Is it possible that the following has a double fulfillment?

First, by Jesus, and then, later in the tribulation, an "anti" version?

Daniel 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Didn't Jesus confirm the covenant with Israel?

Galatians 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

Romans 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

Luke 1:72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;

  73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,

First, didn't Jesus confirm the covenant with Israel, not only keeping the law perfectly,

but fulfilling it perfectly, with his own blood sacrifice on the cross,

being the ultimate fulfillment, that all the other sacrifices only looked forward to,

after 3 1/2 years of his ministry, and thus confirmed and completed the first covenant,

causing the need for any subsequent first covenant sacrifice and oblation to cease?

Then, didn't Israel reject their Messiah and King, and facilitate his blood sacrifice on the cross,

particularly the chief priests, scribes, and Pharisees?

And wasn't it because of them, Jesus made it desolate?

Matthew 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

Matthew 23:39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Matthew 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.

Didn't he no longer call it his house, but rather say to them, "your house"?

Didn't he make it desolate, and ichabod, when he then departed from the temple?

So, weren't all the sacrifices, done in their ichabod house, abominations, up to 70 AD when the temple was destroyed?

Now, isn't his desire to make a new covenant with Israel, for which Israel will be prepared and made ready,

during the second 3 1/2 years of that 70th week of Daniel?

But, contra-wise, doesn't the antichrist appear to counterfeit the Daniel 9:27 confirmation?

Doesn't he appear to attempt to "confirm" the covenant of Israel, by allowing them their 3rd temple and sacrifices?

Won't that, coupled with his anti-Elijah, false prophet, having fire come down out of heaven, convince many,

that he is the one they were looking for, come to fulfill Daniel 9:27?

However, after he sits in the temple of God, declaring himself to be God,

and places the abomination in the temple, perhaps the image of himself,

won't a number of the children of Israel realize that this is a terrible deception,

and then have nothing to do with him or the temple, after that, at the cost of their own lives?

Then, as the chief priests, scribes, and Pharisees facilitated the ultimate fulfillment of the first covenant,

by having Jesus crucified, in a similar way, won't the antichrist and false prophet,

facilitate the preparation of Israel for the second covenant,

by unleashing upon them, the time of Jacob's trouble?

Is this a possible explanation? A double fulfillment?

Or is this all completely wrong?