I wanted to ask if it is possible Daniel 9 doesn’t refer to the MESSIAH but just refers to a mere king such as Herod Agrippa II.


You know what they say, “Everything is possible.”  But in this case, it is not possible that Daniel 9 refers principally to someone like Herod Agrippa.  The prophecy concerns the “annointed one.”  The Hebrew word here is Messiah.  The prophecy specifically says that it is about the Messiah.  It is hard to imagine how any prophecy could more clearly messianic that Daniel 9:24f.  If we look at the other descriptions of this Savior of Israel, he will put an end to sin and bring in everlasting righteousness.  To say this of anyone other than the Messiah would be blasphemy.  No, this is not about Herod Agrippa II, who certainly did not save Israel, which is the context of this prophecy if we look back to the first couple of verses of Daniel.

I am assuming that you found this interpretation at an anti-Christian web site.  This is a good example of an ad hoc hypothesis.  An ad hoc hypothesis is one that is created, not because of the evidence, but in order to support a presupposition.  In this case the presupposition is that there cannot be a miraculous prophecy and that Jesus certainly is not the expected Messiah of prophecy.  The web site you found probably points out that the word anointed one can, in principle, refer to any king.  This is true, but the prophecy is about THE anointed one, not an anointed one.  Besides, look at all the other descriptions of this person.  Did Agrippa “put an end to prophecy”?  Did he “bring in everlasting righteousness”?  Did he “atone for wickedness.”?  Did any king of Israel do any of these things?  Never mind that Agrippa was not even a Jew.  No, this proposal is clearly made as a smoke screen, not because the description in Daniel 9:24-25 fits anyone in the time frame of the prophetic fulfillment, which is somewhere between 483 and 490 years after the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (Ezra 7).

John Oakes

Comments are closed.