but who is he?


Part VII – The Prophetic Sequence



Doug Krieger


On the eve of 9/11 – perhaps the most visible apocalyptic event ever perpetrated upon an unsuspecting planet – humankind renews its witness of the surreal:  Behold the appalling disaster!  Our peace and security have been forever trampled upon by an obscure group of maniacal Moslem fundamentalists seeking revenge for what they perceive to be the West’s unrelenting takeover of their resources, dignity, and sacred lands.


The scale of this colossal act of unmitigated terror has traumatized a generation; defamed the mighty imagery of a land once known as the home of the “free and the brave” and set back these self-evident liberties across our fruited plain in the name of “the war on terror” for unending years to come—and we have no idea where it will end!


We are left to ponder an imponderable happening—a residue of universal exasperation—of pending doom—reflected on apprehensive faces; the only question is when and where; and to what extent will the coming carnage afflict the horrified masses of the future?


A nation conflicted – searching for government conspiracies and zealots – initially united, only to bite and devour our own because the real reasons appear shrouded in intentional bureaucratic ambiguity a la a Kennedy assassination - its inconsequential discoveries await the next century. 


And the War? . . .we exult each time a despicable terrorist foe bites the dust—is moved to the next prison awaiting final judgment or blasted to smithereens (“wanted dead or alive” will do) . . . but lingering within these incriminations—these endless antagonisms:  the televised beheadings; the IEDs—improvised explosive devices ripping apart life and limb along the roadside, in the marketplace, or in houses of worship; yes, the unsettling thought that a worse fate awaits our revenge for the moment—a fate which inexorably draws the freedom-loving into a tortured medieval landscape unfamiliar, yet exotic in riveting our historic senses.  Somehow we know this place—we’ve been here before.


Yet, how can we escape the inevitable “cup of trembling” – the sights of ancient Babylon beckon—and there is no stopping the building of the world’s largest embassy ever to rise, no less, on the banks of the Euphrates River, or for that matter, on any river on the planet . . . all the while lurking across the fertile crescent an ambitious Atomic Ayatollah is hell-bent on bringing about an Islamic vision of the end of the world!  


And what is so pitiful in all the aforementioned is the lack of any and all political will to cease and desist this insanity—for we have been told, Babylon today, Babylon on the Hudson tomorrow!  So the Kerrys and Clintons, the high profile Dems and their insipid managers of wealth (akin to the oil barons of the Republicans), feverishly cling to the prospect of power within their grasp—yet, is not the agenda of George Soros et al a better mousetrap designed to defeat these hateful criminals?  Come on . . . a read between the lines will convince even the most hopeful that the twin towers of political bias in this land have long ago left the “common good” in shambles!


Bragging rights?  There are no bragging rights, unless stopping ten international flights bound for the USA from exploding in the skies, thanks to the Brits, can be considered reassurance that for the past five years we’ve managed to keep “them” from blowing us up on the “homeland” while simultaneously surpassing the 9/11 casualty count in our overseas exploits.


In addition to this tragic comparison, one-hundred thousand civilian deaths can be contributed to this debacle by what the CIA and war architect, Paul Wolfowitz, now admit was an apparent intelligence gaff (a whole series of them, of course)—i.e., al-Qaeda and Saddam had nothing to do in collaborating this wickedness, let alone Saddam posing an immediate threat to the USA.


What all the above signals is one inexorable drive that the United States of America has in ultimately “planting” itself in the Beautiful Land—betwixt and between the “seas and the glorious holy mountain” (Daniel 11:45).  Which leads us to why this article is being written in the first place—“HE will confirm a covenant (or “treaty”) with many for one week” (Daniel 9:27a).




At issue is the identity of the “he” (once again) as recorded in Daniel 9:27.  Premillenarians (the manifestation of the earthly kingdom of Messiah is yet future) affirm that this “he” is the ultimate Antichrist who will enforce what is fast becoming an “international peace pact” in the Middle East—guaranteeing Israel’s security, while sufficing the international community (i.e., “with many”) that a “comprehensive peace” has descended upon the Middle East and the world, once and for all!


In our previous tomes we have heartily suggested that this orchestration and conclusion of the “peace process” – this ROAD MAP TO PEACE – took a detour on the ROAD TO DAMASCUS and that, specifically, the fulfillment of Isaiah 17 and Zechariah 9 will precipitate this longed-for peace by all because of the exhausting nature of the aforementioned fulfillment.


Let us first consider who this “he” is not . . . in Daniel 9:27a


The “He” in Daniel 9:27a is not the Messiah mentioned in Daniel 9:26!  Now, this may seem obvious to you . . . but this belief that Christ is the “he” of Daniel 9:27a is held by a sizeable segment of believers.  It is for this reason—that I must break this segment (Part VII) into two parts—first, the HE of post-tribulationist and survivalist James Lloyd . . . and then in Part VIII we will elaborate on the “He” of Dr. Dennis L. Cuddy, or the pre-tribulationist fixation on the Euro-Antichrist.


The sad commentary of one, James Lloyd, of the Christian Media Network, presents this view in its convolution—but do bear with me, this is a bit tedious, though mandatory, in our immediate discussion . . .


Lloyd’s initial remarks deprecates the apparent ignorance and stupidity—even heresy—of millions of Christians who read into these passages the figure of the Antichrist, a personage Lloyd is loathe to admit exists within these passages:


“Conversely, the Antichrist is never mentioned. There is no mention of a 7-year treaty, nor a 7-year tribulation. All of those understandings have been artificially attached to the prophecy. The central message in this entire prophecy is the arrival of the Messiah, and what will happen once He arrives.”


Under the title:  Who Confirmed the Covenant?  Lloyd chides the “majority view” of believers (and thank God it is such) that a horrific misinterpretation of Scripture has occurred of Daniel 9:27 wherein believers attribute the work of Christ to the Antichrist … it is so severe that Lloyd asserts:


“Literally millions upon millions of believers are now similarly deceived in that the person explicitly described in the scriptures as the MESSIAH is actually seen as the Antichrist (Daniel 9:27a). Our Savior told the Pharisees that attributing the works of God to the Devil was the unpardonable sin (Matthew 12:31). The blind religious leaders of yesteryear claimed the person doing the miracles in their presence was actually a vessel of the Devil. The truth was, that person was Jesus Christ and the Jewish leaders committed blasphemy of the Holy Spirit in their refusal to recognize Jesus was the individual prophesied of in Daniel 9:27.” (Ibid.)


Yet, brother Lloyd (if I can get personal here) the converse can be said of you and they who so blithely read the Scriptures to attribute the works of Antichrist (the confirming and ultimate breaking of the covenant) to that of Jesus Christ—you have done precisely what you accuse millions of brethren of doing.


Throughout Lloyd’s diatribe, he does NOT mention one iota about “the people of the prince who is to come” – indeed, “the prince who is to come” – whose people destroyed the temple in 70 A.D. is mysteriously absent from his entire commentary—naturally, because Antichrist is NEVER mentioned in these passages, right?


Sir Robert Anderson’s entire dissertation, THE COMING PRINCE (i.e., “the prince who is to come”) completely destroys Lloyd’s preposterous notion that Antichrist is not mentioned in these passages—the fact that Mr. Lloyd has so cavalierly ascribed the work of Antichrist to Christ, demonstrates the nonsensical condemnation that he hurls toward the Body of Messiah:


“The very fact that most ‘believers’ will simply discard this pointed exegesis testifies that it is the organized churches that have perpetrated the great fraud that Christendom finds herself entangled in. And because of their lazy refusal to study the truth of the scriptures on a personal level — instead relying upon the false doctrines of their hireling shepherds — we will shortly see the big surprise in which so many that thought they were saved will be turned away. The scriptures will not be broken, and they tell us it is ‘for which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience.’ (Colossians 3:6)”


In order to suit his infamous reckoning and attribution of the work of Antichrist to that of our Lord Jesus—Lloyd systematically destroys the chronology of the text itself.  Timing is everything here—he has purposefully commenced the chronology from the time of Cyrus, king of Persia and his decree to rebuild the temple—not the decree of Artaxerxes Longitmanus, the Persia king whose edict “for the rebuilding of the city” (“from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem” -
Daniel 9:25a); thence, these oversights place his dates totally off:  The decree under Cyrus the Great to rebuild the Temple was in 537 B.C.; the decree under Artaxerxes Longitmanus to rebuild Jerusalem was
1st of Nisan B.C. 445.


By circumventing the actual Persian royal edict to rebuild the CITY OF JERUSALEM, he has destroyed the credibility of his thesis.  Allow Lloyd’s own words to condemn him . . .


Textual evidence in the historical books of Nehemiah and Ezra suggest that it took about 49 years to rebuild the wall and the temple after the command to construct them was given by the Persian king Cyrus: ‘Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.’” (Ezra 1:2).


Lloyd has “blended” the rebuilding of the “wall and the temple” together—this is not the “biblical case” at all!


The actual edict to rebuild the fortifications of Jerusalem is at question here—NOT the decree to “build him an house at Jerusalem” (Ezra 1:2).


The precision of Sir Robert Anderson’s chronology has lasted the test of time and has been enhanced (see later) by those given to the accuracy of the Word of God:


“These seventy weeks represent seventy times seven prophetic years of 360 days, to be reckoned from the issuing of an edict for the rebuilding of the city — ‘the street and rampart,’ of Jerusalem.

“The edict in question was the decree issued by Artaxerxes Longitmanus (not the edict of King Cyrus) in the twentieth year of his reign, authorizing Nehemiah to rebuild the fortifications of Jerusalem.

“The date of Artaxerxes’ reign can be definitely ascertained — not from elaborate disquisitions by biblical commentators and prophetic writers, but by the united voice of secular historians and chronologers.

“The statement of St. Luke is explicit and unequivocal, that our Lord's public ministry began in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar. It is equally clear that it began shortly before the Passover, The date of it can thus be fixed as between August A.D. 28 and April A.D. 29. The Passover of the crucifixion therefore was in A.D. 32, when Christ was betrayed on the night of the Paschal Supper, and put to death on the day of the Paschal Feast.

“If then the foregoing conclusions be well founded, we should expect to find that the period intervening between the edict of Artaxerxes and the Passion was 483 prophetic years. And accuracy as absolute as the nature of the case permits is no more than men are here entitled to demand. There can be no loose reckoning in a Divine chronology; and if God has; deigned to mark on human calendars the fulfillment of His purposes as foretold in prophecy, the strictest: scrutiny shall fail to detect miscalculation or mistake.


Sir Anderson continues to hack away at Lloyd’s thesis—a thesis which has the “coming of Messiah the Prince” at the Nativity:


“After the initial building period of 49 years elapsed, the second period of 434 years went by with almost nothing occurring that was related to the messianic expectation. This second period is the period between the last book of the Old Testament (Malachi) and the coming of Jesus Christ — and it turns out to be 434 years!” (Lloyd)


But Sir Anderson’s chronology—which is vastly different and fully aligned with the precise reading of the Scripture—counters these faulty assumptions and chronologies of Lloyd:


“But the language of the prophecy is clear: ‘From the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks and threescore and two weeks.’ An era therefore of sixty-nine ‘weeks,’ or 483 prophetic years reckoned from the 14th March, B.C. 445, should close with some event to satisfy the words, ‘unto the Messiah the Prince.’

The date of the nativity could not possibly have been the termination of the period, for then the sixty-nine weeks must have ended thirty-three years before Messiah's death.”


Yes, using Lloyd’s prognostications we would find that the date of the birth of Christ would have ended the sixty-nine weeks—thirty-three years before Messiah’s death!


Sir Anderson’s “date” – i.e., the terminus of the 69th week—and PRIOR to the seventieth week of Daniel’s prophecy – occurs precisely on the date of the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem . . . and before “Messiah shall be cut off” (Daniel 9:26b)—NOT at the commencement of the ministry of Jesus Christ at His baptism by John the Baptist.

If the beginning of His public ministry be fixed upon, difficulties of another kind present themselves. When the Lord began to preach, the kingdom was not presented as a fact accomplished in His advent, but as a hope the realization of which, though at the very door, was still to be fulfilled. He took up the Baptist’s testimony, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ His ministry was a preparation for the kingdom, leading up to the time when in fulfillment of the prophetic Scriptures He should publicly declare Himself as the Son of David, the King of Israel, and claim the homage of the nation. It was the nation’s guilt that the cross and not the throne was the climax of His life on earth.

“No student of the Gospel narrative can fail to see that the Lord’s last visit to Jerusalem was not only in fact, but in the purpose of it, the crisis of His ministry, the goal towards which it had been directed. After the first tokens had been given that the nation would reject His Messianic claims, He had shunned all public recognition of them. But now the twofold testimony of His words and His works had been fully rendered, and His entry into the Holy
City was to proclaim His Messiahship and to receive His doom. Again and again His apostles even had been charged that they should not make Him known. But now He accepted the acclamations of ‘the whole multitude of the disciples,’ and silenced the remonstrance of the Pharisees with the indignant rebuke, ‘I tell you if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.’ (Luke 19:39, 40)

“The full significance of the words which follow in the Gospel of St. Luke is concealed by a slight interpolation in the text. As the shouts broke forth from His disciples, ‘Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is the king of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord!’ He looked off toward the Holy City and exclaimed, ‘If thou also hadst known, even on this day, the things which belong to thy peace; but now they are hid from thine eyes!’ [4] The time of Jerusalem’s visitation had come, and she knew it not. Long ere then the nation had rejected Him, but this was the predestined day when their choice must be irrevocable, — the day so distinctly signalized in Scripture as the fulfillment of Zechariah's prophecy, ‘Rejoice greatly, O daughter of
Zion! shout, O daughter of Jerusalem! behold thy King cometh unto thee!’ (Zechariah 9:9) Of all the days of the ministry of Christ on earth, no other will satisfy so well the angel’s words, ‘until Messiah the Prince.’”


Sir Anderson then proceeds—and I am sure, much to the chagrin of the Lloyds of the earth—to chronologically substantiate his masterpiece by these concluding paragraphs which unequivocally confirm the precise termination of the 69th Week of Daniel’s Prophecy—not the 70th Week which Lloyd and his lot would vainly seek to subvert the truth as precisely recorded in God’s Word.


“And the date of it can be ascertained. In accordance with the Jewish custom, the Lord went up to Jerusalem upon the 8th Nisan, ‘six days before the Passover.’ [5] But as the 14th, on which the Paschal Supper was eaten, fell that year upon a Thursday, the 8th was the preceding Friday. He must have spent the Sabbath, therefore, at Bethany; and on the evening of the 9th, after the Sabbath had ended, the Supper took place in Martha’s house. Upon the following day, the 10th Nisan, He entered Jerusalem as recorded in the Gospels. [6]

The Julian date of that 10th Nisan was Sunday the 6th April, A.D. 32. What then was the length of the period intervening between the issuing of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem and the public advent of ‘Messiah the Prince,’ — between the 14th March, B.C. 445, and the 6th April, A.D. 32? THE INTERVAL CONTAINED EXACTLY AND TO THE VERY DAY 173,880 DAYS, OR SEVEN TIMES SIXTY-NINE PROPHETIC YEARS OF 360 DAYS, the first sixty-nine weeks of Gabriel’s prophecy. [7]” (Please see footnote for further clarification on the chronologies presented by Sir Anderson).


Now, I do not wish to belabor these matters—as a math instructor, however, I find them altogether fascinating—but the persistence of Lloyd and those caught by his deception needs to be fully explored and exposed . . . Lloyd continues:


“It is at this point that the gigantic error (my emphasis to highlight the incredible arrogance of Lloyd) is made in the prophetic interpretation — and it changes the meaning of almost everything. Because the prophecy is broken up into 3 periods (49 years, 434 years, and 7 years), prophecy interpreters claim that the prophecy was ‘suspended’ after the Messiah arrived, and the last 7 year period, which they identify as the tribulation, was pushed far into the future. They then say the Antichrist will emerge and inaugurate that last 7-year period. The problem is, the text never actually says any of that, nor does it even infer a gap between the 69th and 70th week.


“The Messiah arrives after the 2nd period of 434 years (62 weeks in the text).  (i.e., Messiah is birthed at the end of 69 weeks? – My comment.)  There is no reason to believe the unfolding of the timeline stops at that point. Thus, the Messiah arrives at the beginning of the 70th week and it commenced when He arrived.  (So, Lloyd up to this point sees literal “week years” but at this juncture dispenses with the literal “week years” and says that Jesus’ birth simply starts the 70th Week?)   Remember, the focus of the prophecy is on the Messiah who must accomplish everything specified within the 70-week period.


“After the Messiah arrives, the text simply continues with the chronological description: ‘And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off….’ (Daniel 9:26) (My comment:  So after approximately thirty-three and one-half years the crucifixion of Christ takes place?) This verse is simply saying that after the second period of 434 years (the 62 weeks) has gone by, the Messiah is to be ‘cut off.’ It then continues the chronological statement from the point of the ‘cutting off’ and says that at some unspecified time after the Messiah is cut off, ‘the city and the sanctuary will be destroyed.’”


What we have here are the following convolutions—mandatory in that without them, Lloyds whole “systematized error” collapses:


(1)     “Until Messiah the Prince” is not the date of the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem but the date of Jesus’ nativity.

(2)     The phrase “after the sixty-two weeks” (which added to the original seven weeks would make a total of sixty-nine weeks – 7 + 62 = 69) means, according to Lloyd, after the birth of Christ or some thirty-three and one-half years, to the time of His crucifixion – simply put: after 69 week).




Now, at this juncture, I would pose the question to Lloyd and scores of others who hold this supercilious view:  If Messiah is “cut off” – and the people of the coming prince have destroyed the city and the sanctuary (70 A.D. under Titus of Rome) – then how is it – unless we are witnessing a FLASHBACK (which Lloyd and the others of his persuasion so claim) – does the same Messiah Who has been cut off now offer the Jews a “covenant” or “treaty” for one week and in the midst of the week terminate it?


But here’s the twisted thinking that goes on in the minds of those who don’t know their math:


“In the next verse (the transverse from Daniel 9:26 to Daniel 9:27), the prophecy provides us with the details of the cutting off of the Savior. Again, the focal point of the entire prophecy is the Messiah, so after He arrives, ‘he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week….” (Daniel 9:27)  (My comment:  But pray tell, after Messiah arrives, and after thirty-three and one-half years is cut off, then he ‘confirms a covenant with the many for one week?’  How can He do that when He’s cut off—wouldn’t it be better (as some of Lloyd’s cohorts suggest) to have the Messiah make the ‘covenant with the many’ at the commencement of His ministry (or John’s baptism of Jesus) and then after three-and-one-half years be ‘cut off’ . . . that would make more sense?)   This is precisely what would be expected as when He arrived, there would be ‘one week’ left to the 70 weeks. The obvious question should be how can the Antichrist suddenly get inserted into this prophecy and ‘confirm’ a covenant that has never been mentioned? Indeed, the Antichrist himself has never been mentioned in the entire text!


How, Mr. Lloyd?  Simply put:  Because of two glaring oversights you have made in your calculations:


(1)  “THEN” – You simply left out this imperative chronologically significant word – if you would this mathematical STEP – and, when you do that, your solution will be erroneous to the max!  In point of fact—it is from this error you have concluded your next erroneous assumption – to wit:


(2)  “The obvious question should be how can the Antichrist suddenly get inserted into this prophecy and ‘confirm’ a covenant that has never been mentioned? Indeed, the Antichrist himself has never been mentioned in the entire text!”  Lloyd refuses to acknowledge in Daniel 9:26 the presence of the PRINCE WHO IS TO COME—and he well knows (for a change) that this “prince” is directly connected to a people who in 70 A.D. destroyed Jerusalem and the sanctuary (the temple).  So Lloyd’s abject denial of the presence of Antichrist in Daniel 9:26 is disingenuous! 


What a tangled and twisted web we weave when once we threaten to deceive!  The more I’ve gotten into Lloyd’s brain on this, the more I suspicion other doctrinal errors of major import.  But first, let’s reread the pure word of Scripture (sorry for the interruptions):


“Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city . . . (Daniel 9:24a)


(Now, it is here that Lloyd inserts this “Christ-centered” comment—which any believer in Jesus would have no problem in accepting . . .


“Once again, it’s crucial that we see that Jesus the Messiah is the fulfillment of these prophecies — and the totality of what He accomplishes is in verse 24. One may simply read through the points of verse 24 and ask WHO fulfills each and every aspect of the prophecy? The answer is JESUS CHRIST.”


At which point I would suggest to Mr. Lloyd to understand that the following comments in vs. 24 are all made FOR YOUR PEOPLE AND FOR YOUR HOLY CITY—THEY ARE MADE FOR THE JEWS!  A small oversight?  I don’t think so.  A people who are the central subject of this verse—what would be accomplished on their behalf would be done by the Messiah.


Sorry for the intrusion . . . let us continue . . .


“. . . to finish transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy.” (Daniel 9:24)


I will let the erudite commentary of Dwight Pentecost disclose the past and future of these proclamations:


“The six promised blessings are related to the two works of the Messiah:  His death and His reign.  The first three have special reference to the sacrifice of the Messiah, which anticipate the removal of sin from the nation.  The second three have special reference to the sovereignty of the Messiah, which anticipate the establishment of His reign.  The ‘everlasting righteousness’ can only refer to the millennial kingdom promised Israel.  This was the goal and expectation of all the covenants and promises given to Israel and in its institution prophecy will be fulfilled.  This kingdom can only be established when the Holy One or the Holy Place in the millennial temple is anointed.  The millennium will witness the reception of the Messiah by Israel and will also witness the return of the Shekinah to the Holy of Holies.  Thus we see the prophecy anticipates the whole work of the Messiah for Israel:  He will redeem and He will reign at the expiration of time stipulated in the prophecy.” (Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, pp. 241-2).


We continue . . .


“Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem (Daniel 9:25a) (NOTE:  “build Jerusalem” – this was NOT the decree of Cyrus the Great, but that decree dealing specifically with the Persian King Artaxerxes Longitmanus.) . . . and at this juncture, the outstanding work of Thomas Ice (who on this issue is right on the mark) is presented:


“The next element of Daniel 9:25 is clear. The countdown of time will begin with ‘a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.’ The Hebrew word for decree is the common word ‘dâbâr’ which means ‘thing,’ ‘speak,’ ‘word,’ or ‘instruction.’ In this context, it has the force of an urgent and assertive statement or decree.


“The text is specific that the countdown will start with ‘a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.’ The decree involves the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem, not the Temple. This is important since earlier edicts were issued in relation to the Temple (see 2 Chron. 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-4; 5:3-17; 6:3-5). There are at least three different decrees that are considered in an attempt to ‘know and discern’ the beginning of the seventy weeks of Daniel.


“First, there was the decree of Cyrus (Ezra 1:2-4; 6:3-5), issued in 537 B.C., which I will call decree one. Second, the decree of Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:11-26) given in 458 B.C., (decree two). Third, a second decree from Artaxerxes (Neh. 2:5-8, 17, 18) given in 444 B.C. (i.e., 445 B.C. as per Anderson—but 444 B.C. is the most accurate calculation) at the time of Nehemiah’s return to Jerusalem, (decree three). I want to note at the outset of the examination of these possibilities that the third decree is the only one that literally fits the exact words of Daniel 9:25, as we shall see. Leon Wood notes that the ‘first stressed rebuilding the Temple; the second, the establishment and practice of the proper services at the Temple; and the third, the rebuilding of the walls, when, long before, most of the city had been rebuilt.’


“Non-literal interpreters of the 490 years of the seventy weeks of Daniel are vague and non-precise in their overall handling of the numbers. If they try to establish a terminus a quo, it is rarely, if ever, the one given to Artaxerxes in Nehemiah 2:1-8. For example, preterist, Gary DeMar, is fuzzy, at best, in explaining his beginning point for the prophecy. In a lengthy quote of J. Barton Payne, DeMar appears, at first, to favor our view when he says: ‘The beginning point would be indicated by the commandment to restore Jerusalem (v. 25), an event that was accomplished, a century after Daniel, in the reign of the Persian, Artaxerxes I (465-424 B.C.), under Nehemiah (444 B.C..).’ He then proceeds to say that he favors the second view noted above, of Artaxerxes’ first decree (Ezra 7:11-26) which was issued in 458 B.C. DeMar declares that ‘from 458 B.C. this brings one to A.D. 26, the very time which many would accept for the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Jesus Christ and the commencement of His incarnate ministry.’ (Note:  This “theory” of DeMar lends credibility to the “cutting off of Messiah” in the “midst” of the 70th Week.)


“Like DeMar, fellow preterist, Kenneth Gentry, is likewise vague, perhaps on purpose, as to the start of the 490 years. Like DeMar, Gentry also references J. Barton Payne, but without specifically stating his terminus a quo. Also, like DeMar, Gentry holds that the 483-year period comes to its end at the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry, ‘sometime around A.D. 26.’ Gentry’s support for his view does not come from providing biblical data to persuade. Instead, he says, ‘This interpretation is quite widely agreed upon by conservative scholars, being virtually ‘universal among Christian exegetes’—excluding dispensationalists.’ In contrast to Gentry and DeMar, I will present reasons from the biblical text for holding that the correct starting point is the decree from Artaxerxes given in 444 B.C. as recorded in Nehemiah 2:1-8.” (Note:  Ice then goes out to make substantial arguments supporting, ostensibly, the chronology of Sir Robert Anderson, with minor modifications to enhance the chronology.)


Now, back to the Scripture:


“ . . . until Messiah the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks (i.e., 69 weeks); the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublesome times” (Daniel 9:25b).


“And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; and the people of the prince who is to come (Note:  This portion of the passage is completely obfuscated by Lloyd.) shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.  The end of it shall be with a flood, and till the end of the war (Daniel 9:26) (Note:  “The War” has been covered by this author and refers to the incessant Arab-Israeli conflict which shall end prior to vs. 27 and concludes with the Oracle of Damascus.)


It is at this point – 70 A.D. – that Lloyd and his compatriots will insist that the prophet Daniel “goes into detail” – a sort of FLASHBACK in time – wherein he attempts to avoid a sequential or chronological and logical progression of the text.  Prior to the introduction of Daniel 9:27 we find the following have occurred in Daniel 9:25-26—sequentially:




The decree to rebuild the CITY of Jerusalem is given under the THIRD DEGREE of Artaxerxes on 14th March, B.C. 445 (Daniel 9:25:  “That from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem”)




Messiah the Prince is introduced to Israel at His TRIUMPHAL ENTRY into Jerusalem precisely on 6th April, A.D. 32; the 10th of Nissan (Daniel 9:25:  “Until Messiah the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks”).


(Note:  From 14 March B.C. 445 until 6 April A.D. 32 there are—using the Bible’s use of the 360-day “prophetic year”) precisely 173,880 days or: 173,880/360=483 Years=483/7=69 Weeks (Note:  The precise dates of both 14 March B.C. 445 and 6 April A.D. 32 are substantiated, as Sir Robert Anderson has so masterfully presented, by BOTH biblical and secular archaeological discoveries and recordation)


(Note:  The additional work of Harold Hoehner does not subtract from the precision of Sir Robert Anderson’s initial disclosures—it only enhances them in so far as the commencement and terminus of the 69 weeks concerns; notwithstanding, we do applaud the enhancements made by Hoehner and encourage your visitation of them on the Tom Ice Collection:  The 70th Week of Daniel, Part VI)




The Crucifixion of Jesus has taken place (Daniel 9:26a:  “And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself”).


(Note:  The time which elapses between the TRIUMPHAL ENTRY of Jesus into Jerusalem (“Messiah the Prince) and the CRUCIFIXION (Messiah shall be cut off”)) is not at issue here . . . “There can be no honest difference of opinion about that: the cutting off of Messiah is after the sixty-two weeks. It is not the concluding event of the series of sixty-two weeks. Neither is it said to be the opening event of the seventieth. It is simply after the seven plus sixty-two weeks.”  (Robert Duncan Culver)




Again – PRIOR to Daniel 9:27 (and the confirmation of the FALSE PEACE by Antichrist) – and, AFTER, the crucifixion of Christ (i.e., “Messiah shall be cut off) – there is the destruction of the city (of Jerusalem) and its sanctuary (the Temple of the Jews) (Daniel 9:26:  “And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.”)


(Note:  Virtually all concur—even Lloyd—that Jerusalem and her temple were destroyed in 70 A.D. under Titus of Rome – it was the Romans who destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D. under the leadership of Titus; however, Titus is NOT “the prince who is to come” – at best he may “prefigure” “the prince who is to come” – though he is closely associated with this dark, yet future, figure whose “people—the Roman legions” physically destroyed Jerusalem and its Temple—and, most assuredly, this “prince who is to come” is NOT our Lord Jesus Christ—for it was not He who destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D. nor desecrated its temple—BUT THE PEOPLE OF THE PRINCE WHO IS TO COME did this awful deed!  Furthermore, the “people” who destroyed Jerusalem (i.e., the Roman legions) and “the prince who is to come” (the Antichrist) are intrinsically connected—i.e., the ancient Roman legions are superimposed upon that future figure; therefore, it is the conclusion of this author, that Sir Anderson’s THE COMING PRINCE bears the marks of Western Leadership – the same West which destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 A.D.  It is the supreme LEADERSHIP OF THE WEST—i.e., the PRINCE—who shall “confirm a covenant with the many for one week; but in the middle of the week he shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering” – Daniel 9:27a).

Specifically, “the people of the prince” – i.e., the Roman Legions under Titus, slayed upwards of 115,000 (1.l million is also given as an historical figure) and . . .


“During the four years of war, the Romans had taken 97,000 prisoners. Thousands of them were forced to become gladiators and were killed in the arena, fighting wild animals or fellow gladiators. Some, who were known as criminals, were burned alive . . . But most of these prisoners were brought to Rome, where they were forced to build the Forum of Peace (a park in the heart of Rome) and the Coliseum. The Menorah and the Table were exhibited in the temple of Peace.)” (Wars Between the Jews and the Romans, 70 C.E.)




“The end of it shall be with a flood . . .”(Daniel 9:26c)


Without equivocation – the destruction of Jerusalem – and subsequent events leading up to the “rebellion” under the Bar-Kokhba Revolt

(132-135 C.E.) led to the dispersion of the Jews throughout the Roman Empire an mass.


It was, nevertheless, a “scattering” prophesied by the Hebrew seers (Genesis 28:10-15; Deuteronomy 4:25-27, 30; 28:64, 65-67; Ezekiel 22:14-15; Hosea 9:17).  Its allusion is given graphic illustration through the use of “a flood” – “a flood” which, I believe, the Apostle John depicts in Revelation 12:15:


“So the serpent spewed water out of his mouth like a flood after the woman (who, the Jewish people, gave birth to the Man Child), that he might cause her to be carried away by the flood . . . but the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up the flood which the dragon had spewed out of his mouth” (Revelation 12:15-16).


I am well aware of the multitude of interpretations of these Revelation 12:15-16 verses; however, I cannot separate the spiritually intuitive signals between the flood in Daniel 9:26 and that which is spoken of in Revelation 12:15-16—their similarities are overwhelming.




It is here, prior to the confirmation of the “Treaty with Death and Hell” (Isaiah 28:15, 18) that the afflictions of the diasporic Jew will persist—nigh their ingathering, Valley of Dry Bones, resurrection, and ultimate “reconciliation for iniquity” (Daniel 9:24).  These desolations shall seemingly conclude “till the end of the war” – and that WAR we have concluded is the on-going Arab-Israeli and/or Moslem-Israeli confrontation which has persisted ever since the first Zionist in the late 1890s stepped upon their ancient homeland; and will terminate at the Oracle of Damascus.


It was in the 1880s – long prior to Israel’s regathering, that Sir Robert Anderson uttered this prophetic inspiration:


“Much there is in Holy Writ which unbelief may value and revere, while utterly refusing to accept it as Divine; but prophecy admits of no half-faith. The prediction of the ‘seventy weeks’ was either a gross and impious imposture, or else it was in the fullest and strictest sense God-breathed.  It may be that in days to come, when Judah’s great home-bringing shall restore to Jerusalem the rightful owners of its soil, the Jews themselves shall yet rake up from deep beneath its ruins the records of the great king’s decree and of the Nazarene’s rejection, and they for whom the prophecy was given will thus be confronted with proofs of its fulfillment. Meanwhile what judgment shall be passed on it by fair and thoughtful men? To believe that the facts and figures here detailed amount to nothing more than happy coincidences involves a greater exercise of faith than that of the Christian who accepts the book of Daniel as Divine. There is a point beyond which unbelief is impossible, and the mind in refusing truth must needs take refuge in a misbelief which is sheer credulity.” (Sir Robert Anderson, The Coming Prince)


Yes, all of the above (Items (1) through (6)) occur before this word:


THEN . . . and it is here purposefully so emphasized!


Then he shall confirm a covenant with the many for one week; but in the middle of the week he shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.  And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate (i.e., lit., “the desolator”) (Daniel 9:27).


The unmistakable identity of “the prince who is to come” is immediately recognizable—except by folks like Lloyd and others . . . whose peculiar agenda (at this juncture) mystifies the immediate contextual, sequential, nature of this entire passage . . . so what is his/their agenda . . . what “doctrine” or “systematized error” lurks beneath the seeming “Centrality of Christ” that he presents to us?


THE BELIEFS OF LLOYD Survivalist, Elitist, America Patriot, Alternative Health, and Anti-Semite?



 “The Christian Media ministry is deeply involved in the Remnant Christian and Patriot sectors of America that have quietly emerged in recent years. In this arena, there are quite a few commercial organizations that have developed by servicing the needs of the populace in these areas. (Note:  Lloyd is “into” selling survivalist paraphernalia—check out his site for confirmation.)


“Although many true Patriots and Remnant Christians disagree on vast numbers of issues, most recognize the dreadful conditions that are threatening to overwhelm the world in general, and America in particular. While the Bible refers to the Tribulation, parallel traditions describe the immediate future in similar terms. Thus, many people are engaged in accumulating preparedness related items that run the gamut from stored food, to gold and silver.


Christian Media believes the overwhelming majority of organized ministries have all become part of the great Falling Away, prophesied of in the New Testament.”


At this point one begins to move into conspiracy, big time . . . behind it all, the United Nations!

“Through international treaty, the UN is now determining how nations educate their children. The UN is forcibly intervening in international military conflicts. The UN is overseeing the world's financial systems as well as all legal matters involving disputes among nations. These are not activities that are scheduled to occur next year or next century -- The United Nations is running the world NOW.

“In spite of the common perception that The UN is a benevolent organization seeking to guarantee peace and safety, the prophet Daniel gives us the most accurate description of the last government of a Christ rejecting world.

“After this I saw in the night visions, and, behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly, and it had great iron teeth; it devoured and broke in pieces and stamped the residue with its feet; and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns.” (i.e., the UN) (Christian Media Network:  The Lion, the Bear, and the Leopard, James Lloyd)


As a Christian survivalist, Lloyd’s post-tribulationalism is an embarrassment and an affront to the Body of Christ, and worse yet, manifests an elitism that bespeaks of a divisive spirit wholly separate from the Spirit of Christ:


“James Lloyd’s act of calling pre-trib brethren morons and saying that ‘there is no co-existence with the Rapture Cult’ and that that pre-tribbers are lost is not ministering grace to post-trib hearers--or to any pre-tribbers who might have tuned in to his radio broadcast. Instead, his example serves to encourage post-trib Christians to despise and abandon the part of the body of Christ that will be in the most need of spiritual and physical help when the New World Order takeover begins. Who stands to benefit from this kind of teaching?” (Liberty to the Captives, June, 2001).


Finally, the “doctrinal distortions” of Lloyd, regarding the role of Israel in the “End of the Days” makes it perfectly clear that in spite of his insightful libertarian provocations (some of which are excellent—though he be a survivalist), he is, nevertheless, hamstrung by a vicious “replacement theology” which distorts his Biblicism and drives his conspiratorial prophetic projections—and, when the dust clears, the residue of a virulent anti-Semitism abides (and that is the insidious truth of the matter).


“Conversely, it is not consistent with the preponderance of New Testament doctrine to think he is saying all the Jews will be saved, when there is no such promise, prophecy, or explicit statement anywhere in Scripture. The lack of Scripture promising that ‘all’ of physical Israel will be saved doesn’t even account for the last two thousand years of history – to say nothing of the fact that every indication we have is that the modern Israeli nation is up to their eyeballs in the present apostasy. (Note:  We do not deny that Israel is a “Valley of Dry Bones” – however, their regathering to their ancient homeland is not predicated upon anything but God’s eternal faithfulness to His original promises.)


“Without the assumption that the Christians, utilizing the shell of the ‘church,’ are a separate group from Israel, the entire system of Dispensationalism collapses under the weight of its own preposterous suppositions. The total body of New Testament teaching, particularly Paul’s writings in this very book and this very chapter (Romans 9-11), categorically testify that the Old Testament order of salvation based upon one’s physical lineage is now forever done away with in Christ.


"The ‘strong delusion’ that has overtaken the church in terms of the great deception of Dispensationalism has brought some to the point of saying that Christians that claim their birthright as the ‘chosen generation’ and the ‘peculiar people’ that Peter told us about (I Peter 2:9), have somehow become anti-Semitic! This lie is so monstrous that it manifests the profound nature of the verse in I John that bluntly informs us that ‘who is a liar but Antichrist?’ (I John 2:22).


“The Jewish leaders of the generation that saw Jesus walk among them also claimed an irrevocable birthright when they claimed they were of their father Abraham. Jesus set them straight as to who their real father was. So too, those of this “evil and adulterous generation” that have constructed ‘another gospel’ (Galatians 1:6). The Rapture Cult shall find themselves ‘accursed’ because ‘they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved’ (II Thessalonians 2:10). Soon, the false prophets of pre-tribulationism ‘shall be amazed one at another; their faces shall be as flames’ (Isaiah 13:8). 


The denials and rationalizations of Lloyd to justify his “form of anti-Semitism” is not new—for these “brethren” wholeheartedly affirm Israel’s rejection as part and parcel of the Church triumphant.  Lloyd’s accusation regards the “dispensational lie” as “so monstrous” that it manifests the very lie of the Antichrist himself!  And, what does he foresee in the phrases of Isaiah 13:8 . . . “the false prophets of pre-tribulationism ‘shall be amazed one at another; their faces shall be as flames’ (Isaiah 13:8)?


This conversation started out to disclose who is not the HE in Daniel 9:27a (“Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week . . .”)—it ends with a complete rejection of Israel, and the Jew.  Don’t be surprised—ultimately all Premillenarians will be called THE CULT by those who have rejected the prophetic Scriptures regarding the “seed of Abraham.”  It starts by an estranged hatred and jealousy; then it is cloaked in doctrinal purity; and, finally, it becomes aggressive, rejectionist, and wholly given over to “systematized error.”


“I'll say this again. Dispensationalism is a completely false doctrine, and the attempt to place national Israel into a pre-eminent position in God’s plan is Antichrist through and through. At the risk of redundancy, I’ll restate this another way. The doctrine of national Israel as the ‘chosen people’ is Satan’s gambit designed to lure evangelical Christianity into an Israel-first millennialism that will ultimately enthrone the religious syncretism that will vault the Antichrist to power in Jerusalem.” (James Lloyd)




In our next segment we will turn from the libertarianism of the Post-tribulational Church Triumphant and their accusations of the Premillenarian pre-tribulationist to their persistence of the Euro-centric Antichrist.  Yes, we have covered this topic at length—however, additional segments are now, once again, urgently needed, as we approach a time in history where “Patriotism” – be it on the libertarian order as so exposed – or amongst the American Patriotic Prophets – has become so entangled with the aspirations of what virtually the entire world now views as “The American New World Order System” that the Church herself has become tragically indistinguishable from the Jezebel of apostasy!


And this having said, I would enjoin all who have survived this reading, to consider the predictions of Messiah—their remarkable calculations as proof positive that He simply cannot be denied . . . His Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem on that distinguished day! 


Have you seen Him . . . MESSIAH THE PRINCE?  Is there not “such a time as this” in your life to recognize the infallibility of His presence . . . “lowly and riding on a colt, the fold of a donkey” as was the custom of those who bore the image of the King?  He comes as your King—lowly, and claims Lordship of your life.


And, the proof of His Lordship is the laying down of His life for us all—MESSIAH SHALL BE CUT OFF!  But, this was “not for Himself” – it was for you, for me, for us all!  Yes, at issue is to know the true Messiah, in His first coming – and in His second.  There is a crisis of conviction here that demands a decision for us all—will we herald Messiah the Prince, the crucified one, Who shall one day “pour out on the desolator” – upon “the prince who is to come” His holy wrath?  Or shall we cut Him out of our lives and deny Messiah the Prince? 


God have mercy and bless you, bless us all, on this momentous day of 9/11.