Daniel 9:27; Disproving the “Rapture” Doctrine

Study goal; To establish and confirm who the “he’s” are of Dan 9:27 and to see the last half of the week is yet to come and to understand that the 7 year idea of a great tribulation is not Scriptural.

Other questions arise from this study:

The “Rapture” doctrine, where did it originate?

What does it teach?

What are the main Scriptural references used to support it?

Is there a 7 year tribulation period?

The major thought of the rapture doctrine is that Jesus will return to Earth in two stages: first to take all Christians out of the world to save them from a 7 year tribulation period. Then He will return after the 7 years to destroy the wicked. We are here to see that none of this is Scriptural.

Parenthetical notes, statements and questions are mine along with bold, underlined and italicized text for emphasis- Craig Roberts

Scriptural References to support the “Rapture” doctrine

1Co 15:51 Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed,

1Co 15:52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

1Co 15:53 For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality.

1Co 15:54 But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, "DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory.

1Th 4:13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope.

1Th 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus.

1Th 4:15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep.

1Th 4:16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

1Th 4:17 Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up (Grk word “harpazo” (harpadzo); from a derivative of NT 138 meaning to sieze)) together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.

1Th 4:18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.

Mat 24:31 "And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.

Dan 9:27 "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 makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate." This is the only possible scripture that can support a 7 year tribulation period

The fulcrum and main text of this study:

Dan 9:27 "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 makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate."

Questions:

Who is the ‘He’ in the beginning of the verse?

What covenant?

How long is a week? Is it a literal week or a week of years? (7 years)

What is the period of time concerning the midst of the week?

When is the period of time concerning the remainder of the week?

Who is the second ‘he’? Is he the same as the first, or is it referring to the “one who makes desolate”?

By what means would the “sacrifice and oblations” cease?

Who is the one who “makes desolate”?

Answers:

It can’t be anyone but Jesus as it can be proven from the prior and following portions of Scripture

The New Covenant is the covenant under which we live, firm and everlasting.

It is a week of years, commonly accepted from all sides of the eschatological views

The midst of the week is the 3 ½ years of Christ’s ministry

It is the final 3 ½ years of the reign of the Antichrist

The second ‘he’ is the same as the first. Only Jesus had the right and the power to cause the OT sacrifices and oblations to cease.

They were stopped only by the death and atoning sacrifice of the Son of God

The one who makes desolate is the Antichrist.

To really understand vs. 27 and answer the above questions, we must get the full context of the subject from prior verses.

Dan 9:23 "At the beginning of your supplications the command was issued, and I have come to tell you, for you are highly esteemed; so give heed to the message and gain understanding of the vision. Notice that Daniel was going to understand the vision; the whole vision.

Dan 9:24 "Seventy weeks (490 years) have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to 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. (This gives us clue as to who is referred to in vss. 25-27; Only one man in history has been able to accomplish these things; Jesus Christ)

Dan 9:25 "So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (457 B.C.) until Messiah the Prince (4 B.C.) (Taking into account the 4 year error in our calendar, Jesus began His ministry in 26 A.D. and was crucified in 29 A.D.; Subtracting from 26 A.D.; 49+434=483 years = 457 B.C.) there will be seven weeks (49 years) and sixty-two weeks(434 years); it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress.

Dan 9:26 "Then after (the key word to recognize, means, not immediately) the sixty-two weeks (434 years) (it took 49 years to build the temple; 3 years to lay the foundation and 46 more to build it. This is the 49+434 which = the 483 years until…) the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing (now begins the last “seven” referenced in vs. 27), and the people of the prince who is to come (Prince Titus in 70 A.D.) will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.

Dan 9:27 "And he (Jesus Christ) will make a firm covenant (a new and better covenant) with the many for one week,(7 years) but in the middle of the week (3 ½ years) he (Jesus Christ) will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; (Only the atoning sacrifice of the Lamb of God could put an end to the sacrifices and oblations of the O.T. (the first 3 ½ years have past; now the church age has begun and at its end, the final 3 ½ years of the 7 years begins with…)) and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, (the antichrist) even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate. (the same ‘he’ as the “one who makes desolate” previously spoken of"

The following translations or paraphrases incorrectly state the meaning of Dan 9:27. They seem to be biased from a belief system existing within the church and not brought forth from the original languages or base of Scripture. Notice that they are all from the last century or so.

The Good News Bible – That ruler will have a firm agreement with many people for seven years

The Bible in Basic English 1965 – And a strong order will be sent out against the great number for one week

Contemporary English Version – For one week this foreigner will make a firm agreement with many people

Douay-Rheims Bible 1899 – And he shall confirm the covenant with many, in one week: nad in the half of the week the victim and the sacrifice shall fail;

The Message – Then for one seven, he will forge many and strong alliances, but halfway through the seven he will banish worship and prayers

Today’s English Version – That ruler will have a firm agreement with many people for seven years

The Living Bible – This king will make a seven-year treaty with the people

There are others but these are the most widely known.

Why must we be so careful to not follow this teaching of a ‘sneaky rapture’?

It’s unscriptural

It’s false doctrine

It causes complacency in a Christians’ life by not stimulating growth in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ (see study on the doctrine of the “Bride of Christ”)

To believe that there is going to be a “sneaky” rapture and that Jesus is going to come back twice is completely against Scriptural doctrine. Not to mention a 7 year tribulation period that only has one scripture to support it if taken out of context with the preceding verses (Dan 9:27). Let’s look at some of the errors of this way of thinkig from the Bible. Remember, the best interpreter of the Bible is the Bible its self.

1’ All references to the time of the tribulation period and/or the reign of the Antichrist is as follows.

1260 days – Rev 12:6; 11:3

A times, time and half a time – Dan 7:25; Rev 12:14

Forty-Two months – Rev 11:2; 13:5

3 ½ years – Dan 9:27

2. Some of the references to the return of Christ to the Earth.

1Co 15:51 Behold, I speak a mystery to you: we shall not all fall asleep, but we shall all be changed.

1Co 15:52 In a moment, in a glance of an eye, at the last trumpet; for a trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall all be changed.

(Mat 24:31) And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather His elect from the four winds, from the ends of the heavens to their ends.

1Th 4:13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope.

1Th 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus.

1Th 4:15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep.

1Th 4:16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

1Th 4:17 Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up (Grk word “harpazo” (harpadzo); from a derivative of NT 138 meaning to sieze)) together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.

1Th 4:18 Therefore comfort one another with these words

2Th 1:7 and to give you, those being afflicted, relief with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from Heaven with angels of His power,

2Th 1:8 in flaming fire giving full vengeance to those not knowing God, and to those not obeying the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, Isa. 66:15; Jer. 10:25

2Th 1:9 who will pay the penalty: everlasting destruction from the face of the Lord, "and from the glory of His strength,"

Mat 25:31 But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory.

Following are three commentaries (certainly not all inclusive) that state what we are saying.

Geneva Bible Commentary

Dan 9:27 - And he ^(a) 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 ^(b) cease, ^(c) and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

^(a) By the preaching of the Gospel he affirmed his promise, first to the Jews, and after to the Gentiles.

^(b) Christ accomplished this by his death and resurrection.

^(c) Meaning that Jerusalem and the sanctuary would be utterly destroyed because of their rebellion against God, and their idolatry: or as some read, that the plague will be so great, that they will all be astonished at them.

Albert Barnes Notes

Dan 9:27 -

And he shall confirm the covenant - literally, “he shall make strong” - והגביר v^ehîg^ebîyr. The idea is that of giving strength, or stability; of making firm and sure. The Hebrew word here evidently refers to the “covenant” which God is said to establish with his people - so often referred to in the Scriptures as expressing the relation between Him and them, and hence used, in general, to denote the laws and institutions of the true religion - the laws which God has made for his church; his promises to be their protector, etc., and the institutions which grow out of that relation. The margin reads it, more in accordance with the Hebrew, “a,” meaning that he would confirm or establish “a covenant” with the many. According to this, it is not necessary to suppose that it was any existing covenant that it referred to, but that he would ratify what was understood by the word “covenant;” that is, that he would lead many to enter into a true and real covenant with God. This would be fulfilled if he should perform such a work as would bring the “many” into a relation to God corresponding to what was sustained to him by his ancient people; that is, bring them to be his true friends and worshippers.

The meaning of the expression here cannot be mistaken, that during the time specified, “he” (whoever may be referred to) would, for “one week” - pursue such a course as would tend to establish the true religion; to render it more stable and firm; to give it higher sanctions in the approbation of the “many,” and to bring it to bear more decidedly and powerfully on the heart. Whether this would be by some law enacted in its favor; or by protection extended over the nation; or by present example; or by instruction; or by some work of a new kind, and new influences which he would set forth, is not mentioned, and beforehand perhaps it could not have been well anticipated in what way this would be. There has been a difference of opinion, however, as to the proper nominative to the verb “confirm” - הגביר hîg^ebîyr - whether it is the Messiah, or the foreign prince, or the “one week.” Hengstenberg prefers the latter, and renders it, “And one week shall confirm the covenant; with many.”

So also Lengerke renders it. Bertholdt renders it “he,” that is, “he shall unite himself firmly with many for one week” - or, a period of seven years, ein Jahrsiebend lang. It seems to me that it is an unnatural construction to make the word “week” the nominative to the verb, and that the more obvious interpretation is to refer it to some person to whom the whole subject relates. It is not usual to represent time as an agent in accomplishing a work. In poetic and metaphorical language, indeed, we personate time as cutting down men, as a destroyer, &e., but this usage would not justify the expression that “time would confirm a covenant with many.” That is, evidently, the work of conscious, intelligent agent; and it is most natural, therefore, to understand this as of one of the two agents who are spoken of in the passage. These two agents are the “Messiah,” and the “prince that should come.”

But it is not reasonable to suppose that the latter is referred to, because it is said Dan_9:26 that the effect and the purpose of his coming would be to “destroy the city and the sanctuary.” He was to come “with a flood,” and the effect of his coming would be only desolation. The more correct interpretation, therefore, is to refer it to the Messiah, who is the principal subject of the prophecy; and the work which, according to this, he was to perform was, during that “one week,” to exert such an influence as would tend to establish a covenant between the people and God. The effect of his work during that one week would be to secure their adhesion to the “true religion;” to confirm to them the Divine promises, and to establish the principles of that religion which would lead them to God. Nothing is said of the mode by which that would be done; and anything, therefore, which would secure this would be a fulfillment of the prophecy. As a matter of fact, if it refers to the Lord Jesus, this was done by his personal instructions, his example, his sufferings and death, and the arrangements which he made to secure the proper effect of his work on the minds of the people - all designed to procure for them the friendship and favor of God, and to unite them to him in the bonds of an enduring covenant.

With many - לרבים lârabîym. Or, for many; or, unto many. He would perform a work which would pertain to many, or which would bear on many, leading them to God. There is nothing in the word here which would indicate who they were, whether his own immediate followers, or those who already were in the covenant. The simple idea is, that this would pertain to “many” persons, and it would be fulfilled if the effect of his work were to confirm “many” who were already in the covenant, or if he should bring “many” others into a covenant relation with God. Nothing could be determined from the meaning of the word used here as to which of these things was designed, and consequently a fair fulfillment would be found if either of them occurred. If it refers to the Messiah, it would be fulfilled if in fact the effect of his coming should be either by statute or by instructions to confirm and establish those who already sustained this relation to God, or if he gathered other followers, and confirmed them in their allegiance to God.

For one week - The fair interpretation of this, according to the principles adopted throughout this exposition, is, that this includes the space of seven years. See the notes at Dan_9:24. This is the one week that makes up the seventy - seven of them, or forty-nine years, embracing the period from the command to rebuild the city and temple to its completion under Nehemiah; sixty-two, or four hundred and thirty-four years, to the public appearing of the Messiah, and this one week to complete the whole seventy, or four hundred and ninety years “to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness,” etc., Dan_9:24. It is essential, therefore, to find something done, occupying these seven years, that would go to “confirm the covenant” in the sense above explained. In the consideration of this, the attention is arrested by the announcement of an important event which was to occur “in the midst of the week,” to wit, in causing the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, showing that there was to be an important change occurring during the “week,” or that while he would be, in fact, confirming the covenant through the week in some proper sense, the sacrifice and oblation would cease, and therefore the confirming of the many in the covenant must depend on something else than the continuation of the sacrifice and oblation. In regard to this language, as in respect to all the rest of the prophecy, there are, in fact, just two questions: one is, what is fairly to be understood by the words, or what is the proper interpretation, independent of anything in the result; the other is, whether anything occurred in what is regarded as the fulfillment which corresponds with the language so interpreted.

(1) The first inquiry then, is, What is the fair meaning of the language? Or what would one who had a correct knowledge of the proper principles of interpretation understand by this? Now, in regard to this, while it may be admitted, perhaps, that there would be some liability to a difference of view in interpreting it with no reference to the event, or no shaping of its meaning by the event, the following things seem to be clear:

(a) that the “one week,” would comprise seven years, immediately succeeding the appearance of the Messiah, or the sixty-two weeks, and that there was something which he would do in “confirming the covenant,” or in establishing the principles of religion, which would extend through that period of seven years, or that that would be, in some proper sense, “a period” of time, having a beginning - to wit, his appearing, and some proper close or termination at the end of the seven years: that is, that there would be some reason why that should be a marked period, or why the whole should terminate there, and not at some other time.

(b) That in the middle of that period of seven years, another important event would occur, serving to divide that time into two portions, and especially to be known as causing the sacrifice and oblation to cease; in some way affecting the public offering of sacrifice, so that from that time there would be in fact a cessation.

(c) And that this would be succeeded by the consummation of the whole matter expressed in the words, “and for the overspreading of abomination he shall make it desolate,” etc. It is not said, however, that this latter would immediately occur, but this would be one of the events that would pertain to the fulfillment of the prophecy. There is nothing, indeed, in the prediction to forbid the expectation that this would occur at once, nor is there anything in the words which makes it imperative that we should so understand it. It may be admitted that this would be the most natural interpretation, but it cannot be shown that that is required. It may be added, also, that this may not have pertained to the direct design of the prophecy - which was to foretell the coming of the Messiah, but that this was appended to show the end of the whole thing. When the Messiah should have come, and should have made an atonement for sin, the great design of rebuilding Jerusalem and the temple would have been accomplished, and both might pass away. Whether that would occur immediately or not might be in itself a matter of indifference; but it was important to state here that it would occur, for that was properly a completion of the design of rebuilding the city, and of the purpose for which it had ever been set apart as a holy city.

(2) The other inquiry is whether there was that in what is regarded as the fulfillment of this, which fairly corresponds with the prediction. I have attempted above (on Dan_9:25) to show that this refers to the Messiah properly so called - the Lord Jesus Christ. The inquiry now is, therefore, whether we can find in his life and death what is a fair fulfillment of these reasonable expectations. In order to see this, it is proper to review these points in their order:

(a) The period, then, which is embraced in the prophecy, is seven years, and it is necessary to find in his life and work something which would be accomplished during these seven years which could be properly referred to as “confirming the covenant with many.” The main difficulty in the case is on this point, and I acknowledge that this seems to me to be the most embarrassing portion of the prophecy, and that the solutions which can be given of this are less satisfactory than those that pertain to any other part. Were it not that the remarkable clause “in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease,” were added, I admit that the natural interpretation would be, that he would do this personally, and that we might look for something which he would himself accomplish during the whole period of seven years. That clause, however, looks as if some remarkable event were to occur in the middle of that period, for the fact that he would tense the sacrifice and oblation to cease - that is, would bring the rites of the temple to a close - shows that what is meant by “confirming the covenant” is different from the ordinary worship under the ancient economy. No Jew would think of expressing himself thus, or would see how it was practicable to “confirm the covenant” at the same time that all his sacrifices were to cease. The confirming of the covenant, therefore, during that “one week,” must be consistent with some work or event that would cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease in the middle of that period.

(b) The true fulfillment, it seems to me, is to be found in the bearing of the work of the Saviour on the Hebrew people - the ancient covenant people of God - for about the period of seven years after he entered on his work. Then the particular relation of his work to the Jewish people ceased. It may not be practicable to make out the exact time of “seven years” in reference to this, and it may be admitted that this would not be understood from the prophecy before the things occurred; but still there are a number of circumstances which will show that this interpretation is not only plausibIe, but that it has in its very nature strong probability in its favor. They are such as these:

(1) The ministry of the Saviour himself was wholly among the Jews, and his work was what would, in their common language, be spoken of as “confirming the covenant; “that is, it would be strengthening the principles of religion, bringing the Divine promises to bear on the mind, and leading men to God, etc.

(2) This same work was continued by the apostles as they labored among the Jews. They endeavored to do the same thing that their Lord and Master had done, with all the additional sanctions, now derived from his life and death. The whole tendency of their ministry would have been properly expressed in this language: that they endeavored to “confirm the covenant” with the Hebrew people; that is, to bring them to just views of the character of their natural covenant with God; to show them how it was confirmed in the Messiah; to establish the ancient promises; and to bring to bear upon them the sanctions of their law as it was now fulfilled, and ratified, and enlarged through the Messiah. Had the Saviour himself succeeded in this, or had his apostles, it would have been, in fact, only “confirming the ancient covenant” - the covenant made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; the covenant established under Moses, and ratified by so many laws and customs among the people. The whole bearing of the Saviour’s instructions, and of his followers, was to carry out and fulfill the real design of that ancient institution - to show its true nature and meaning, and to impress it on the hearts of men

(3) This was continued for about the period here referred to; at least for a period so long that it could properly be represented in round numbers as “one week,” or seven years. The Saviour’s own ministry continued about half that time; and then the apostles prosecuted the same work, laboring with the Jews for about the other portion, before they turned their attention to the Gentiles, and before the purpose to endearour to bring in the Jewish people was abandoned. They remained in Jerusalem; they preached in the synagogues; they observed the rites of the temple service; they directed their first attention everywhere to the Hebrew people; they had not yet learned that they were to turn away from the “covenant people,” and to go to the Gentiles. It was a slow process by which they were led to this. It required a miracle to convince Peter of it, and to show him that it was right to go to Cornelius Acts 10, as a representative of the Gentile people, and it required another miracle to convert Saul of Tarsus, “the apostle of the Gentiles,” and to prepare him for the work of carrying the gospel to the pagan world, and a succession of severe persecutions was demanded to induce the apostles to leave Jerusalem, and to go abroad upon the face of the earth to convey the message of salvation.

Their first work was among the Jewish people, and they would have remained among them if they had not been driven away by these persecutions, and been thus constrained to go to other lands. It is true that it cannot be shown that this was a period of exactly “half a week,” or three years and a half after the ascension of the Saviour, but, in a prophecy of this nature, it was a period that might, in round numbers, be well expressed by that; or the whole might be properly described by “seventy weeks,” or four hundred and ninety years, and the last portion after the appearing of the Messiah as one of these weeks. There has been much needless anxiety to make out the exact time to a month or a day in regard to this prophecy - not remembering its general design, and not reflecting how uncertain are all the questions in ancient chronology. Compare the sensible remarks of Calvin on Dan_9:25.

(4) When this occurred; when the apostles turned away from the Hebrew people, and gave themselves to their labors among the Gentiles, the work of “confirming the covenant” with those to whom the promises had been made, and to whom the law was given, ceased. They were regarded as “broken off” and left, and the hope of success was in the Gentile world. See the reasoning of the apostle Paul in Rom. 11. Jerusalem was given up soon after to destruction, and the whole work, as contemplated in this prophecy, ceased. The object for which the city and temple were rebuilt was accomplished, and here was a proper termination of the “prophecy.” It was not necessary, indeed, that these should be at once destroyed, but they were henceforth regarded as having fulfilled the work designed, and as being now left to ruin. The ruin did not at once occur, but the sacrifices thenceforward offered were without meaning, and the train of events was constantly preparing that would sweep away city and temple together. I suppose, therefore, that this last “one week” embraced the period from the beginning of the ministry of the Saviour to that when the direct and exclusive efforts to bring the principles of his religion to bear on the Hebrew people, as carrying out the design of the covenant made by God with their fathers, and confirmed with so many promises, ceased, and the great effort was commenced to evangelize the pagan world. Then was the proper close of the seventy weeks; what is added is merely a statement of the winding up of the whole affair in the destruction of the city and temple. That occurred, indeed, some years after; but at this period all that was material in regard to that city had taken place, and consequently that was all that was necessary to specify as to the proper termination of the design of rebuilding the city and the temple.

And in the midst of the week - The word here rendered “in the midst” - חצי chētsîy - means, properly, half, the half part, Exo_24:6; Num_12:12; then the middle, or the midst, Jdg_16:3. The Vulgate renders it, in dimidio; the Greek, ἐν τῳ ἡμίσει en tō hēmisei. Hengstenberg, “the half.” So Lengerke, die Halfte; Luther, mitten. The natural and obvious interpretation is what is expressed in our translation, and that will convey the essential idea in the original. It refers to something which was to occur at about the middle portion of this time, or when about half of this period was elapsed, or to something which it would require half of the “one week,” or seven years, to accomplish. The meaning of the passage is fully met by the supposition that it refers to the Lord Jesus and his work, and that the exact thing that was intended by the prophecy was his death, or his being “cut off,” and thus causing the sacrifice and oblation to cease.

Whatever difficulties there may be about the “precise” time of our Lord’s ministry, and whether he celebrated three passovers or four after he entered on his public work, it is agreed on all hands that it lasted about three years and a half - the time referred to here. Though a few have supposed that a longer period was occupied, yet the general belief of the church has coincided in that, and there are few points in history better settled. On the supposition that this pertains to the death of the Lord Jesus, and that it was the design of the prophecy here to refer to the effects of that death, this is the very language which would have been used. If the period of “a week” were for any purpose mentioned, then it would be indispensable to suppose that there would be an allusion to the important event - in fact, the great event which was to occur in the middle of that period, when the ends of the types and ceremonies of the Hebrew people would be accomplished, and a sacrifice made for the sins of the whole world.

He shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease - The word “he,” in this place, refers to the Messiah, if the interpretation of the former part of the verse is correct, for there can be no doubt that it is the same person who is mentioned in the phrase “he shall confirm the covenant with many.” The words “sacrifice” and “oblation” refer to the offerings made in the temple. The former word more properly denotes “bloody” offerings; the latter “offerings” of any kind - whether of flour, fruits, grain, etc. See these words explained in the notes at Isa_1:11, Isa_1:13. The word rendered “cease” (ישׁבית yash^ebîyt) means, properly, to rest (from the word Sabbath), and then in Hiphil, to cause to rest, or to cause to cease. It conveys the idea of “putting an end to” - as, for example, “war,” Psa_46:9; “contention,” Pro_18:18; “exultation,” Isa_16:10. - Gesenius. The literal signification here would be met by the supposition that an end would be made of these sacrifices, and this would occur either by their being made wholly to cease to be offered at that time, or by the fact that the object of their appointment was accomplished, and that henceforward they would be useless and would die away.

As a matter of fact, so far as the Divine intention in the appointment of these sacrifices and offerings was concerned, they “ceased” at the death of Christ - in the middle of the “week.” Then the great sacrifice which they had adumbrated was offered. Then they ceased to have any significancy, no reason existing for their longer continuance. Then, as they never had had any efficacy in themselves, they ceased also to have any propriety as types - for the thing which they had prefigured had been accomplished. Then, too, began a series of events and influences which led to their abolition, for soon they were interrupted by the Romans, and the temple and the altars were swept away to be rebuilt no more. The death of Christ was, in fact, the thing which made them to cease, and the fact that the great atonement has been made, and that there is now no further need of those offerings, is the only philosophical reason which can be given why the Jews have never been able again to rebuild the temple, and why for eighteen hundred years they have found no place where they could again offer a bloody sacrifice. The “sacrifice and the oblation” were made, as the result of the coming of the Messiah, to “cease” for ever, and no power of man will be able to restore them again in Jerusalem. Compare Gibbon’s account of the attempt of Julian to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem: Dec. and Fall, ii. 35-37.

And for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate - The marginal reading here is very different, showing clearly the perplexity of the translators: “Upon the battlements shall be the idols of the desolator.” There is great variety, also, in the ancient versions in rendering this passage. The Latin Vulgate is, “And there shall be in the temple the abomination of desolation.” The Greek, “And upon the temple shall be an abomination of desolations.” The Syriac. “And upon the extremities of the abomination shall rest desolation.” The Arabic, “And over the sanctuary shall there be the abomination of ruin.” Luther renders it, “And upon the wings shall stand the abomination of desolation.” Lengerke and Hengstenberg render it, “And upon the summit of abomination comes the destroyer.” Prof. Stuart, “And the water shall be over a winged fowl of abominations.” These different translations show that there is great obscurity in the original, and perhaps exclude the hope of being able entirely to free the passage from all difficulties. An examination of the words, however, may perhaps enable us to form a judgment of its meaning. The “literal” and “obvious” sense of the original, as I understand it, is, “And upon the wing of the abominations one causing desolation” - משׁמם שׁקיצים כנף ועל v^e‛al kenap shîqqytsîym m^eshomēm. The word rendered “overspreading” (כנף kânâp) means, properly, a “wing;” so called as “covering,” or because it “covers” - from כנף kânap), to cover, to hide. Then it denotes anything having a resemblance to a wing, as an extremity, a corner, as

(a) of a garment, the skirt, or flap, 1Sa_24:4 (5), 11 (12); Num_15:38, and hence, as the outer garment was used by the Orientals to wrap themselves in at night, the word is used for the extremity or border of a bed-covering, Deu_22:30 Deu_23:1; Rth_3:9.

(b) It is applied to land, or to the earth - as the earth is compared with a garment spread out, Isa_24:16; Job_37:3; Job_38:13.

(c) It is used to denote the highest point, or a battlement, a pinnacle - as having a resemblance to a wing spread out.

So the word πτερύγιον pterugion is used in Mat_4:5. See the notes at that passage. It would seem most probable that the allusion by the word as applied to a building would not be, as supposed by Gesenius (Lexicon), and by Hengstenberg and Lengerke, to the “pinnacle or summit,” but to some roof, porch, or piazza that had a resemblance to the wings of a bird as spread out - a use of the word that would be very natural and obvious. The extended porch that Solomon built on the eastern side of the temple would, not improbably, have, to one standing on the opposite Mount of Olives, much the appearance of the wings of a bird spread out. Nothing certain can be determined about the allusion here from the use of this word, but the connection would lead us to suppose that the reference was to something pertaining to the city or temple, for the whole prophecy has a reference to the city and temple, and it is natural to suppose that in its close there would be an allusion to it.

The use of the word “wing” here would lead to the supposition that what is said would pertain to something in connection with the temple having a resemblance to the wings of a bird, and the word “upon” (על ‛al) would lead us to suppose that what was to occur would be somehow upon that. The word rendered “abominations” (שׁקוּצים shîqqûtsîym) means “abominable” things, things to be held in detestation, as things unclean, filthy garments, etc., and then idols, as things that are to be held in abhorrence. The word שׁקוּץ shîqûts, is rendered abomination in Deu_29:17; 1Ki_11:5, 1Ki_11:7; 2Ki_23:13, 2Ki_23:24; Isa_66:3; Jer_4:1; Jer_7:30; Jer_13:27; Jer_32:34; Eze_5:11; Eze_7:20; Eze_20:7-8, Eze_20:30; Dan_9:27; Dan_11:31; Dan_12:11; Hos_9:10; Zec_9:7; abominable idols in 2Ch_15:8 (in the margin abominations); “detestable” in Jer_16:18; Eze_11:18, Eze_11:21; Eze_37:23; and “abominable filth” in Nah_3:6. It does not occur elsewhere.

In most of these places it is applied to “idols,” and the current usage would lead us so to apply it, if there were nothing in the connection to demand a different interpretation. It might refer to anything that was held in abomination, or that was detestable and offensive. The word is one that might be used of an idol god, or of anything that would pollute or defile, or that was from any cause offensive. It is not used in the Old Testament with reference to a “banner or military standard,” but there can be no doubt that it might be so applied as denoting the standard of a foe - of a pagan - planted on any part of the temple - a thing which would be particularly detestable and abominable in the sight of the Jews. The word rendered “he shall make IT desolate” - משׁמם m^eshomēm - is “he making desolate;” that is, “a desolator.” It is a Poel participle from שׁמם shâmēm - to be astonished, to be laid waste; and then, in an active sense, to lay waste, to make desolate. - Gesenius. The same word, and the same phrase, occur in Dan_11:31 : “And they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate,” or, as it is in the margin, “astonisheth.”

There, also, the expression is used in connection with “taking away the daily sacrifices.” The word would be more properly rendered in this place “desolator,” referring to some one who would produce desolation. There is great abruptness in the entire expression, and it is evident that it was not the intention to give so clear a prediction in this that it could be fully understood beforehand. The other portions of the prophecy respecting the building of the city, and the coming of the Messiah, and the work that he would accomplish, are much more clear, and their meaning could have been made out with much more certainty. But, in reference to this, it would seem, perhaps, that all that was designed was to throw out suggestions - fragments of thought, that would rather hint at the subject than give any continuous idea. Perhaps a much more “abrupt” method of translation than what attempts to express it in a continuous grammatical construction capable of being parsed easily, would better express the state of the mind of the speaker, and the language which he uses, than the ordinary versions.

The Masoretic pointing, also, may be disregarded, and then the real idea would be better expressed by some such translation as the following: “He shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease. And - upon the wing - the porch of the temple - abominations! And a desolator!” That is, after the ceasing of the sacrifice and the oblation, the mind is fixed upon the temple where they had been offered. The first thing that arrests the eye is some portion of the temple, here denoted by the word “wing.” The next is something abominable or detestable - an object to be hated and loathed in the very temple itself. The next is a desolator - one who had come to carry desolation to that very temple. Whether the “abomination” is connected with the “desolator” or not is not intimated by the language. It might or might not be. The angel uses language as these objects strike the eye, and he expresses himself in this abrupt manner as the eye rests on one or the other. The question then arises, What does this mean? Or what is to be regarded as the proper fulfillment? It seems to me that there can be no doubt that there is a reference to the Roman standard or banners planted on some part of the temple, or to the Roman army, or to some idols set up by the Romans - objects of abomination to the Jews - as attracting the eye of the angel in the distant future, and as indicating the close of the series of events here referred to in the prophecy. The reasons for this opinion are, summarily, the following:

(a) The “place or order” in which the passage stands in the prophecy. It is “after” the coming of the Messiah; “after” the proper cessation of the sacrifice and oblation, and at the close of the whole series of events - the termination of the whole design about rebuilding the city and the temple.

(b) The “language” is such as would properly represent that. Nothing could be more appropriate, in the common estimation of the Jews, than to speak of such an object as a Roman military standard planted in any part of the temple, as an “abomination,;” and no word would better denote the character of the Roman conqueror than the word “desolator” - for the effect of his coming, was to lay the whole city and temple in ruins.

(c) The language of the Saviour in his reference to this would seem to demand such an interpretation, Mat_24:15 : “When ye, therefore, shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet stand in the holy place,” etc. There can be no reasonable doubt. that the Saviour refers to this passage in Daniel (see the notes at Mat_24:15), or that events occurred in the attack on Jerusalem and the temple that would fully correspond with the language used here. Josephus, for instance, says, that when the city was taken, the Romans brought their ensigns into the temple, and placed them over the eastern gate, and sacrificed to them there. “And now the Romans,” says he, “upon the flight of the seditious into the city, and upon the burning of the holy house itself, and all the buildings round about it, brought their ensigns into the temple, and set them over against its eastern gate; and there they did offer sacrifices to them, and there did they make Titus “Imperator” with the greatest acclamations of joy.” - “Jewish Wars,” b. vi. ch. vi. Section 1. This fact fully accords with the meaning of the language as above explained, and the reference to it was demanded in order that the purpose of the prophecy should be complete. Its proper termination is the destruction of the city and temple - as its beginning is the order to rebuild them.

Even until the consummation - Until the completion - ועד־כלה y^e‛ad-kâlâh. That is, the series of events in the prophecy shall in fact reach to the completion of everything pertaining to the city and temple. The whole purpose in regard to that shall be completed. The design for which it is robe rebuilt shall be consummated; the sacrifices to be offered there shall be finished, and they shall be no longer efficacious or proper; the whole civil and religious polity connected with the city and temple shall pass away.

And that determined - ונחרצה v^enechĕrâtsâh. See this word explained in the notes at Dan_9:24, Dan_9:26. See also the notes at Isa_10:23. There seems to be an allusion in the word here to its former use, as denoting that this is the fulfillment of the determination in regard to the city and temple. The idea is, that what was determined, or decided on, to wit, with reference to the closing scenes of the city and temple, would be accomplished.

Shall be poured - תתך tîttak. The word used here means to pour, to pour out, to overflow - as rain, water, curses, anger, etc. It may be properly applied to calamity or desolation, as these things may be represented as “poured down” upon a people, in the manner of a storm. Compare 2Sa_21:10; Exo_9:33; Psa_11:6; Eze_38:22; 2Ch_34:21; 2Ch_12:7; Jer_7:20; Jer_42:18; Jer_44:6.

Upon the desolate - Margin, desolator. The Hebrew word (שׁומם shômēm) is the same, though in another form (כל kal instead of פל pēl) which is used in the previous part of the verse, and rendered “he shall make it desolate,” but which is proposed above to be rendered “desolator.” The verb שׁמם shâmēm is an intransitive verb, and means, in “Kal,” the form used here, to be astonished or amazed; then “to be laid waste, to be made desolate” (Gesenius); and the meaning in this place, therefore, is that which is desolate or laid waste - the wasted, the perishing, the solitary. The reference is to Jerusalem viewed as desolate or reduced to ruins. The angel perhaps contemplates it, as he is speaking, in ruins or as desolate, and he sees this also as the termination of the entire series of predictions, and, in view of the whole, speaks of Jerusalem appropriately as “the desolate.”

Though it would be rebuilt, yet it would be again reduced to desolation, for the purpose of the rebuilding - the coming of the Messiah - would be accomplished. As the prophecy finds Jerusalem a scene of ruins, so it leaves it, and the last word in the prophecy, therefore, is appropriately the word “desolate.” The intermediate state indeed between the condition of the city as seen at first and at the close is glorious - for it embraces the whole work of the Messiah; but the beginning is a scene of ruins, and so is the close. The sum of the whole in the latter part of the verse may be expressed in a free paraphrase: “He, the Messiah, shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease,” by having fulfilled in his own dcath the design of the ancient offerings, thus rendering them now useless, and upon the outspreading - upon the temple regarded as spread out, or some wing or portico, there are seen abominable things - idolatrous ensigns, and the worship of foreigners. A desolator is there, also, come to spread destruction - a foreign army or leader. And this shall continue even to the end of the whole matter - the end of the events contemplated by the prophecy - the end of the city and the temple. And what is determined on - the destruction decreed - shall be poured out like a tempest on the city doomed to desolation - desolate as surveyed at the beginning of the prophecy - desolate at the close, and therefore appropriately called “the desolate.”

After this protracted examination of the meaning of this prophecy, all the remark which it seems proper to make is, that this prediction could have been the result only of inspiration. There is the clearest evidence that the prophecy was recorded long before the time of the Messiah, and it is manifest that it could not have been the result of any natural sagacity. There is not the slightest proof that it was uttered as late as the coming of Christ, and there is nothing better determined in relation to any ancient matter than that it was recorded long before the birth of the Lord Jesus. But it is equally clear that it could have been the result of no mere natural sagacity. How could such events have been foreseen except by Him who knows all things? How could the order have been determined? How could the time have been fixed? How could it have been anticipated that the Messiah, the Prince, would be cut off? How could it have been known that he would cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease? How could it have been ascertained that the period during which he would be engaged in this would be one week - or about seven years? How could it be predicted that a remarkable event would occur in the middle of that period that would in fact cause the sacrifice and oblation ultimately to cease? And how could it be conjectured that a foreign prince would come, and plant the standard of abomination in the holy city, and sweep all away - laying the city and the temple in ruins, and bringing the whole polity to an end? These things lie beyond the range of natural sagacity, and if they are fairly implied in this prophecy, they demonstrate that this portion of the book is from God.

John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes

Dan 9:27 - He shall confirm - Christ confirmed the new covenant, By the testimony of angels, of John baptist, of the wise men, of the saints then living, of Moses and Elias. By his preaching. By signs and wonders. By his holy life. By his resurrection and ascension. By his death and blood shedding. Shall cause the sacrifice to cease - All the Jewish rites, and Levitical worship. By his death he abrogated, and put an end to this laborious service, for ever. And that determined - That spirit of slumber, which God has determined to pour on the desolate nation, 'till the time draws near, when all Israel shall be saved.

Other commentators that believed the same way include;

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown

Matthew Henry

The Rapture Doctrine

This doctrine had it’s basic origins in the early 19^th century. You may have heard of a young Scottish girl prophesying of this great “catching away” of the church. Her name was, Margaret McDonald. After this “revelatory” prophetic utterance, two men became the greatest propagators of the teaching that Jess was going to “rapture” the church out of this world at any moment. Their names were Edward Irving an John Darby. In the early 1800’s, the Plymouth brethren movement began and this was the real start of this doctrine of a great catching away. Others followed; Schofield, Ryrie, Dake – these were all proponents of the “Rapture doctrine”. In relation to the almost 2000 years of the Church age this is a new doctrine and certainly not one that God has restored to the body of Christ.

Before all these men, the teaching (doctrine) was not taught except in a very few esoteric circles. It never caught the attention of the Church like it did in the 19^th century. The word ‘rapture’ doesn’t appear in the Bible and the only word in the Greek that is used to make this word up really means to “seize”. There are a few historical accounts of similar teachings in the earlier centuries before the Plymouth movement began but for the most part, it was an unheard of doctrine.

Modern day teachers of this heresy include;

Hal Lindwey

Tim Lahaye

Jack Van Impe

Benny Hin

Some Scriptures that refer to the “how” Jesus Christ will return to earth are:

Act 1:11 who also said, Men, Galileans, why do you stand looking up to the heaven? This Jesus, the One being taken from you into the heaven, will come in the way you saw Him going into the heaven.

1Co 15:20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead; He became the firstfruit of those having fallen asleep.

1Co 15:21 For since death is through man, also through a Man is a resurrection of the dead;

1Co 15:22 for as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

1Co 15:23 But each in his own order: Christ, the firstfruit; afterward those of Christ at His coming.

1Co 15:24 Then is the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God, even the Father, when He makes to cease all rule and all authority and power.

1Co 15:25 For it is right for Him to reign until He puts all the hostile ones under His feet;

2Th 1:5 a clear token of the just judgment of God, for you to be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you indeed suffer;

2Th 1:6 since it is a just thing with God to pay back tribulation to the ones troubling you,

2Th 1:7 and to give you, those being afflicted, relief with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from Heaven with angels of His power,

2Th 1:8 in flaming fire giving full vengeance to those not knowing God, and to those not obeying the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, Isa. 66:15; Jer. 10:25

2Th 1:9 who will pay the penalty: everlasting destruction from the face of the Lord, "and from the glory of His strength," Isa. 2:19

2Th 1:10 when He comes to be glorified in His saints, and to be admired in all those who believe in that Day, because our testimony to you was believed.

No references to the return of Christ allude to or state that Jesus will come back to Earth more than once. To say that He is returning only in the air to ‘catch away’ the saints then to terra firma later to judge the wicked is in error. At His return, the vengeance of God will be upon those who don’t know Him. Every reference speaks to the fact that the return of Christ is a final consummation of judgment on the wicked and that is as far from a sneaky kind of taking the Church out before the wrath of God upon the earth. So why is this “rapture” doctrine so readily received?

1. Because it is a doctrine that tickles the ears and makes you feel good about yourself.

2. It doesn’t matter whether I live whole heartedly for God or not because I will not have to worry about going through any kind of tribulation with the Antichrist in power.

3. Why should I press in if Jesus is going to take me out at any moment?

4. It denies the doctrine of the Bride of Christ in that all Christians whether pressing in or just living in mediocracy will be separated; and be spared from the persecution of the Antichrist or enter into his reign of terror upon the earth.

Conclusion:

In this study, I have tried to establish that Dan 9:27 and the seventieth week prophecy, speaks of the Messiah, Jesus Christ as being the one who makes the covenant with the many and causes all sacrifice and oblation to cease in the midst of the week. Also, we have seen that there is no 7 year tribulation period; it is 3 ½ years with the reign of the Antichrist. No reference is given in Scripture that gives a time frame of 7 years for his reign or the tribulation period. For further study, see me for the “Major Events At the End of the Age” teaching or it can be found at ALCC’s website.

Craig Roberts