All Doves:
Over the past month I mailed or faxed photocopies of the Daniel 9:24-27 passage from the KJV Bible to 24 elementary and high school English teachers asking for them to give their professional educated opinion on who "He" (all three of them in Daniel 9:27) is referring to. My brother-in-law is a school district superintendent, and who provided me the names and contact addresses of English teachers in his School District, which happens to be a large suburban school district. I asked them to return their critique and analysis of just who is the antecedent that all three "He's" are referring to. I also sent each of them copies of my post "The Obvious Truth of Daniel 9:27" before I had posted it on Five Doves.
I asked two former colleagues of mine that teach Hebrew and Greek, at the seminary level, to assess and review my post and provide their opinion on this issue as well.
I received to date eighteen replies, all of which confirmed my point that the "He's" of Daniel 9:27, refer to the antecedent in the previous verse, "the people of the Prince" is the antecedent of the pronoun "He". Several of the replies I received cited various literary writing style manuals and grammar handbooks. There are various rules in the use of the Colon, depending on specific situations. When I wrote my post, I noted the principle of proper grammar dealing with two independent stand alone sentences independent of each other and which made sense as such.
Even though the text of the second clause, following the Colon ( : ) contains a list of things that will take place in the future, they are totally independent of the first clause because they are introduced by another being or physical person or persons (in this case, "the people of the prince") to which will be attributed to be the one responsible for the events to happen or take place in the future. There is no link back to the Messiah by proper rules of grammar, and in this case it is irrelevant whether we are talking English, Hebrew or Greek. Through the use of the Colon ( : ) there is a pivotal split of thought, as to gender, case, voice, mood, and tense, which is interpreted by the Hebrew text of Daniel 9:26-27.
It is a Biblical fact and also a historical fact that Jesus Christ in no way destroyed the sanctuary or the city, which is specifically referred to in the second clause of Daniel 9:26.
This confusion comes as a result of inept grammar interpretation as I stated before. This particular text is nearly identical or very similar to the passage where Jesus describes that He will build His church on the rock. The passage in Matthew 16:18 is interpreted differently between Protestant theologians and Roman Catholic theologians. Catholics believe Peter was the "rock" which is also not possible by the grammar of the Greek. Protestant theologians say the "rock" is Jesus Christ Himself.
The facts as they are stated above and in my previous post remain; the "He" (all three of them in Daniel 9:27) is referring to the ANTICHRIST or the people of the prince. Proper rules of grammar dictate that the pronoun refers back to its antecedent in the previous verse 26. Because the verse is actually two different clauses, or self-standing stand alone sentences that make clear sense, established by the use of the Colon ( : ).
It proved beneficial for me to get outside evaluation by professionals in the field of English grammar for my own satisfaction of mind because I did not want to post an erroneous piece of information. My two seminary colleagues even chided me for even having second-guessing myself on such a basic point of grammar. My point was to settle this matter, about the "He's" of Daniel 9:27, once and for all. The Bible has a lot to say about arguing with fools, especially in the book of Proverbs, some nineteen passages alone. Proverbs 1:7,22,32; 3:35; 8:5; 10:21; 12:23; 13:19,20; 14:8,9,24,33; 15:2,14; 16:22; 19:29; 26:7,9.
I would suggest that the reader save my previous post along with this one because inevitably they will have to deal with someone, someday, that wants to argue we are wrong. I have defended my view by every logical and reasonable statement of the evidence. If you are not persuaded by evidence, then that is your dilemma. I stake my position on sound evidence and substance, not "Pre-Wrath-Rapture-Babble-Dilusion". Q.E.D.
God bless,
Pastor Bob