Page 283 - Daniel

That pronoun must, in our opinion, be taken as referring to Christ,
because (a) the prophecy is all about Christ, and this is the climax of it;
(b) Titus did not make any covenant with the Jews; (c) there is not a
word in Scripture about any future ‘prince’ making a covenant with
them.” 73

But Mauro begs the question, for this is the only passage on the
seventy sevens of Israel. The question being debated is whether or not

verse 27 deals with Christ; and to state dogmatically that “the prophecy
is all about Christ” is precisely the matter in question. Nor is it
unthinkable that a future ruler would make a covenant with Israel.
A third view has been suggested by Keil, who worded the sentence to

read, “he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week,” and
74
cites support in Theodotion, Havernick, Hengstenberg, Auberlen, C. von
Lengerke, and Hitzig. Keil states, “But this poetic mode of expression is
only admissible where the subject treated of in the statement of the
speaker comes after the action…. The confirming of the covenant is not

the work of time, but the deed of a definite person.” 75
Again, the difficulty with all these interpretations is that there is no
seven-year period marked off in any clear way in history that has
fulfilled the last unit of seven of Daniel’s prophecy. Those who identify

“he” as Christ differ as to whether Christ actually confirmed the new
76
covenant of Jeremiah 31:31–37 as Mauro explains it, or as Young
interprets it, reconfirmed a covenant already in existence: “He shall
cause to prevail a covenant for the many.” 77

Ultimately, the question facing every expositor is what interpretation
gives the most natural and intelligent exposition of the text. If it is not
necessary to consider this literal prophecy, and the time units are not
literal, a variety of interpretations immediately become possible. If the
expositor desires to follow the text meticulously, however, there is really

no alternative but to declare the entire seventieth seven as yet future, for
there has been no seven-year period fulfilling the events of the prophecy,
however labored the interpretation. This is usually conceded by those
who make the last seven years an indefinite period that allows for still
future interpretation.

It may be concluded that Antiochus Epiphanes does not satisfy the