Daniel 9 is clear up to the 26th verse. From Cyrus's decree to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of Jesus the Messiah to his crucifixion and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans..all is clear. Then there is verse 27. Isn't it possible that this "he" could refer to Jesus also and not in the future but in the past. The temple sacrifices ceased after Jesus died and the curtain was rent in two from top to bottom. Jesus did make a new covenant with us, making the old one obsolete. Why are we applying the last week to the future? And to someone else. I say the "he" in verse 27 causes ambiguity but I am not entirely sure that it should apply to the future anti-Christ.
This comment thread is locked. Please enter a new comment to start a new comment thread.
Enter new comment
This comment thread is locked. Please enter a new comment below to start a new comment thread.
Note: Comment threads older than 2 months are automatically locked.
Do you have a Bible comment or question?
Posting comments is currently unavailable due to high demand on the server.
Please check back in an hour or more. Thank you for your patience!
Report Comment
Which best represents the problem with the comment?