Page 282 - Daniel

unimportant happened that the commentators are at a loss as to what
they should point to. That interpretation runs out into sand. No one has
yet advanced a halfway satisfactory answer as to why such a termination
of glorious work should be selected to close at the computation.” 67

Leupold comes close to the premillennial interpretation as he
identifies “the prince who is to come” (v. 26) with the one who is related
to the covenant in verse 27. He states, “The person under consideration

68
as making the covenant is … the Antichrist.” Keil, after a lengthy
discussion, presents the same view as Leupold: that is, the one making
the covenant is the Antichrist. Keil concludes, “Therefore the thought is
this: That [an] ungodly prince shall impose on the mass of the people a
strong covenant that they should follow him and give themselves to him
as their God.” 69

The determination of the antecedent of “he” in verse 27 is the key to
the interpretation of the passage. If the normal rule be followed that the
antecedent is the nearest preceding possibility, it would go back to the

“prince who is to come.” This is the normal premillennial interpretation
that postulates that the reference is to a future prince who may be
identified with the Antichrist, who will appear at the end of the
interadvent age just before the second coming of Christ. This
interpretation is also followed by amillenarians such as Keil and
Leupold, as well as by Zöckler. 70

A number of other interpretations, however, have been advanced.
Montgomery believes the reference is to Antiochus Epiphanes, in
keeping with his interpretation that the prophecy was fulfilled in the

second century B.C. He states, “The historical background of the sentence
so interpreted is clear: the clever diplomacy whereby Ant. made his
bargain with the worldly majority, at least of the aristocracy, in
Jerusalem. It may be noted that the Jewish comm., Ra. [Rashi], Aez.
[Aben Ezra], Jeph. [Jephet], do not hesitate to interpret the covenant as
of the treaty between the Jews and the Romans.” 71

A second view is that “he” refers to Christ. This is supported by
Young and Mauro, who states, “If we take the pronoun ‘He’ as relating
72
to ‘the Messiah’ mentioned in the preceding verse, then we find in the
New Testament Scriptures a perfect fulfillment of the passage, and a
fulfillment, moreover, which is set forth in the most conspicuous way.