenant, the New Covenant, for one week. In the middle of the week (3 ½ years into his ministry) he was “cut off” thus, putting an end to the sacrifices and offerings of the old covenant. The Jews would still continue in vain to offer sacrifices that had been rendered null and void by the crucifixion of Christ for another 40 years until the destruction of the temple. It would still be another 3 ½ years from the crucifixion until the completion of the covenant week when the Samaritans and the Gentiles were brought in with the conversion of the Samaritans and the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8. The covenant is now fulfilled.

  2. In Matthew 24:15-16, Jesus applies the Daniel 9:27 and the “abomination of desolation” to the impending destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, an event that would be witnessed by that generation. He warns them,

“Therefore, when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.”

This is a reference to the “abomination of desolation” of Daniel 9, not that of Daniel 12. The “abomination of desolation” of which Jesus spoke would be the standards of the Roman army that would be placed in the “holy place.” When that generation saw the Roman army coming to surround Jerusalem, they were to flee to the mountains in order to escape the judgment that God was sending upon Jerusalem.

  • I do not disagree with your answer here. But can you support your assertion in the first sentence with any Bible references especially since some assert that the covenant that was confirmed was the old covenant that finished with Jesus' sacrifice?
    – Dottard
    Aug 14 '20 at 23:38
  • Why support the questionable 3-year ministry of John’s Gospel, instead of assigning the “one (7)” to the 1-year ministry of Mark/Matthew/Luke? * Thanks for sharing your research to help answer the disputed allegory of Daniel 9:27 assigned to the ministry of the Messiah. I appreciate your time and discipleship to help others learn biblical context. - Blessings! Aug 15 '20 at 11:47
  • Dottard. The Law covenant which God made with the Israelites shortly after they left Egypt, was canceled on the basis of Christ’s death on the cross. "14 He has destroyed what was against us, a certificate of indebtedness expressed in decrees opposed to us. He has taken it away by nailing it to the cross ". Col. 2:14 (NET Bible) Compare Heb. 7:12, 9:15, Jer 31:31-34; Heb 8:13) So it was not the Law covenant that was kept in force for a week, at the same time Jesus did not make a New Covenant as mentioned by oldhermit Aug 15 '20 at 13:03
  • @oldhermit- I see you are an advocate for the 70th week following straight on from the 69th, many a Christian is, except for the fact that the 69th week ENDED at Christ's DEATH, in April of 33 AD, not at the beginning of his ministry, in the fall of 29 AD. Artaxerxes' 2nd degree, NOT THE FIRST, in the Spring of 444 BC, heralded the start of the "70 Weeks" prophecy. 483 (360 day years), 173,880 days later, we arrive at the Spring of 33 AD. From your 2nd point on however, I would concur. Aug 15 '20 at 17:02

In an essay I wrote, in my addendum (1,a) I said the following:

"While the Mosaic/Sinai (non everlasting) OLD COVENANT, which was, figuratively, nailed to the CROSS, at JESUS' death in 33 AD, was broken, contributing to the devastation for the Jews, the Abrahamic covenant, at least for the circumcised Jew, one would surmise, was to be still in effect for one further week (66 AD thru 73 AD), even though 70 AD saw the end of SACRIFICE AND GRAIN OFFERING. The NEW COVENANT (everlasting) through Jesus, which superseded the Abrahamic covenant and which was to include the Gentiles (after the gospel was taken to them by Peter...Acts Ch. 10), and be a covenant to all showing true FAITH in Jesus and his RANSOM SACRIFICE (sacrificial death of Jesus, made in order to reconcile sinners to a holy God...Mark, 10:45), takes center stage, after 73 AD, particularly benefiting those who will ultimately rule with Christ (144,000). The OC was based on promises to God, and was non everlasting, whereas the NC is based on God's promises to us, and God's word lasts forever.

  • @Soldarnal- While I understand the reason behind your edit and cannot exactly fault you for it. I am strongly of the opinion that this may well have been a blatant "poaching" exercise by the OP, without any "possible" shame. I say "possible" as I could be wrong and if I am, my sincere apologies will be in order to the OP, but I have the strongest feeling that I am not wrong. Consequently, I still feel that the OP needs to inform/explain as to where he got the idea for the question from. If he remains silent on this, then that, to me at least, speaks volumes...... Aug 15 '20 at 15:28

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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