Some thoughts on Daniel 9:27

Hiftobaf

Well-Known Member
"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."

The traditional interpretation is that this represents some kind of peace treaty between the Antichrist, Israel, and some other third parties. The problem with that interpretation is that peace treaties tend not to be for some fixed period of time. The Abraham Accords aren't for some fixed period of time. Neither is the recent cease-fire between Hamas and Israel. They are all permanent until someone breaks them or renegotiates them. A hypothetical treaty to build the Third Temple won't be for seven years, because the jews want a permanent temple. Similarly, it won't be about Palestinian statehood, because Palestinians want a state permanently, not one for seven years. Daniel 9:27 is not explicitly said to be a peace treaty in any translation I've read. It's either described as a covenant with people, or a treaty or an agreement, but mentions nothing of peace.

What if the "covenant with many" is an election?

Israel is a parliamentary republic, with a president and a prime minister. The prime minister is the one with the obvious political power. The president is a largely ceremonial role, similar to Queen Elizabeth and other constitutional monarchs. The president is elected by the Knesset, and serves a seven year term.

Daniel was a high ranking government official for most of his life. He knew what peace treaties were, but didn't describe this seven year agreement as one. He also lived under absolute monarchies, and had no concept of elections. It would make sense for him to describe an election as an agreement among many people.

Could it be that the tribulation starts when the jews election the antichrist as their president? I haven't seen much thinking along these lines so I wonder what I'm missing here.
 

Andy C

Well-Known Member
"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."

The traditional interpretation is that this represents some kind of peace treaty between the Antichrist, Israel, and some other third parties. The problem with that interpretation is that peace treaties tend not to be for some fixed period of time. The Abraham Accords aren't for some fixed period of time. Neither is the recent cease-fire between Hamas and Israel. They are all permanent until someone breaks them or renegotiates them. A hypothetical treaty to build the Third Temple won't be for seven years, because the jews want a permanent temple. Similarly, it won't be about Palestinian statehood, because Palestinians want a state permanently, not one for seven years. Daniel 9:27 is not explicitly said to be a peace treaty in any translation I've read. It's either described as a covenant with people, or a treaty or an agreement, but mentions nothing of peace.

What if the "covenant with many" is an election?

Israel is a parliamentary republic, with a president and a prime minister. The prime minister is the one with the obvious political power. The president is a largely ceremonial role, similar to Queen Elizabeth and other constitutional monarchs. The president is elected by the Knesset, and serves a seven year term.

Daniel was a high ranking government official for most of his life. He knew what peace treaties were, but didn't describe this seven year agreement as one. He also lived under absolute monarchies, and had no concept of elections. It would make sense for him to describe an election as an agreement among many people.

Could it be that the tribulation starts when the jews election the antichrist as their president? I haven't seen much thinking along these lines so I wonder what I'm missing here.
Reading what you posted is the first time I have ever read anything remotely like your post.

Nothing in the bible supports the possibility of the AC being Jewish, but does support the AC as being from the Roman ancestry.

I think the traditional interpretation of Daniel 9:27 is correct, and really IMO, not debatable. The AC will affirm a treaty or treaties for a seven year period, which we already know will be broken at the mid trib point.
 
Last edited:

Tall Timbers

Imperfect but forgiven
The traditional interpretation is that this represents some kind of peace treaty between the Antichrist, Israel, and some other third parties. The problem with that interpretation is that peace treaties tend not to be for some fixed period of time. The Abraham Accords aren't for some fixed period of time. Neither is the recent cease-fire between Hamas and Israel. They are all permanent until someone breaks them or renegotiates them. A hypothetical treaty to build the Third Temple won't be for seven years, because the jews want a permanent temple. Similarly, it won't be about Palestinian statehood, because Palestinians want a state permanently, not one for seven years. Daniel 9:27 is not explicitly said to be a peace treaty in any translation I've read. It's either described as a covenant with people, or a treaty or an agreement, but mentions nothing of peace.

Very interesting thought, @Hiftobaf.

NASB: And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week
NET: He will confirm a covenant with many for one week
NIV: He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven
RSV: And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week
KJV: And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week

Looking at several translations of the first part of 9:27 into English, there appears to be a difference in how some scholars have interpreted that part of the verse. "Confirming the covenant" and "making a firm or strong covenant" seems to indicate two slightly different meanings, but might just appear that way.

A covenant is an agreement made between parties. An election of a person to a position doesn't seem to me to be covenant material, though if something was going on where the antichrist agreed (along with many) by covenant to accept the then elected President of Israel for the next 7 years... I guess that could fall under covenant.

The NASB and RSV lean more towards the antichrist making a covenant with many rather than merely confirming one, though the confirmed covenant is most likely a covenant made with many for one week.

I'm leaning towards the current thinking as being correct as @Andy C intimates, but I very much appreciate your question on the matter. It's worthy of thought.

I don't believe at all that it would be the antichrist being Israel's President for 7 years.
 

mattfivefour

Well-Known Member
The Hebrew berith means a covenant; but a covenant can mean a treaty, an ordinance, an agreement, or a simple pledge, among other similar things. It is used in many of those ways in the Old Testament. That a covenant may be for a fixed term is not unusual in our day as many types of covenants (land use, for example) have fixed terms, the absence of which will often result in a court imposing a fixed term. I wouldn't let one understanding of berith color my attempt at exegesis. Just my 2 cents, brother.

Edited to add: the verb wehigbir used to begin this verse and often translated "And he shall confirm" or "and he shall make" comes from a Hebrew word that means "strength" or "might." Some expositors interpret it to mean he makes a strong covenant, while others interpret it to mean that out of his strength he imposes a covenant. I tend to the latter.
 
Last edited:
Top