|
|
|
|
![]() |
Although almost everyone believes that "Messiah the Prince" is Jesus, and the "prince that shall come" in verse 26 is the leader of the Roman empire, the "he" who confirms the covenant for one week (7 years) and then breaks it in the middle of the week (3-1/2 years) seems to be difficult to comprehend. Numerous explanations have been offered, but narrow down to:
Once again, the choice is between literal fulfillment, or trying to force some spiritualized preconceived notion to fit. The answer is actually simple if you reason it out. Did Jesus EVER make a contract with ANYONE for SEVEN YEARS? Did he ever make a deal and renege on it? "NO." So, did any historical Roman conqueror make a SEVEN-YEAR agreement with Israel then break it 3-1/2 years later? "NO." Well, that rules out the first two choices. Who’s left? The lack of any evidence proving either Jesus or the historic Romans made a seven-year contract with Israel, plus the obvious lack of fulfillment of the six stated purposes of the 70 years, forces literal interpreters to look to yet future fulfillment. In normal grammatical structure the antecedent of the pronoun "he" should be the nearest preceding possibility--in this case "the prince that shall come." Since Titus is dead, and there is no obvious historical fulfillment, and since the six goals set forth as the purpose of these 70 weeks still remain literally unfulfilled even after 70 AD, the conclusion reached by premillennial interpreters I've read is that "the prince that shall come" typifies a future prince ("he") that will establish a future 7-year contract with Israel--then break it "in the midst of the week." Some may have difficulty accepting prophetic Scripture having both immediate and long-range applications. However, it is not unusual to have dual fulfillments. Frequently, Old Testament prophets would begin prophesying on an immediate event, then telescope to a distant future time--totally ignoring intervening time. In that sense, the immediate event or personage serves as the archetype of the ultimate event or personage. The first example I can think of is Lucifer typified by the king of Babylon in Isaiah 14:
The primary (immediate) application is to the king of Babylon. As the prophecy moves along it becomes clear that this king typifies Lucifer who is later actually named. The description applied equally to the king of Babylon in his day, and (by extension) ultimately to Lucifer. Another example would be some of the Psalms written by David about his own life experiences, but which also prophetically apply to the coming Messiah.
|
![]() | ||||||||
|
Who We Are Service Times
|
||||||||