Replacement theology? Yes or No.

[God-fearing]

Somebody tell these people that Christ was crucified on Golgotha ("place of Goliaths skull").
Definitely nowhere near the Temple grounds, which was probably more than a kilometer away at the very least.

Daniel 12:11
“From the time that the regular sacrifice is taken away and the abomination that makes desolate is set up…”

Sacrifice only happens in one place:
the Temple altar inside the sanctuary courts.

So Daniel has now fixed the location:
the Holy Place area of the Temple

Jesus — Matthew 24:15

“When you see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place…”

This is the only place in the Bible where the location is named word-for-word:

ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίῳ (en topo hagio)
“in the holy place”

There is no ambiguity.
Jesus tells His disciples to look at the Temple.

And this is what I mentioned about eschatology being wrong and how it would lead to false narrative.
Absolutely Christ was crucified outside the temple grounds. Absolutely he surrendered.
Now here the kicker......the same political affairs of men God used to bring about his most glorious accomplishment he also used to bring about Israel in 1948. God has and will bring about his will weather by Devine intervention or with in the affairs of men.

Looking at the death of our Lord as murder is through the eyes of the social justice carnal minded person.
Looking at the return of Israel through the eyes of the political implications declaring a false Israel is of the same.
Gods will shall be done and he will chose how it will be accomplished.

 

[cv5]

And this is what I mentioned about eschatology being wrong and how it would lead to false narrative.
Absolutely Christ was crucified outside the temple grounds. Absolutely he surrendered.
Now here the kicker......the same political affairs of men God used to bring about his most glorious accomplishment he also used to bring about Israel in 1948. God has and will bring about his will weather by Devine intervention or with in the affairs of men.

Looking at the death of our Lord as murder is through the eyes of the social justice carnal minded person.
Looking at the return of Israel through the eyes of the political implications declaring a false Israel is of the same.
Gods will shall be done and he will chose how it will be accomplished.

Thank God somebody here has the correct Biblical salvific prophetic perspective on these matters!

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Christ was sacrificed outside the city because that is were the red heifer was sacrificed (Numbers 19). Its blood was used to purify the doorway to the temple/tabernacle.

 

[ewq1938]

In your view what does "the sacrifice" mean?
If any killing of any creature counts, you will be needing a pretty mean dude to cause that to cease.

That's not what a sacrifice means.

H2077
זבח
zebach
BDB Definition:
1) sacrifice
1a) sacrifices of righteousness
1b) sacrifices of strife
1c) sacrifices to dead things
1d) the covenant sacrifice
1e) the passover
1f) annual sacrifice
1g) thank offering
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H2076


The context in Dan 9 is the Prince whose people destroy the cityy and sanctuary. He is the one who is here:

Dan 9:25 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.
Dan 9:26 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.
Dan 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 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.

This is the one who in the NT is called the abomination of desolation and of course that is not Jesus.

 

[God-fearing]

Christ was sacrificed outside the city because that is were the red heifer was sacrificed (Numbers 19). Its blood was used to purify the doorway to the temple/tabernacle.

May i add that this place is also believed by many to be where Abraham offered up his son.
There are a few other reasons that this place was picked but regardless of those reasons the abomination of desolation was not of Christ death.
Jesus siad no man takes my life but I lay it down.
All false theology of a murdered Christ. Simply false. There would be no forgiveness of sin unless blood was spilled. GODS DESIGN.

 

[ewq1938]

All false theology of a murdered Christ. Simply false.

I think both can be true. Christ allowed himself to be murdered ie: he was not guilty of any crime that justified being executed. He was also tortured which was unjust.

 

[God-fearing]

I think both can be true. Christ allowed himself to be murdered ie: he was not guilty of any crime that justified being executed. He was also tortured which was unjust.

While gruesome details are found in his trials and crucifixion let us not forget one thing. He endured the wrath of God for us.
Sin will be punished. Jesus became sin for us. Quite a mystery to un fold here.
No doubt of his innocence, no doubt he did not deserve this at all. This was our punishment, our fate.


Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

To say murded would simply reduce all of what happened at Calvary. And to say murder would place God as a liar breaking his own commandment. .....tho shalt not murder.

 

[ewq1938]

To say murded would simply reduce all of what happened at Calvary. And to say murder would place God as a liar breaking his own commandment. .....tho shalt not murder.

The Father did not murder his son, the romans were the ones certain Jews used in order to murder Jesus. Murder is the killing of an innocent man according to the law.

 

[cv5]

I think both can be true. Christ allowed himself to be murdered ie: he was not guilty of any crime that justified being executed. He was also tortured which was unjust.

Correction: Christ allowed Himself to be DELIVERED. Delivered not betrayed not deceived. It's utterly impossible to betray/ deceive/trick omniscient God.

And no, mere man cannot murder, kill or even harm infinite omnipotent God. It's utterly impossible to kill God, He must give up His life no man can take it. In fact Jesus was literally holding together the fists, clubs and spikes while they were assaulting Him with them.

Another thing.....the Roman soldiers were FREAKED OUT (many came to believe BTW) because they tried to beat Him to death. And tried. And tried. And they could not kill Him. And He never so much as even cried out. Not once.

His crucifixion was like no other and they KNEW IT.

 

[Beekeeper]

That's not what a sacrifice means.

H2077
זבח
zebach
BDB Definition:
1) sacrifice
1a) sacrifices of righteousness
1b) sacrifices of strife
1c) sacrifices to dead things
1d) the covenant sacrifice
1e) the passover
1f) annual sacrifice
1g) thank offering
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H2076


The context in Dan 9 is the Prince whose people destroy the cityy and sanctuary. He is the one who is here:

Dan 9:25 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.
Dan 9:26 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.
Dan 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 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.

This is the one who in the NT is called the abomination of desolation and of course that is not Jesus.

Mathew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place,

Just to make it clear, I also do not believe that Jesus calling His own crucifixion "the abomination of desolation" in this verse.
I also do not believe that He is referring to anything that occurred within that seventy week period.

So what did Daniel speak of that could be called "the abomination of desolation"?
Our passage certainly mentions desolations, and even abominations (sins), but the answer is not here but in Daniel 11.
The whole life career of Antiochus is described in detail in this chapter, including his act of placing the "abomination that maketh desolate" (v.31) in the sanctuary.
This was a statue of Jupiter Olympus.

Anyway, your thoughts are about Daniel 9:25-27, and who the pronoun "he" represents in v.27.
You suggest that it should represent the prince.

The two main possibilities i see in v.26 for the pronoun are the people (pronoun would be "they") and the Messiah.
The prince? Well perhaps if you really wanted it to be.

In any case v. 26 definitely refers an event that I think falls outside the seventy week time.
Daniel did not name the passage "Daniel's 70 weeks", and is at liberty to do that.

So that leaves us looking at what "He" did in order to establish who "He" is.
The possibilities I consider is the Messiah and the prince, because the people require a plural pronoun.
Lets consider the three actions in v.27:

1. He shall confirm the covenant with many for one week.
Jesus brought many (not all) into a true covenant relationship with God.
His ministry was to the Jews, as was the ministry of the Apostles at first.
This time period was close on 7 years.
The case for the prince: He destroys the city and sanctuary, brings only desolations, described as a flood,
Daniel 11:30 describes him as having "indignation against the holy covenant",--so not good.

2. In the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease.
Well we seem to be stuck on that one.
I would maintain that unless Jesus was not the final sacrifice for sin, He really did that.
...And for the prince: The prince is said in Daniel 11:31 to have taken away the daily sacrifice, and you may like that, but I think it is a different matter.

3 .For the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate.
This is referring to the sacrifice and oblation here, and although I think the reference is to Jesus for making it desolate in the spiritual sense, it could be said that the prince kind of teams up with Him here, for smashing the place to bits and humiliating the people.

The final case I make for the Messiah is He makes the whole passage make sense without inserting that ridiculous "gap".

The last line (even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate), can go as far into the future as it does.
We are not told that it must be a single event, or that it must fit into the weeks.

 

[Beekeeper]

Another thing.....the Roman soldiers were FREAKED OUT

At least they were freaked out.
That puts them in the clear then.

 

[ewq1938]

...And for the prince: The prince is said in Daniel 11:31 to have taken away the daily sacrifice, and you may like that, but I think it is a different matter.

I think it's a clear connection.

The final case I make for the Messiah is He makes the whole passage make sense without inserting that ridiculous "gap".

Do you mean this gap?

Dan 9:25 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.

Here Messiah the Prince is there.

Dan 9:26 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.

Here a different prince "shall come" so he is not present when his people do this destroying.

It is him that is the "he" in the next verse as the subject changed to him.

Dan 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 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.

Again, this is the wording behind the "abomination of desolation" that Christ spoke of and it cannot be Jesus.

 

[Beekeeper]

I think it's a clear connection.





Do you mean this gap?

Dan 9:25 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.

Here Messiah the Prince is there.

Dan 9:26 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.

Here a different prince "shall come" so he is not present when his people do this destroying.

It is him that is the "he" in the next verse as the subject changed to him.

Dan 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 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.

Again, this is the wording behind the "abomination of desolation" that Christ spoke of and it cannot be Jesus.

Regarding the connection between 9:27 and 11:31 I see one, but it is a different one to what you imply.
While I think the first refers to Christ and the second refers to Antioch there is a connection between the spiritual and physical.
By that I mean that as God has withdrawn His protection of the sanctuary, Antioch is able to destroy it.

Regarding your case for a gap, I did not see it, I just read the passage again as you pasted it and it reads to my mind like it always has. Still have no idea what you are looking at that indicates an undefined gap of years after the 69 weeks. It seems to defeat the purpose of a prophesy with a timeline, as the timeline just becomes irrelevant.

Regarding the second prince, I think it is a reference to Antioch but not the subject of v.27.
Do you think the second prince is Antioch or a future Antichrist?
Also how does this guy "confirm the covenant with many for one week"?

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Dan 9:25 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.

Here Messiah the Prince is there.

Dan 9:26 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.

Here a different prince "shall come" so he is not present when his people do this destroying.

That text is clearly saying that the messiah would appear after 69 weeks (7 weeks + 62 weeks), and then would be cut off half way into the 70th week. The definite article "the" precedes both the 7-week period and the 62-week period in both the Greek and Hebrew texts, meaning that the messiah would appear after the 69-week period encompassing both the 7-week and 62-week periods (483 years total until messiah). I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.

You might as well take the sentence about the people of the prince that shall come and put it in a separate verse since it doesn't belong in that verse because it's a totally separate and unrelated thought.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

This translation from the LXX might provide some clarity. It seems to be saying that Christ will corrupt the city and temple with the coming ruler, which would be the Romans. The Greek word σύν (sun), which means together with, precedes "the one ruling".

And after the sixty-two periods of seven, the anointing shall be utterly destroyed, and judgment is no longer in it. And the city, and the holy place he shall corrupt with (σύν) the one ruling, the one coming, and they shall be cut off as in a flood, and he shall order in terminations until the end of war concisely. Daniel 9:26​

​

G4862 σύν sun (sïn') prep.
συγ- sug- (sïg-) [alternate prefix]
συμ- sum- (sïm-) [soft prefix]
συ- su- (sï-) [rare]
1. together (with).
2. along with.
3. (occasionally, as a prefix) mutual or mutually.
4. (also, as a prefix) joint or jointly.
5. (also, with noun) fellow.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

This is another LXX translation that conveys the same idea. so in both cases it is Christ who destroys the temple and city with the coming (from Daniel's perspective) Roman rulers (prince).

And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him: and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming: they shall be cut off with a flood, and to the end of the war which is rapidly completed he shall appoint the city to desolations. Daniel 9:26​

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Do folks who believe the gap theory not see the inherent contradiction in their beliefs? One one hand they believe that Jesus will return to save Jerusalem from the antichrist and on the other hand believe the prince in Daniel is the antichrist that will completely destroy the city as the Daniel prophecy states.

 

[cv5]

Regarding the connection between 9:27 and 11:31 I see one, but it is a different one to what you imply.
While I think the first refers to Christ and the second refers to Antioch there is a connection between the spiritual and physical.
By that I mean that as God has withdrawn His protection of the sanctuary, Antioch is able to destroy it.

Regarding your case for a gap, I did not see it, I just read the passage again as you pasted it and it reads to my mind like it always has. Still have no idea what you are looking at that indicates an undefined gap of years after the 69 weeks. It seems to defeat the purpose of a prophesy with a timeline, as the timeline just becomes irrelevant.

Regarding the second prince, I think it is a reference to Antioch but not the subject of v.27.
Do you think the second prince is Antioch or a future Antichrist?
Also how does this guy "confirm the covenant with many for one week"?

"Still have no idea what you are looking at that indicates an undefined gap of years after the 69 weeks."
"Do you think the second prince is Antioch or a future Antichrist?"

Good heavens man, the Book of Revelation (written 95AD) is THE commentary on Daniel. Practically the WHOLE BOOK is resolved there.
The solutions are there and MUST be addressed to rightly comprehend Daniel and vice versa.

And if you did not know, no Roman ruler, no Jewish leader, no treaty, no covenant was ever made before Jerusalem fell.
Titus did not make a peace covenant.
He came to destroy, not to confirm.
This alone kills the 70-AD theory.

70 AD problem:
The sacrifices stopped because the Romans burned the Temple — not because a ruler ordered them stopped.
Daniel requires a deliberate legal act, not accidental destruction.

A 3½-year reign of a blasphemous ruler
Daniel 7:25:
“He shall wear out the saints… and they shall be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time.”
That equals 3½ years — the same as Revelation’s Beast.
70 AD problem:
No Roman leader ruled Israel for 3½ years demanding worship.
No emperor image was set up in the Temple.
No global religious enforcement existed.

The Abomination of Desolation
Daniel 9:27:
“On the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate…”
Jesus said in Matthew 24 this event would occur after His ascension and before His return.
70 AD problem:
No idol was ever installed in the Temple.
No worship system was imposed.
No Antichrist appeared.
The Temple was simply destroyed — not desecrated by a false messiah.

The Second Coming at the end of the week
Daniel 9:24–27 says the 70 weeks end with:
Everlasting righteousness
Anointed King
Kingdom established
Revelation 19 shows this is Christ returning.
70 AD problem:
Jesus did not return.
The world did not change.
Israel was scattered.

 

[cv5]

Do folks who believe the gap theory not see the inherent contradiction in their beliefs? One one hand they believe that Jesus will return to save Jerusalem from the antichrist and on the other hand believe the prince in Daniel is the antichrist that will completely destroy the city as the Daniel prophecy states.

You have no idea of what you are talking about. But this guy does. Definitely. He does.

Sir Robert Anderson’s The Coming Prince is one of the most influential works ever written on how Daniel and Revelation interlock into one continuous prophetic timeline.


Here is how Sir Robert Anderson connects them


1. Daniel provides the calendar — Revelation provides the events

Anderson taught that:

Daniel gives the chronological framework
Revelation gives the detailed narrative​

From Daniel:

Daniel tells how long things last


Daniel passage What it gives
Daniel 9:24–27 The 70-Weeks timeline
Daniel 7:25 “Time, times, and half a time”
Daniel 12:7 3½ years
Daniel 12:11–12 1,290 & 1,335 days
From Revelation:

Revelation tells what happens during those same time blocks


Revelation passage What it shows
Revelation 11 Two witnesses (1,260 days)
Revelation 12 Israel in flight (1,260 days)
Revelation 13 Beast reigns (42 months)

Anderson showed these are the same period expressed in different units:


Daniel Revelation
“time, times, half a time” 42 months
3½ years 1,260 days
Half of week 70 Beast’s reign

This means Revelation 6–19 = Daniel’s 70th Week


2. Daniel’s 70th week = Revelation’s Tribulation

Anderson argued that Daniel 9:27 is the master key:

“He shall confirm a covenant with many for one week… and in the midst of the week he shall cause sacrifice and oblation to cease…”​

Anderson showed:


Daniel 9:27 Revelation
Covenant begins - Beast rises (Rev 6–8)
Midpoint betrayal - Abomination / image (Rev 13)
3½ years of persecution - Beast reigns 42 months
End of week - Second Coming (Rev 19)

So Revelation does NOT describe vague “church age” trouble — it describes Daniel’s final week.


3. The Antichrist is the same person in both books

Anderson showed that:


Daniel Revelation
Little Horn (Dan 7) Beast (Rev 13)
Prince who shall come (Dan 9:26) Man of Sin
Desolator (Dan 9:27) Beast who sets up image
Blasphemer (Dan 7:25) Blasphemes God (Rev 13:6)

They are the same individual, acting in the same time period.


4. Why Jerusalem & the Temple are central

Anderson insisted Revelation must be Jewish in setting because Daniel is.


Daniel Revelation
Jerusalem Holy City (Rev 11) Temple sacrifices
Temple measured (Rev 11) Abomination Image of the Beast
Israel persecuted Woman fleeing (Rev 12)

This is why Anderson rejected the idea that Revelation was fulfilled in 70 AD — the time clock of Daniel stops after week 69 and only resumes when Israel is back in Gods prophetic timetable.


5. Daniel starts the clock — Revelation ends it

Anderson famously said:

“The Book of Daniel is the clock of prophecy; the Book of Revelation is the alarm bell.”​

Daniel tells you:

When the final seven years begin​

Revelation tells you:

What happens every step of those seven years​

In one sentence

Sir Robert Anderson showed that Revelation is not a new prophecy — it is the blow-by-blow fulfillment of Daniel’s 70th week.


Daniel = schedule
Revelation = story

 

[cv5]

Do folks who believe the gap theory not see the inherent contradiction in their beliefs? One one hand they believe that Jesus will return to save Jerusalem from the antichrist and on the other hand believe the prince in Daniel is the antichrist that will completely destroy the city as the Daniel prophecy states.

Wrong again. Your profound Biblical illiteracy is causing many to stumble into tragic and serious doctrinal error.

*****************************************************************************************************

Daniel deliberately uses the word “prince” (Hebrew nāgîd) for two completely different rulers — and Scripture itself tells us who they are.


Here is the clean biblical identification.


1) “Messiah the Prince” — Jesus Christ

Daniel 9:25

“From the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem​

until Messiah the Prince…”​

This “Prince” is explicitly named:

מָשִׁיחַ נָגִיד — Mashiach Nāgîd​

“Anointed One, Prince”​

This is the promised King from:

• Psalm 2
• Isaiah 9 & 11
• Zechariah 9
• Micah 5

Jesus of Nazareth fulfills this title exactly.


In the New Testament He is called:

• “The Christ”
• “The Prince of Life” (Acts 3:15)
• “The ruler of the kings of the earth” (Rev 1:5)

2) “The Prince Who Is to Come” — the Antichrist

Daniel 9:26

“The people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary…”​

This prince is:

• Not Messiah
• From the people who destroyed Jerusalem (Romans)
• A future ruler emerging from that same world-system

Jesus later identified him as:

“the abomination of desolation” (Matt 24:15)​

Paul calls him:

“the man of lawlessness” (2 Thess 2)​

John calls him:

“the beast” (Rev 13)​

Why they cannot be the same person

The text separates them by time, role, and moral character:


Messiah the Prince vs Prince who is to come
Brings righteousness - Brings desolation
Is “cut off” (crucified) - Destroys the city
Establishes covenant - Breaks covenant
Atonement - Abomination
Saves Israel - Persecutes Israel

They are literary opposites — one saves, the other destroys.


How this fits your 70 AD timeline

The Romans who destroyed Jerusalem were commanded by Titus — the son of Vespasian.


Daniel says:

“The people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city…”​

The future Antichrist comes from that same Roman imperial line — not ethnically Roman necessarily, but from the same political world-system.


This is why Revelation shows the Beast rising from:

the fourth beast of Daniel 7 — Rome​

Summary

Daniel gives us two princes:


Messiah the Prince — Jesus Christ
The Prince who is to come — the Antichrist


One was cut off for the sins of the world.
The other will set up the abomination in the holy place.


They are deliberately written as mirrored opposites — the true King and the false one.