All:
Earlier I mentioned Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum, a messianic believer. He is the author of "Israelogy"; A Systematic Theology of Israel." A book that Five Doves reader would enjoy is Dr. Fruchtenbaum's other book "Footsteps of the Messiah'. Dr. Fruchtenbaum has also pointed out the fact that Bible translators have abused the Biblical text in their work for hundreds of years.
Dr. Fruchtenbaum, as all, Biblical language-trained scholars, points out in Daniel 9:27, "The pronoun "he" goes back to its nearest antecedent: the prince that shall come, in verse 26. The "he" who makes a covenant in verse 27 and the prince that shall come (are one in the same person), better known in Evangelical circles as the 'Antichrist', will make a firm covenant. He will make it firm; he will make it strong. The Hebrew word does not mean to renew an existing covenant, but to make an original one containing strong guarantees. Exactly what it will guarantee will be made clear in the next passage."
Here is the section Dr. Fruchtenbaum is referencing: "Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice, and grain offerings; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who make desolate."
Dr. Fruchtenbaum shows by pointing out by following the rules of grammar, the nearest antecedent from "he" is the "prince who is to come". By definition, antecedent is "a word, phrase, or clause, usually a substantive, that is replaced by a pronoun or other substitute later, or occasionally earlier, in the same or in another, usually a subsequent sentence."
As an example, Pastor Bob lost his wallet and he can't find it; Pastor Bob is the antecedent of he and wallet is the antecedent of it.
In the articles Steven "Mark" Wohlberg posts on his site, Wohlberg states, "grammatically, it makes sense that all references to the same person throughout the text, that is to Jesus Christ Himself." Really? Does it? Obviously Wohlberg and Dr. Fruchtenbaum cannot both be correct! There are at lease two individuals in the passage though. In verse 27, there are three uses of the pronoun, 'he'. In verse 25, the angel Gabriel uses the title "Messiah, the Prince" (capital 'P'). In verse 26, Gabriel says "Messiah will be cut off." Also, in verse 26, we are introduced to a "people" and also a "prince" of those people (small 'p'). It is immediately following this - in verse 27 - that Gabriel cites three uses of the pronoun, 'he'.
As stated, Wohlberg is certain that this prince was actually Titus, yet he [Wohlberg] insists that "he" that refers back to this prince, is Jesus Christ. It cannot be! If the "he" being used (he will make a firm covenant), points to Jesus, then it would have been proper and correct for Gabriel to say "Messiah the Prince" or "Messiah" again, because there has been an introduction of another character in between the use of the first Messiah the Prince. It should be obvious that the use of the pronoun "he" references not Messiah the Prince, as Wohlberg claims, but points to the "prince who is to come," whose people destroy Jerusalem. Note that the verse is really emphasizing the fact that it is the people, not the prince, who destroys Jerusalem. The prince is only part of the larger picture here because he is likely of the same ethnicity, but will arrive on the scene later.
This prince (small "p"), cannot be referring to Titus in the first instance of use, and then the "he" immediately after refers to Jesus. This is why Wohlberg says that all three uses of "he" in verse 27 refers to Jesus; however, rules of grammar make this impossible.
Suffice it to say, rules of grammar are the same in Greek and Hebrew as they are in English. Did you have to outline sentences in the 7th and 8th grades. I did in elementary school, and believe it or not, in my M.Div. program. I had to outline the Gospel of Mark in my course on the Gospel of Mark. I had to do it as well in my course on the Gospel of Matthew. In college you are expected to have a working mastery of the workings of proper grammar and sentence construction. Regularly, my papers would be corrected and points deducted for improper use of grammar.
Pronouns have a job to do. The pronouns then, must of necessity point back to this "prince who is to come." That is how grammar works, in spite of Wohlberg's claim that "grammatically, it makes sense that all references to "he" in Daniel 9:27 refer to the same person throughout the text, that is, Jesus Christ Himself." NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT, grammatically, it does not make sense at all and Wohlberg should know better than to make such a statement. He [Wohlberg] is either illiterate, or he [Wohlberg] is lying!
If the pronoun "he" in all three cases refers to Jesus Christ, the entire text makes no sense whatsoever, in spite of Wohlberg's attempts to make the text fit his scenario. In fact, why did Gabriel even bother to include the phrase "of the prince who is to come" after "the people" if he was not intending to reference that particular character afterwards?
If I am wrong, you can easily verify the grammar simply by asking any elementary school English grammar teacher. The three uses of the pronoun "he" in verse 27 cannot be referring to Jesus Christ at all. Beyond the nearest antecedent, it would have to be the "prince who is to come."
It goes without further comments, that all who believe like Wohlberg are wrong, confused about the text, and are impaired in their understanding of the Prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27; as well as other interpretations of the Bible.
Wohlberg says that the prince is Titus, which would mean that everything in verse 27 refers to Titus, and yet Wohlberg insists that the use of "he" refers to Jesus. This makes no sense at all.
The starting point of the Tribulation is YET FUTURE. It will begin with the signing of the covenant mentioned in the last portion of Daniel 9:24-27. The text states that this covenant is made with many, not with all, but with many. The Hebrew text uses a definite article meaning the many. This is the leadership of Israel that will be empowered to sign covenants of this nature. The covenant is made for one seven. On one hand, it is also signed for the specific purpose of being in effect for seven years.
The text in Daniel tells us that in the middle of the week, the sacrificial system will be halted by this individual (the "he" in Daniel 9:27). This individual does this by breaking the covenant, and this breaking of the covenant is what causes the cessation of the sacrifices. Some "abomination" occurs and stops the sacrificial system. The rest of the verse 27 refers to some type of abomination that spreads throughout the Temple area.
Since the sacrificial system is obviously in operation here, the Tempe, of necessity, must be up and running. Wohlberg chooses to believe and deceive us that this is the Temple of Jesus' day. However, the text could be referencing to a Temple that is yet to be built. Is that not precisely what Israel is attempting to do now, in 2014, and has been for some length of time? Israel has a full-scale Temple just outside of Jericho. They use this temple mockup to train priests for all aspects of their priestly duties. At the same time, all the furnishings and accompaniments have been built as well, as have the robes and clothing, and even the altar, which was made portable enough to relocate. A gold menorah, valued at over $1-million dollars sits in the lobby of the Temple Mount Institute. You can see this for yourself by visiting the Temple Institute web site on the internet.
Everyone has to decide for him or her self which to believe, and furthermore, which makes sense. Remember, God is not a God of confusion and the SDA cult are all about confusion and deception. Wohlberg misuses history to support his aberrant theology. His book 'End Time Delusion' parrots the teachings of Ellen G. White, including "Replacement" theology. When you think about it, the title of his book, is truly appropriate, because Wohlberg is deluded, so much I could write for months on end about the lies, confusion, deception, and outright defrauding interpretation of the Bible. Stephen "Mark" Wohlberg is, as I have said, like trying to handle mercury. It doesn't get any more slippery. In "Standing in the Gap - 6" I will deal with his statement that covenant always refers to the Messiah.
God bless
Pastor Bob