And after the sixty-two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, and shall have nothing; and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with an overflow, and unto the end, war, -- the desolations determined.
Daniel's seventy weeks reach their turning point here: the Messiah is cut off instead of welcomed, and the city and its temple fall. Three questions follow — what "shall have nothing" means, who the coming prince is, and why the last week does not come at once.
An older English translation read "cut off, but not for himself." Commentators prefer the reading behind "shall have nothing." The verse is not weighing the worth of His death. It is showing what He lost.
I say then that the margin here gives the scope, in my opinion, more exactly. Our version — "but not for himself" — implies that He was cut off for other people... He was cut off for our sins. He suffered in atonement for our iniquities. So people saw the death of Christ only as expiation. But that is not the point here. The meaning is that Messiah should be cut off and have nothing. His inheritance is completely gone. His people refuse Him. His land is not His to hold. His kingdom is denied Him. Everything that belonged to Messiah is taken away from Him.
Why did He not take the kingdom that was His by right? The answer lies in the purpose of His first coming.
The correct translation is, "Messiah shall be cut off and have nothing." That is, the Messiah did not take the kingdom, though it was His by right. He was rejected and crucified, so He could only have taken it by judgment in power. But His mission then was not judgment; it was salvation (John 3:17). So He was "cut off," and went back to heaven with "nothing."
One consequence follows: ruin for the city and the sanctuary. The break went deeper than politics.
A new element of great importance is also introduced: the Messiah should be cut off. He would have nothing of what belonged to Him by right. The consequence of this would be the destruction of the city and of the sanctuary, desolation and war. It would be the prince of another empire, not yet in existence, who should destroy the city and the sanctuary. God's relations with the people were now completely broken off for the time — even with a believing remnant.
Sixty-nine of the seventy weeks had run out when Christ died. Verse 27 then speaks of the last one.
When Christ was cut off, sixty-nine weeks had run their course. There only remained one week — or seven years — before His kingdom would be set up. But the Jews rejected their Messiah; so the fulfilment of the prophecy is put off... During this time there is a great blank in the history of God's ancient people. God gives no account of how long it lasts... So there is a huge and important gap between verses 26 and 27, and the prophecy gives no details about it.
The verse separates the destroyers from the ruler they belong to. Many take that ruler to be Titus, the Roman commander. Grant gives reasons against it.
All agree that this is the destruction of the city by the Romans. Most therefore assume that Titus is the "prince who is to come," but there are many reasons against this. For why should the people be mentioned at all? Is it not plain that both the people and the prince are stressed here? Yet the people alone do this — and they are the people of the prince who is to come.
Hole ties this coming prince to a ruler Daniel saw earlier in the book. That ruler has still not appeared.
The more immediate result was to be the destruction of the city and the sanctuary by "the people of the prince who is to come." Now this prince is the "little horn" we read of in Daniel 7. He is the head of the Roman Empire in its revived and last stage, and we identified him with the first "beast" of Revelation 13. This Roman despot is still to come, but the Roman people were the dominant power in the time of our Lord, and they did destroy Jerusalem very thoroughly.
The verse does not stop with the city's fall. It runs on "to the end."
That destruction was only the beginning of God's disciplinary judgments upon them. So the prophecy moves on to "its end," which is to be "with a flood," or "an overflow." We judge this to mean that the sorrows and persecutions that have followed the Jews through all these centuries will rise to flood height just before the end.
- Cut off. Sixty-nine of the seventy weeks ran out, and then the nation rejected and killed its Messiah. The whole prophecy turns here.
- Nothing. The phrase points to His loss, not to His atonement. He lost kingdom, land and people, because His first coming brought salvation and not judgment.
- Broken. His death cut off God's open dealings with the nation, and the promised blessing had to wait.
- Blank. A gap of unknown length lies between verse 26 and verse 27. The prophecy says nothing about it.
- Unfinished. The Roman people destroyed city and sanctuary. Their prince is still to come, and desolations run on to the end.
And he shall confirm a covenant with the many [for] one week; and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and because of the protection of abominations [there shall be] a desolator, even until that the consumption and what is determined shall be poured out upon the desolate.
Daniel's last "week" of seven years fits into one verse. It holds a covenant, a betrayal halfway through, an idol, and judgment that runs to the end. Everything turns on one question — who is the "he" who makes this covenant?
Older English translations said "the covenant," and many readers took that to mean Christ. The length of the agreement rules that out.
Now I ask those who argue that Christ was meant, what sense does that give here? One week can mean nothing but a period of seven years. Was the new covenant ever made for seven years? ... For Christ's is an everlasting covenant — this is only made for seven years. When and how did Christ make a covenant for seven years?
The "he" points back to the prince of verse 26, whose people destroyed the city and the temple. The mention of sacrifice also shows what must be standing again when he acts.
So the claim is this. The future head of the revived Roman empire will make a covenant with "the many," that is, with most of the Jews, who by that time will be back in their own land. The mention of the sacrifice and the offering puts it beyond doubt that Jerusalem is in view, and that the temple has been rebuilt.
Sixty-nine weeks ran to the cutting off of the Messiah. The events of verse 26 — His death, then the ruin of the city — sit between the sixty-ninth week and this one.
These seventy weeks relate to Daniel's people and to Jerusalem. The church period, then, in which we now are, is no part of those weeks. As a matter of fact it is a gap between Daniel 9:26 and Daniel 9:27... So the whole present period is a gap. It runs from the cutting off of the Messiah to the appearance of the Roman prince who confirms a covenant with the many, and it forms no part of the seventy weeks.
The covenant is not with the whole nation. The wording itself draws a line through the people.
He makes this agreement, not with all the Jews, but with "the many," that is, with most of the people, in contrast with the few, the "little flock."
Commentators point to the motive behind the deal. The nation refused God's foundation, so it looks for shelter under the strongest power it can find.
They have refused the foundation God laid in Zion. So they will seek shelter under the wing of the one to whom Satan will then have given his seat, his authority, and his great power. (See Rev. 13:2.) But their covenant with death will be "annulled, and their agreement with hell will not stand." Daniel 9:27 refers to this.
Halfway through the seven years, the protector turns on the people he promised to protect.
The Jews will lean on this man for protection from other enemies. Then he himself becomes their great enemy. He breaks his own covenant. In the middle of the week, at the end of three and a half years, "he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease."
The next clause is hard, and translations differ. Several read "the wing of abominations" as the sheltering of idols, which then brings down a destroyer.
Matthew 24:15 calls this image "the abomination of desolation." It will "stand in the holy place," the Jewish temple, as a bold challenge to the authority of God. Daniel 9:27 calls this image "the wing of abominations." That phrase points to the sheltering of idols. Because of this God sends "a desolator," the King of the North, against Israel.
The verse closes with judgment poured out to the end. But the end of the seventieth week is not the end of the story.
That week still waits to be fulfilled in due time... the last week belongs to the Roman opponent of Christ. He is the future political head of the Roman empire, and he makes a covenant with the mass of Daniel's people, in Daniel's holy city. But that seventieth week ends with the Messiah coming in power and glory. Some will help and some will hinder, and Jerusalem will be full of wickedness. God will still keep every promise.
- Covenant — The deal lasts seven years, so it cannot be Christ's everlasting covenant. The maker is the coming prince of verse 26.
- Gap — The count stopped when the Messiah was cut off. The present period falls between verses 26 and 27, and no week covers it.
- Crowd — The deal is struck with "the many," the mass of the nation; a faithful minority stands outside it.
- Collapse — Halfway through, the protector breaks his word and stops the sacrifices. An idol then stands in the holy place.
- Consummation — Judgment runs to the end. Then the week closes with the Messiah coming in glory, and every promise kept.