Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
| PentecostalTheology.com
In Daniel 9:25-27, which the angel (“man”) Gabriel states
25 “Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One (or an anointed one), the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. 26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One (or an anointed one) will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’, he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple, he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him,”
there are two separate instances of the word “ruler”; one refers to the Anointed One, the ruler, and the other refers to the ruler who starts the last ‘seven’ and ends the daily sacrifice. My question here is whether or not we can truly say that the instances of these “rulers” are separate since they are both nagids in the Hebrew version of Daniel. After all, Saul was an anointed ruler, but still fell from glory; so why couldn’t this anointed one be twisted by Satan into something malevolent?
I understand that some might object to this as the anointed one, the ruler, and the anointed one who is cut off are perceived as one and the same (that is, Jesus Christ). However, if the vision and the recorder of the vision, really intended on making this clear, wouldn’t they have repeated that the anointed one, the nagid (or prince) would be cut off and have nothing? Although it might seem trivial to many, this difference would be crucial in the passage’s interpretation.
