The 70 Weeks of Daniel 9 - Vindicating the Historical-Messianic Computation
Part 1:
The following information is quiet in-depth, and will take some thorough review in order to effectively wrap your brain around. For decades now, Christians have been left in a state of confusion concerning the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24-27 due to the fact that scholars constantly throw mathematical formulas at them. The average layperson will simply accept what their scholar tells them, simply for the fact that they are incapable of understanding all the intricate mathematical complexities, and therefore, just end up exercising some faith in their professor that they obviously "must know what they are talking about". Over the years, I have been able to delve into these mathematical complexities and my purpose here is to show how the Lunar-Reckoning of the 70 weeks has been a device of the enemy to confuse souls, and steer them away from the simple formulas that God has ordained.
I will now commence with what I believe to be the Biblical and correct reckoning of the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24-27:
(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/166107_495843403873_7108878_n.jpg)
(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/166377_495824888873_6983774_n.jpg)
As seen in the illustrations above, those of us who subscribe to the "Historical-Messianic Computation" of the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24-27 believe they begin in 457 B.C. and end in 34 A.D. The "1 week" is from 27 A.D. at the baptism of Christ to 34 A.D. at the stoning of Stephen and the commencing of the proclamation of the gospel to the gentiles. Christ was crucified in 31 A.D., in the "midst" of the week. We believe this is one of multiple reasons why the 70th week cannot be "detached" and thrown into the future.
As Historicists, we reject the Dispensational/Futurist "lunar-calendar reckoning" of 360 days to a year for the 70 weeks. We compute this timing using regular Solar years, or 365 days. After exhaustively weighing all the research and evidence, we do not believe Dispensationalists have any sound basis for using Lunar years. Our rejection of the Lunar reckoning for the 70 weeks is not only based on historical research of the Lunar year usage, but also on sound mathematical principles using astronomical calendar calculators. Later in this dissertation, I will show why both Anderson's and Hoehner's Lunar calculations are seriously flawed, and that Solar reckoning is the only possible way to "make the numbers work out". The 70 weeks are in alignment with the sabbatical cycles, which in-turn is based on Solar years, not Lunar. To summarize, we believe that the historical and biblical evidence demands the first 69 weeks (483 years) to have commenced at the decree of Artaxerxes' 7th year in 457 B.C. for Ezra to build and restore Jerusalem (Ezra 7, as well as ancient accounts testify to this), not Artaxerxes' 20th year in 444 or 445 B.C. Counting 483 regular Solar years from this date brings us to 27 A.D.
What happened in 27 A.D.? The Messiah, Jesus Christ, was Baptized and anointed by the Holy Spirit (See Luke 3:21,22; 4:18, 21 [cf. Isa 61:1, 2]; Acts 10:37,38), and was “revealed” as the “Messiah” [meaning, “anointed one”] (See Jn 1:35-41; Matt 16:16; Mark 8:29; Jn 11:27). In the Greek, Cristos [translated, “Christ”] means “Messiah”, or “anointed one” (See John 1:41). We know that Christ's baptism was in 27 A.D. simply for the fact that Luke 3:1 informs us that His baptism was in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius, and the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius was 27 A.D. when taking into account that Luke was 1) using Jewish non-accession-year reckoning, and 2) taking the year into factor when Augustus took Tiberius into partnership as co-emperor, and not beginning with his “sole rule” [Scholars, such as Eugen Ruckstuhl, in Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus, p. 6, date the 15th year of Tiberius as October 1, A.D. 27 to September 30, A.D. 28.]. (Critics have tried stating that the 15th year of Tiberius was actually 28 A.D, not 27 A.D. These mathematical problems are resolved in this website here: http://www.daniels70weeks.com/).
That leaves 1 week left. Adding 7 years to 27 A.D. brings us to the year 34 A.D. Christ's ministry lasted for 3 1/2 years, and is reasoned by accounting the number of Passovers that transpired during Christ’s ministry in the gospel accounts [See the following link for an image with the list of scriptures used to add up the number of Passovers: http://bit.ly/19CRlYY]. According to Daniel 9:27, "he" (meaning Christ, NOT Antichrist) would bring an end to the spiritual significance of the sacrificial system by His death on the cross. Christ was "cut off" and crucified in the "midst" of the week in the year 31 A.D. For 3 1/2 more years the disciples continued to preach to the Jews. At the end of the 70 weeks (or 490 years), we finally arrive at the year 34 A.D. when the last prophet was sent to Israel, Stephen. In 34 A.D. is when Stephen was stoned by the Sanhedrin, the leaders of the Jewish nation. This was national Israel's final sin. This was the year that Saul was converted and became Paul. This was the year that Peter received the vision of the net to go preach to the gentiles. This year was also practically about the time Phillip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch. This was the year that the Gospel went out to the Gentiles. This was the year when probation closed for the Jews as a nation (not as individuals). This was the END of the 70th week!! So the 70 weeks prophecy meets an EXACT fulfillment between 457 B.C. and 34 A.D.
The 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24-27 must commence at Artaxerxes first decree in 457 B.C. during his 7th year, not his 20th year in 444 or 445 B.C. Contrary to criticism, the decree of 457 B.C. truly does meet the qualifications of the command/decree of Daniel 9:25 to "build and restore Jerusalem".
We must keep things very simple, however, to start with. Start with 457 B.C. Was it 458? Not after they discovered that the Jews of Elephantine used accession-year-reckoning for Artaxerxes, and the Jews of that time used a fall-to-fal calendar (Horn and Wood, The Chronology of Ezra 7, pp. 75-90; Neh. 1:1; 2:1). If a king ascended the throne during a year, it wasn't until the NEXT year that it was recognized as "year 1". Once this was discovered, the 457 B.C. date became vindicated. Now, let's forget 457 B.C., and say that we can't count from Artaxerxes' 7th year (457 B.C.), rather, his 20th year in 444 B.C. (some say 445) The argument is that it has to start in Artaxerxes's 20th year according to Nehemiah 1 and 2, because, according to the theory, the decree in Ezra 7 does not actually meet the requirements of Daniel 9:25 to "restore AND to build Jerusalem...and the wall". The argument is that there was no command given in the decree to Ezra to "build the wall". Well, that is easily solved once we go to Ezra 9:9 --
"For we were bondmen; yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage, but hath extended mercy unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia, to give us a reviving, to set up the house of our God, and to repair the desolations thereof, and to GIVE US A WALL IN JUDAH AND JERUSALEM." (Ezra 9:9).
There is no doubt that this decree (mentioned in Ezra 7) was quite lengthy, and it most certainly included the command to rebuild the wall. Ezra was obviously not documenting all the elements of this lengthy decree in chapter 7.
Professor Gerhard F. Hasel succinctly states:
"It is argued that the decree of Artaxerxes I to Ezra does not refer to a rebuilding and restoration of Jerusalem. It may, however, be inferred that the Jews understood such to be the king's intention. The biblical evidence is that the wall and other aspects of the city were largely constructed by Ezra (Ezra 4:7-23; 9:9). The fact that Nehemiah's building program was accomplished in only 52 days (Neh 6:15) is mute evidence that the bulk of the rebuilding already had been done before Nehemiah's arrival." (Gerhard F. Hasel, 70 Weeks, Leviticus, Nature of Prophecy, p. 28)
If we start in 444/445 B.C., we're forced to use the Lunar Calendar (360-day lunar years), and assuming the 70th week is still future, that brings the 69th week to 32/33 A.D. As I will soon demonstrate from Bob Pickle's documentation, this would put Nisan 14 on a Saturday or a Sunday. This does not line up with Passover. Major problem! If we leave the 70th week attached, that puts the crucifixion about 35 or 36 A.D. This TOTALLY goes against the account of Luke 3, where it says Christ was baptized in the 15th year of Tiberius, and archaeological records put the 15th year of Tiberius in 27 A.D.! Counting a total of 4 Passovers in the Gospel accounts, that puts Christ's death on Nisan 14, 31 A.D., which was on Friday.
"Some also argue that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (mentioned in the prophecy) requires a termination in A.D. 70 rather than A.D. 34. However, that may be countered with the fact that it is the death of the Messiah (predicted within the prophecy) that sealed the fate of the ceremonial system as well as of the national state. The events of A.D. 70 are simply the subsequent external consequences of the advent and death of the Messiah, the chief foci of the prophecy.
While objects can be made to all four of the major interpretations of Daniel 9:24-27, the historical-messianic interpretation does not appear to be subject to the chronological, exegetical, and historical difficulties encountered by other systems. It thus recommends itself as the most adequate of the major interpretations." (Gerhard F. Hasel, 70 Weeks, Leviticus, Nature of Prophecy, p. 28, 29)
Here is a powerful document I recommend that really breaks down the Biblical issues concerning Daniel's 70 Weeks:
The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9 (http://www.hearingthetruth.org/chapter2.pdf) ~ by D.S. Farris
(Continue to Part 2)
The 70 Weeks of Daniel 9 are a Part of the 2300 Days of Daniel 8
(https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1.0-9/167792_495824378873_6141296_n.jpg)
This is yet another reason why one cannot detach the 70th week from Daniel 9:24. We believe that the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24-27 are intrinsically tied to the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14. We believe that to reject the multiple textual and contextual links between the time periods mentioned in Daniel 8 and 9 would be to reveal a plain denial of the facts. The explanation of the 70 weeks by the angel Gabriel in Daniel 9 is an "extension" of the explanation of the time element of the vision given in Daniel 8 (since Daniel fainted and became ill, leaving Gabriel unable to finish the explanation of the time element of the vision). The 70 weeks were "cut off", or "portioned out" or "marked out" of the 2300 years for the Jewish people (Another reason we cannot "detach" the 70th week and throw it into the future). 70 weeks was their probationary time to accomplish all that which is mentioned in Daniel 9:25. Because they failed to do this, the "kingdom" was taken from them and "given" to another nation (the gentiles). Matthew 21:43, 1 Peter 2:9.
It is important to realize that both the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 and the 2300 days of Daniel 8 are based on the "day-year-principle".
The "simple" Biblical appeal to this "day-for-year" principle is found in Ezekiel 4:6 and Numbers 14:34, and then not to mention that Daniel employs it in Daniel 9:24-27. Historicists believe that consistency demands that if we apply the 70 weeks to 490 years, and 1 week = 7 days, then we must be consistent with the 1260 days as well. The phrase "weeks of years" is an understood concept, although the phrase "weeks of years" does not exist in Daniel 9:24. It is just "shabuam", meaning "weeks". In order to get around this, Futurists say this word means "sevens", not "weeks" to get "off the hook" of having to employ the day-for-year principle to the 70 weeks (because if they did acknowledge that the day-for-year principle is applicable to the 70 weeks, in order to be consistent, they would have to employ it also with the 1260 days/42 months/time, times, half a time of Daniel 7 and Revelation 11, 12 and 13!). But scholars have refuted this, and have proven that "shabuam" can only mean "weeks", not "sevens". Now of course, there is no doubt that the word "week" itself does mean 7, but it is a word being employed to mean "7 days". But if they really want to squeeze blood out of this turnip, we could get just as technical and say that we prefer to use "months of years" in Revelation 13. Or even go so far as to say that "month" = 30. (30 x 42 = 1260).
We believe that in prophetic language, especially where symbolism is employed, the day-for-year principle must be sacredly recognized and guarded. This is ABSOLUTELY essential if we are gong to come to correct interpretations of eschatology and avoid theological shipwreck. We base this principle on Ezekiel 4:6, Numbers 14:34, and at least 80 other Biblical day-for-year parallels found in the sacred writings. To name a few prophetic time periods, we dogmatically recognize the 42 months of Revelation 13 as "months of years", the 2300 evening-mornings of Daniel 8 as "days of years", the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 as "weeks of years", the 10 days of persecution on Smyrna in Revelation 10 as "days of years", and the 3 ½ days of Revelation 11 as "days of years". We believe the prophetic events that transpired meet these specified time periods with exact precision, and are not "spiritualized" away. We wholeheartedly submit that Dispensationalism's refusal to adopt the day-for-year principle in their eschatological reckoning lies at the heart in spelling out their faulty conclusions of end-time Bible prophecy.
Great sources concerning the "Day-Year" Principle of the 70 Weeks:
1. Twenty Reasons to Apply the Year/Day Principle (http://secretsunsealed.org/downloads/yeardayprinciple.pdf) (PDF) ~ by Pastor Stephen Bohr (I encourage you to read the full thing, but pay particular attention to Reason #6 on page 4), and another one: "Seventy Sevens" or "Seventy Weeks" (http://www.historicism.org/Documents/Heb_Sbcym.pdf) (PDF)?
2. The Day-Year Principle on Daniel 9:24-27 (http://www.historicism.org/Documents/Jrnl/Dan0924-27_DayYear.pdf) (PDF) ~ by Frank W. Hardy, Ph.D (Very exegetical, and very in-depth--to this day has not been refuted)
3. Eighty Year-Day Parallels (http://www.historicism.org/Documents/YearDay80.pdf) (PDF) ~ by Frank. W. Hardy, Ph.D. (And for more articles covering the "Year-Day Principle", click here (http://www.historicism.org/TopicsYearDay.html) and here (http://www.historicism.org/BooksDaniel09.html).)
2300 evening-mornings = 2300 days = 2300 years (Daniel 8:14)
It is important keep in mind that the 70 Jewish scribes who translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek, making the Septuagint, unanimously qualified the "evening-mornings" by using the Greek word "days". The term "evening-mornings" was used by Daniel because he was using artistic "sanctuary language" concerning the lamps that burned "always", or "daily" in the sanctuary (See for example: Exodus 27:20, 21; Leviticus 24:2,3). The Hebrew word for "evening" is EREB, and for "morning", BOQER. In other words "ereb-boqer". Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31, all testify that an "evening" (ereb) and a "morning" (boqer) = a day. Dispensationalists have tried to cut this argument down by saying that "evening-morning" represents "evening and morning sacrifices or burnt offerings", and therefore, since there was a sacrifice or burnt offering in the evening and in the morning, that means we must cut the 2300 in half to 1150 days. Then they try to fit 1150 days into Antiochus IV Epiphanies' desecration of the Jewish temple. The problem is, according to Maccabees, Antiochus desecrated the temple for exactly 3 years to the day, or 1095 days. Therefore, Antiochus (along with a HOST of other reasons) does not fulfill this prophecy. It's 55 days off. And finally, ALL temple sacrifices and burnt offerings were NEVER offered from "evening and morning", but rather "MORNING AND EVENING" (see 1 Chron 16:40; 2 Chron 2:4; 13:11; 31:3; 2 Kings 16:15; and Ezra 3:3) In that order! The fact that Daniel used "evenings and mornings" in Daniel 8:14 is significant, and lends credence to the fact that Daniel meant full days, as a day is from evening to morning, not morning to evening according to Genesis 1. And since 2300 literal days = 6.4 years, and Antiochus only desecrated the temple for 3 years, we have no choice but to apply the 2300 evening-mornings to years, and since the "70 weeks" of Daniel 9:24 are "cut off" from the 2300 years of 8:14, that means the 2300 years end in 1844 if we begin in 457 B.C. (which I believe is the only possible date as we shall soon see) I've done the math hundreds of times, and it is VERY precise! Not to mention that in Daniel 8, the context demands that the 2300 year period stretch to the "time of the end" [8:17,19].
For a more detailed study on the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 and how it is intrinsically tied to the 2300 days of Daniel 9, see Pastor Stephen Bohr's Notes on Daniel 9 (http://secretsunsealed.org/downloads/notesondanielnine.pdf).
Breaking Down Daniel 9:24-27
Let us begin by quoting the full context of the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:
"(24) Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. (25) Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. (26) And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the Prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. (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." (Daniel 9:24-27)
Without delving into any of the mathematical time elements of this prophecy, I am going to break down the verses in relation to the Messiah the Prince. Dispensationalists take the "he" in the last verse (27) and apply it to a future Antichrist who will put a stop to the Temple sacrifices in the midst of the 70th week, or just say in the middle of a "future 7 year tribulation". In essence, they decapitate the 1 week off the first 69 and throw it WAY into the future inserting an infamous "gap" of about 2000 years between the 69th and 70th week! Allow me to elaborate upon the many reasons why I believe this approach is impossible. I believe that without any predispositions whatsoever, a plain sense of the reading of verse 27 clearly leads one to believe "1 week" follows the 69th week in sequential order, and that the "he" in verse 27 is Jesus Christ, the Messiah, not Antichrist.
Futurist authors such as Mathison and Dr. Fruchtenbaum argue that the antecedent to "he" in verse 27 is the “prince†in verse 26. And since it is assumed that the "prince" in verse 26 is an antichrist or evil ruler that desolates, the conclusion is that the "he" in verse 27 cannot be referring to Jesus Christ. I beg to differ. I tend to lean toward a strong possibility that the "prince" of verse 26 is also speaking of Jesus Christ. However, I argue that whether the "prince" in verse 26 is referring to an evil ruler or Jesus Christ, it makes no difference! Even if the prince in verse 26 is referring to an evil ruler or an antichrist, the chiastic structure of verses 25-27 eliminates the requirement for the "he" of verse 27 to be equated with the "prince" in verse 26. Take note to the following graph: CHIASM OF DANIEL 9:25-27 (http://biblelight.net/chiasm.gif)
The three interpretations of the "prince" in verse 26 are as follows:
- First, the "prince that shall come" can apply to Titus, who tried to protect the Temple, but his soldiers destroyed it anyway against his explicit orders. This does seem to fit the historical evidence.
- Alternatively, this can be interpreted as Jesus being the "prince that shall come". Following this logic, the unbelieving Jews through their rebellion against God and Roman rule, brought about the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem. The city and sanctuary were destroyed in 70 A.D. by the Roman general Titus, crushing the Jewish rebellion, fulfilling this prophecy. The unbelieving Jews had rejected the ultimatum contained in the 70 week prophecy, and their destruction and scattering in 70 A.D. was the result. Both interpretations appear to fit. "the people of the prince that shall come" -- it is the people of the prince who is to come who will destroy the city and the temple, not the prince himself.
- A yet future Antichrist who will yet come and rule in a coming Third Temple.
Interpretations 1 and 2 fit well with the grammatical structure and historical data, and although I am open to both interpretations, I prefer the second. As with the third interpretation, I have nothing historically to measure it with, nor do I find any good reason to cast it into the future based on the data that has been presented thus far, and forthcoming data.
Professor William H. Shea breaks it down nicely:
Who are the "people of the ruler [or "prince" - Hebrew: nagid]" who carried out this destruction? The Romans clearly destroyed Jerusalem in A.D. 70, so it has been suggested that this verse refers to the Roman people, or army, and that the "ruler" must refer either to the Roman general who led the army against Jerusalem or to the Caesar who ordered the attack. This generalization, however, fails to take into account some of the specific language used here.
The word used here for "prince" or "ruler," is nagid, the same word used in verse 25 for "the Anointed One, the ruler," also known as Messiah, the Prince. Note the following pattern of word used in this prophecy:
verse 25 - - - - Messiah - - nagid
verse 26a - - - Messiah - - - ----
verse 26b - - - ---- - - - nagid
In verse 25, the designation, "Messiah nagid," forms a word pair--”the Anointed One, the ruler"--so that the two words are linked in a technical way. Verse 26a breaks the word pair apart and uses the first word of the pair. Then verse 26b uses the second pair of the pair. This pattern suggests that all three references are to the same Messiah Prince designated by the first occurrence of this word pair in verse 25. If so, then "the people of the ruler who will come" refers to the people of the Messiah. It is they who are going to destroy Jerusalem and the sanctuary. The Messiah was a Jewish figure, and thus His people must be the Jewish people of that time. This same point is emphasized here by the use of the word "people" instead of the more correct military term "host" or "army." [Note: It should also be mentioned that the word "people" is employed 7 times in chapter 9, and every single time it is in reference to Daniel's people, the Jews. In fact, the word is used a total of 25 times in the entire book of Daniel, and never once is it used to represent armies.]
If this interpretation is correct, in what sense did the people of the Jewish Messiah Prince destroy the city and the sanctuary in A.D. 70? The Roman army was indeed the physical agent which brought about the literal destruction of Jerusalem. But why did they destroy it? They did so because Judea had rebelled against Rome. If Judea had not rebelled, the Roman army would never have come there and Jerusalem would have been spared. We are dealing here with causes and resulting events. The cause of Jerusalem's destruction was the Jewish rebellion; the event which resulted from that rebellion was the destruction of the city and its temple. In that sense, it can be said that the people of the Jewish Messiah Prince caused or brought about the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
The final phrase of verse 26 amplifies the picture of that war and its consequences. "The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed." The figurative language of the flood is a very apt description for the way the Roman army finally flowed into Jerusalem to conquer it. Isaiah described the assault of the Assyrian army in similar language: "Therefore the Lord is about to bring against them the mighty flood waters of the River--the king of Assyria with all his pomp. It will overflow all its channels, run over all its banks and sweep on into Judah, swirling, over it, passing through it and reaching up to the neck. Its outspread wings will cover the breadth of your land, O Immanuel!" (Isaiah 8:7, 8 ). In the same way, Daniel prophesies, the Roman army will overflow Jerusalem and its temple like a flood. Jerusalem"s northern wall was always the weakest of its defenses because there were valleys on the other three sides of the city. It was at this northern wall that the Roman troops finally penetrated the defenses bringing the desolation that is still well revealed today by the archaeologist"s spade. (Dr. William H. Shea, Ph.D., Daniel, pp 166,167)
I would like to take it a bit further and add that the Jews caused the desolation of their own city and temple in their rejection of their Messiah. In other words, by rejecting the Messiah that had come, they incurred the floodgates of hell that overspread their city. In other words, the people of the prince destroyed their own city. "The Jews had forged their own fetters; they had filled for themselves the cup of vengeance. In the utter destruction that befell them as a nation, and in all the woes that followed them in their dispersion, they were but reaping the harvest which their own hands had sown" (The Great Controversy, p.35). According to the prophet Hosea, we see similar terminology of self-destruction employed: "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself;" "for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity." (Hosea 13:9; 14:1). Their sufferings are often represented as a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God. It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work. By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them, and Satan was permitted to rule them according to his will." (Ibid, p.35)
I shall now proceed to break down Daniel 9:24-27 according to the second interpretation:
This New Covenant of promise is seen in Daniel 9:27: "And he [Messiah] shall confirm [Hebrew: "make strong"] the covenant** with many* for one week". The Antichrist is never known to make a covenant with ANYONE!
Proof of this lies in Matthew 26:28 "For this is my blood of the new covenant**, which is shed for many* for the remission of sins" [Unfortunately, the Futurist interpretation of this verse (beginning around 1850 based off of the Roman Jesuit Francisco Ribera's work of the 16th century) falsely interprets the "he" as the Antichrist. But even a casual look at Daniel 9:24-27 will prove that "the most Holy" (verse 24), "Messiah the Prince [nagiyd]" (verse 25), "Messiah" (verse 26a), "the prince [nagiyd]" (verse 26b) and the "he" (verse 27) are ALL referring to the same individual--Jesus Christ.
Let's evaluate the full context:
Daniel 9:24-27 --
(24) "Seventy weeks [490 years, from 457 B.C. to 34 A.D.] are determined upon thy people [the Jews] and upon thy holy city [Jerusalem], to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy [When the Messiah would come to the Jewish nation, born as a babe, and be anointed by the Holy Ghost at His baptism in 27 A.D.].
(25) "Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince [nagiyd] shall be seven weeks [7 weeks/49 years], and threescore and two weeks [62 weeks/434 years]: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
(26) And after threescore and two weeks [after 62 weeks, which is "after the 69th week" or 483 years] shall Messiah be cut off ["killed"], but not for himself: and the people [Jewish people, not "army"] of the prince [nagiyd = Messiah the Prince] that shall come [Messiah is the one that "comes", not the people] shall destroy the city and the sanctuary [Hosea 13:9 "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself"]; and the end thereof shall be with a flood [Roman Armies], and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. [Said Jesus: Matthew 23:38 - "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate"]
(27) And he [Messiah] shall confirm [make strong] the covenant [same word as "testament"] with many [Matthew 26:28 - "This is my blood of the new covenant which is shed for many"] for one week [starting 27 A.D. at Christ's "anointing" in Acts 10:37,38 at his baptism to 34 A.D. when the gospel went forth to the Gentiles, Stephen was stoned, Saul became Paul, and Peter received the vision to preach to the Gentiles] : and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease [Christ's sacrifice caused the meaning and value of animal sacrifices to cease in 31 A.D. at his death], and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate [Matthew 23:38 "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate."], even until the consummation [Israel as a nation will be spiritually desolate even until Christ's Second Coming], and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. [Christ spoke when the house was desolate, and he predicted the desolations were determined upon the "desolate" -- meaning, the Romans would desolate that which was already spiritually "desolate", which went into effect 39 years later in 70 A.D. at the destruction of Jerusalem]
Notice the following phrase from verse 26:
"the people of the prince that shall come" -- Futurists interpret this to mean that the "people will come"-- or "the armies will come up to the city". However, the grammatical structure is not referring to the "people" coming. It's really saying "the prince [messiah] that shall come", not the people! There are two ways to interpret it, but in the light of the understanding presented, it HAS to be "the Messiah that shall come", based on tons of scriptural references that speak about the coming of the Messiah. This goes marvelously with John 1:11 which says: "He came unto his own, and his own received him not." -- "the people of the prince". The "prince" in verse 26 and the "he" in verse 27 are both speaking of Jesus Christ, not Antichrist. To read antichrist into these passages forces us to stretch the texts far beyond their simplicity.
Gerhard F. Hasel once again insightfully states:
Ninth, another serious problem concerns the assumption of an unprecedented covenant-making by antichrist. [A. C. Gaebelein, The Prophet Daniel, (New York, 1911), p. 142; Walvoord, Daniel, pp. 232-236).] The OT (and the NT) "contain no hint of any such covenant at all, let alone some earlier one that he could confirm at this point in Dan. 9." [Payne, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy, p. 389.] The difficulty with this assumption is that it takes a lesser figure, namely "the prince that shall come" (vs. 26), as the antecedent of the "he" in verse 27, rather than the dominant figure, the "Messiah" (vs. 26). The word "prince" is a subordinate figure in verse 26. It is not even the subject of the clause. The subject of the clause is "the people." Therefore, the fitting grammatical antecedent of the "he" (vs. 27) is the "Messiah" (vs. 26).
Tenth, the futurists interpreters transform the "prince" into "a future deputy of the devil" [Payne, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy, p. 389.] and a "future enemy of the people of Israel." [Ibid.] This interpretation overlooks the fact that the emphasis in verse 26 is not upon the "prince" but upon the "people of the prince." Young points out, "This prince, therefore, must be one who rules over these people, . . . he must be their contemporary, alive when they are alive." [Young, pp. 211-212] A prince living 1900 years later than the people is quite contrary to the text. L. Wood replies that the phrase "the one coming" means "from whom will come." This makes the entire phrase read "the people from whom will come a prince." [Wood, p. 258.] However, such a reading is not supported by the Hebrew text.
Eleventh, recent study of the poetry of 9:24-27 indicates a very intricate literary structure. [See J. Doukhan, "The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9: An Exegetical Study," AUSS 17 (1979): 1-22; W. H. Shea, "The prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27," chap. 3, pp. 75-118 in this volume.] Such a structure binds the entire section together in literary patterns that do not permit the kind of chronological fragmentation demanded by the dispensational system. The literary arrangement supports the idea that the three titles--Messiah Prince (vs. 25), the Messiah (vs. 26a), and the Prince (vs. 26b)--refer to the same person who is cut off in the middle of the last week. [Shea, "The Prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27," pp. 92-94 in this volume.] (Gerhard F. Hasel, 70 Weeks, Leviticus, Nature of Prophecy, pp. 24, 25)