In an above posting from a few weeks ago, Brother John quoted Brother Alan as follows:
To this quote, Brother John then asked the following question:
The following is my answer. I pray that it is not found to be too long.
The answer to your question is bound up in a series of points concerning Daniel 9:24-27, as follows:
1. The point of Specific Focus.
In Daniel 9:24 God’s Word specifically indicates that the “seventy weeks” were “determined” by the Lord God to be administered “upon” Daniel’s people, that is – upon the children of Israel. Thus the events of the “seventy weeks” themselves must have their focus and administration upon the children of Israel, not upon any grouping of Gentiles. Thus also the “seventy weeks” themselves do not concern “the times of the Gentiles” (which is referenced in Luke 21:24 and Romans 11:25). In fact, during “the times of the Gentiles” the Lord’s focus is not upon the children of Israel; but during that time the Lord has determined to cause “darkness in part” to be against the children of Israel. (See Romans 11:25) Yet according to Romans 11:26-27, after “the fulness of the Gentiles” comes in, then the Lord will again set His focus of blessing upon the children of Israel.
2. The point of Revealed Purpose.
In Daniel 9:24 God’s Word specifically reveals a six-fold purpose for the “seventy weeks” that the Lord God determined to administer “upon” Daniel’s people, the children of Israel. Thus we understand that the “seventy weeks” will conclude with the fulfillment of these six purposes. Furthermore, since the “seventy weeks” are “determined” to be specifically administered “upon” Daniel’s people, the children of Israel, thus we understand that these six purposes are to be fulfilled specifically upon and in relation to the children of Israel. Indeed, we thus understand that at the conclusion of the “seventy weeks,” (1) “the transgression” of the children of Israel shall be finished, (2) that the “sins” of the children of Israel shall be brought to “an end,” (3) that the “iniquity” of the children of Israel shall be removed, such that they are fully reconciled with the Lord God, (4) that the children of Israel shall be placed in a spiritual condition of “everlasting righteousness,” (5) that all of the prophecies concerning the children of Israel will be “sealed up” with fulfillment, and (6) that in relation to and for the sake of the children of Israel, “the most Holy,” the Lord Jesus Christ, “the Messiah the Prince,” will be acknowledged and anointed to engage in His kingship ministry upon the earth. Finally, we understand that all of this is in perfect unity with the Lord God’s promise to establish a new covenant with the children of Israel, as recorded in Jeremiah 3:17-29; 31:31-34; 32:37-40; Ezekiel 36:25-28; 37:21-23; Romans 11:26-27.
3. The point of Holy Spirit-Arranged “Betweeness.”
Concerning the timing relationship of Daniel 9:25, Daniel 9:26, and Daniel 9:27, we recognize that God the Holy Spirit specifically arranged for Daniel 9:25 to cover the entire period of the first 69 “weeks” of years (or, 483 years), and thereby to specifically reference to the conclusion of the 69th “week” of years. Furthermore, we recognize that God the Holy Spirit specifically arranged for Daniel 9:27 to begin with a specific reference unto the beginning of the 70th and final “week” of years, to proceed with a specific reference unto the middle of the 70th and final “week” of years, and to conclude with a specific reference unto the consummation (conclusion) of the 70th and final “week” of years (and thus also of the entire “seventy weeks” period). Finally, we recognize that God the Holy Spirit specifically arranged for Daniel 9:26 and all of its prophesied events to be between Daniel 9:25 and Daniel 9:27. In addition, we take notice that although human assumption would expect the 70th “week” of years to follow immediately at the end of the first 69 “weeks” of years, and although Daniel 9:26 does begin with a specific indication that its prophesied events follow after the 62 “weeks” of years that conclude the first 69 “weeks” of years, yet Daniel 9:26 does not specifically reference the 70th and final “week” of years at all. Rather, the very beginning of the 70th and final “week” of years is not specifically referenced until the beginning of Daniel 9:27.
4. The point of Contextual Flow-of-Thought.
Grammatically, in Daniel 9:26 we find four independent statements, as follows: “ 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.” Furthermore, in Daniel 9:27 we find four more independent statements, as follows: “ 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.” Now, every single one of these independent statements begins with the coordinating conjunction “and” in order to reveal the relationship of that statement with that which precedes it. For each of the independent statement of Daniel 9:26, it can be demonstrated by the flow of thought that the conjunction “and” at the beginning of each independent statement signals a sequential relationship to that which preceded it. Also for the latter three independent statements of Daniel 9:27, it can be demonstrated by the flow of thought that the conjunction “and” at the beginning of each of these independent statements signals a sequential relationship to that which preceded it. So then, what about the first independent statement of Daniel 9:27, the statement with which Daniel 9:27 begins? Since the coordinating conjunction “and” at the beginning of every other independent statement in Daniel 9:26-27 indicates a sequential relationship to that which preceded it, so in this contextual flow-of-thought we would conclude that the coordinating conjunction “and” at the beginning of Daniel 9:27 also indicates a sequential relationship to that which preceded it.
5. The point of Immediate Context.
In Daniel 9:27 we find the pronoun “he” employed three times, and all of these appears to be a reference unto the same “he.” So then, who is the contextual antecedent for this pronoun “he”? Grammatically (agreeing in both gender and number) and contextually, there are two possible antecedents for this pronoun “he.” The first of these is “the Messiah the Prince.” The second is “the prince that shall come.” Three times throughout the context of Daniel 9:24-26 the Messiah is referenced, and each time He is referenced with an exalted title, as follows: (1) “the Most Holy” in verse 24, (2) “the Messiah the Prince” in verse 25, and (3) “Messiah” in verse 26. Considering that such exalted titles are used for Him in each of these prior cases, it seems out of contextual character then to reference Him in verse 27 simply with the pronoun “he” for all three uses. Furthermore, when the pronoun “he” could have been used for the Messiah in verse 26 without any ambiguity from the context of verse 25 (since the other “he,” “the prince that shall come,” had not even been mentioned yet in the context), still the exalted title “Messiah” was employed. As such, this seems to emphasize the characteristic of this context to reference the Messiah only with exalted terminology. On the other hand, by referring to “the prince that shall come” with such a more general and less exalted phrasing, it would fit the character of the context quite well then to reference him in verse 27 with the simple pronoun “he.” Furthermore, it is a common principle of communication (although not a universal requirement) to arrange the antecedent for a pronoun as the closest possibility (agreeing in gender and number), which “the prince that shall come” would be in the contextual flow of thought from verse 26 unto verse 27. As such, the grammatical and contextual evidence seems to point unto “the prince that shall come” as the correct antecedent for the pronoun “he” in Daniel 9:27, rather than “the Messiah the Prince.”
Even so, I myself would contend that the “he” of Daniel 9:27 refers to some political leader of the Roman kingdom (within the context of its “iron and clay mixed” form as a religious force), who “shall come” unto Jerusalem and “shall confirm” some specific “covenant” with “many” from among the children of Israel. Furthermore, I would contend that this “prince” from the Roman kingdom “shall confirm” this specific “covenant” only and specifically for a period of “one week” of years (or, 7 years), even as the modifying prepositional phrase, “for one week,” directly indicates. Finally, I would contend that this confirming of this specific “covenant” will initiate the beginning of the 70th and final “week” of years.
6. The point of Broader Context.
The opening statement of Daniel 9:27 prophecies, “And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week.” The use of the definite article “the” in the phrase “the covenant” indicates that this “covenant” is some definitely specific covenant. However, no further description is given in Daniel 9:27 concerning this “covenant,” or even in the full context of Daniel 9:24-27, by which to specifically define this “covenant.” Therefore, we must consider the broader context of the entire chapter of Daniel 9 and of the entire book of Daniel. In so doing, we find one other reference to a covenant with the definite article “the” in Daniel 9 (Daniel 9:4). Furthermore, we find five other references to a covenant with the definite article “the” in Daniel 11 (Daniel 11:22, 28, 30 [twice], 32). In Daniel 9:4 Daniel indicated that the Lord God was keeping (in the present tense of Daniel’s time) “the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments.” So then, what “the covenant” was the Lord God keeping with His people at that present time? It would seem that Daniel was referring to the covenant that the Lord God had made with the children of Israel at Mount Sinai during Moses’ time. This would seem to be supported when we consider the similarity in terminology, as per Moses’ declaration unto the children of Israel in Deuteronomy 7:12-13. Furthermore, this would seem to be supported when we consider Daniel’s own reference unto “the law of Moses” in Daniel 9:11-13. Finally, it also appears that within their individual contexts every one of the five references to “the covenant” or “the holy covenant” in Daniel 11is a reference unto the covenant that the Lord God had made with the children of Israel at Mount Sinai.
So then, in what way will the “he” of Daniel 9:27 “confirm” the Lord God’s covenant with the children of Israel that He had made with them at Mount Sinai? In order to answer this question, it might be of value to consider the opposite behavior as presented in Daniel 11:30-31. Therein we learn of a foreign ruler who would “have indignation against the holy covenant,” which he would demonstrate by polluting “the sanctuary of strength” (that is – the temple in Jerusalem) and by taking away “the daily sacrifice” from being engaged. Even so, if having indignation against “the holy covenant” is to pollute the temple and to take away the sacrificial system from the temple, then it would seem reasonable to conclude that confirming “the covenant” would be to support the temple and the engagement of the sacrificial system in the temple. Even so, I myself would contend that some political leader of the Roman kingdom (within the context of its “iron and clay mixed” form as a religious force) “shall come” unto Jerusalem and “shall confirm the covenant with many” among the children of Israel for a seven year period (“one week”), such that there shall be an agreement that those “many” among the children of Israel will be permitted to engage in the sacrificial system of the temple for that period of time.
Again, I pray that this answer will be found helpful and good to the use of edifying.