He Shall Have Dominion

Several problems plague this interpretation, some of which I deal
with above in another connection: (1) The covenant here is not made, it
is confirmed. This is actually the confirmation of a covenant already
extant, i.e., the covenant of God’s redemptive grace, which Christ
confirms (Ro 15:8; cp. Ro 4:16; 2Co 1:20).
(2) As I note above the term “make a firm covenant” relates to the
angel’s name who delivers the message to Daniel: Gabriel (“God is
strong”). The lexical correspondence between the name of God’s strong
angel and the making strong of the covenant suggests the covenant’s
divine nature. In addition, covenantal passages frequently employ related
terms, when speaking of God’s strong covenant. 56
(3) The parallelism with verse 26 indicates that the Messiah’s death
directly relates to the covenant’s confirming. he is “cut off” but “not for
himself” (v 26a), for he “confirms the covenant” for the “many” of Israel
(v 27a). His “cutting off” brings the covenant’s confirmation, for “without
shedding of blood there is no remission” (Heb 9:22).
(4) The indefinite pronoun “he” does not refer back to “the prince
57
who is to come” of verse 26. That “prince” is a subordinate noun; “the
people” (plural) is the dominant noun. Thus, the “he” refers back to the
last dominant individual mentioned: “Messiah” (v 26a). The Messiah is the
leading figure in the whole prophecy, so the temple’s destruction relates
to his death. In fact, the people who destroy the temple are providentially
“his armies” (Mt 22:2–7).
The “Last Days”
An eschatological theme that is as widely misunderstood as it is
commonly discussed in popular prophetic literature is the “last days.”
This factor of eschatological chronology is an important concept that
requires our deeply appreciating the complexity of God’s sovereignly
governing history and the outworking of his redemptive purposes.
Unfortunately, too many interpreters greatly abuse the last days concept.
In a popular work Tim LaHaye comments about those of us living
among the “generation” (Mt 24:34) of World War I: “There is no question
56. Dt 7:9, 21; 10:17; Neh 1:5; 9:32; Isa 9:6; Da 9:4. See my earlier discussion
above.
57. Kline provides interesting arguments for the reference “the prince who is
to come” (v 27) being to “Messiah the Prince” (v 25). If this were conclusive, the
“he” would then refer back to the Messiah in either view.