Daniel’s 70 Weeks: An Alernative Premillennial Understanding – Exegetical Problems with the Dispensational Understanding of v. 27
*If you haven’t read the introduction, be sure to do so.
While no interpretation can be objectively arrived at by arguing over one pronoun alone, we are forced to take a hard look at the “he” which appears in v. 27, because the DP understanding of the whole prophecy is built largely on seeing the Antichrist there. They would argue that the “prince who is to come” of v. 26 must be the “he” referred to at the start of v. 27, because that is the nearest possible antecedent to the pronoun and therefore the most grammatically tenable option. But this fails to take a few things into account. Let’s consider the following:
1. The “prince who is to come” isn’t the subject of that clause in v. 26, his people are. It would be quite odd, grammatically speaking, for the pronoun of v. 27 to be referring to someone who isn’t even a subject of the preceding text, but is only mentioned for the sake of specifying who the actual subject(s) is.
2. As far as I know every camp agrees on the fact that, at least initially, the “prince who is to come” refers to the Roman General/Emperor Titus. But, quite characteristically, DP has read an idea into the text not supportable there, saying that the “prince” refers dually to Titus and the Antichrist. To make this view believable they suggest – out of this very text mind you – that the Antichrist will be of Roman decent. Yet, obviously, since they gather this notion from the very text held in question their whole argument falls apart as circular logic.
3. Later on in verse 27 “one who makes desolate” is introduced into the company of characters already present. For the most part PM as a whole views this new character as the Antichrist. But why would the Antichrist be introduced again in v 27b if he were already the subject of the verse? And what’s more, why would he be reintroduced with a different title altogether than the one he supposedly holds already from v. 26, i.e., the “prince who is to come”?
All of these problems taken into account, the assertion that the pronoun of v. 27 refers to the “prince” of v. 26 is highly suspect. There is simply too much far-fetched reasoning required and too many interpretive hurdles to jump in order to see the Antichrist as the one who confirms a covenant. And quite astonishingly, without this one vital piece the whole DP puzzle falls apart, so that we are now left wondering: what is Daniel’s 70th week all about? Answering this question requires a reexamination of each piece of the puzzle in its own right.
