Many await a seven-year covenant with the Antichrist as a necessary and imminent end times sign, but this belief is not as well supported as many think.

READ TIME: 6-7 Minutes

Scrutinizing the Signs of Our Times

If you are reading this post, you have likely read many articles about the signs of the end times. You will undoubtedly notice that there are certain tenets to which most end-times writers adhere. These are the rocks that many people use to discern the times and what we can expect next.

But there are certain interpretations of prophecy that I struggle with every time I read them. Like an itch in my mind, I am bothered when I try to accept these statements as prophetic destiny.

In this series of posts, I will challenge whether popular interpretations of certain prophetic signs are sufficiently supported in scripture. To be clear, I am not stating that these beliefs are wrong. They may play out just as expected. However, I am raising a yellow flag to urge caution that these signs are not as iron-clad as many believe.

The coming times will be times of great deception and delusion. The enemy knows our beliefs and would be foolish not to use them to deceive us. So, let’s critically analyze popular interpretations of prophecy so that we may navigate the coming times with discernment and understanding.

Can We Expect a 7-Year Covenant with the Antichrist?

The Debate about the Covenant with Antichrist

The seven-year covenant with the Antichrist is a big one. If the popular interpretation is accurate, this is the one sign we should all be anticipating. Once fulfilled, it would set the timeline for Jesus’ return.

The seven-year covenant comes from one source – Daniel 9:27. Starting with 9:26, the NASB 1995 translation states, “Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary... And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate…“

(The Hebrew term for week, shabua, is a period of seven and can refer to seven days or years. In this case, it refers to seven years.)

Much of the debate centers on the identity of the “he” in the first sentence. Some believe the “he” is the Messiah. These people assert that this firm covenant is the New Covenant between Jesus and the people of the world. If correct, this part of the prophecy has been fulfilled.

Others believe “he” is “the prince to come.” This term refers to the prior sentence and asserts that this covenant is a future covenant upheld by the Antichrist. Proponents of this reading see this week as the beginning of the Great Tribulation, making it a significant sign of the end times. If correct, then once we see this one event, we could mark our calendars for Jesus’ return seven years later.

Corroborating Scripture

I have historically sided with the argument that this prophecy relates to the future Antichrist. However, there are reasons why I struggle with this position.

1. There is insufficient supporting scripture to establish that a seven-year covenant will be made with the Antichrist, and
2. Older translations favor a Messianic interpretation.

Daniel 11 may be the one place that could support a covenant with the Antichrist. This prophecy, as told to Daniel by an angel, mentions an alliance in 11:23. It states, “After entering into an alliance with him, he will behave treacherously; he will ascend to power with only a small force.”

Daniel 11 covers a span of many years and many kings. This alliance allows this person to ascend to a “king” role with a small force through intrigue. So it is unclear whether this scripture could be referring to a 7-year covenant with many. Also, there is significant debate among eschatologists about at which point the scripture refers to the Antichrist. Most agree that by line 36, the scripture refers to the Antichrist. Others believe the Antichrist could be referenced back to line 20.

Another possibility is that there are multiple references to a covenant starting on line 30. However, rather than confirming the covenant as stated in 9:27, the Antichrist opposes this covenant. Daniel 11 describes it like this:

• “Armies will be suddenly swept away in defeat before him; both they and a covenant leader will be destroyed.”
• “His mind will be set against the holy covenant“
• “He will turn back and direct his indignation against the holy covenant.”
• “He will return and honor those who forsake the holy covenant.”

These statements seem to conflict with the position that the Antichrist is making the covenant in 9:27.

Ancient Translations Read Differently

When analyzing Messianic prophecy, I find it helpful to reference the Septuagint. The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Old Testament translated from a Jewish text 700 years older than the text from which modern translations are derived.

Most modern English translations are based on the Masoretic text. This text was produced around 600 AD by Jews who did not believe Jesus was the Messiah. So, certain messianic verses appear to have been translated with a bias to point away from Jesus as the Messiah. The Septuagint was translated about 200 years before Jesus’ birth, so it contains no such translation biases. (See PostScript on Isaiah 61 for further discussion on this topic.)

Septuagint Translation of Daniel 9:25-27

“And thou shalt know and understand, that from the going forth of the command for the answer and for the building of Jerusalem until Christ the prince seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks; and then shall return, and the street shall be built, and the wall, and the times shall be exhausted. And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him: and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming: they shall be cut off with a flood, and to the end of the war which is rapidly completed he shall appoint to desolations. And one week shall establish the covenant with many: and in the midst of the week my sacrifice and drink-offering shall be taken away: and on the temple the abomination of desolations; and at the end of time an end shall be put to the desolation.“

This translation emphasizes the coming Messiah more than a prince who is coming. It indicates that the prince to come is a pawn the Messiah uses to destroy the city and the temple. It describes a quick war that destroys the city and sanctuary, leaving them desolate. This prophecy is amazingly accurate when read in the context of history after Jesus’s crucifixion.

The Septuagint’s wording also indicates that after the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the Messiah’s appearance, “the times [of this prophecy] shall be exhausted.” Thus, the 70-week prophecy would be completed with the Messiah being “destroyed” “after the sixty-two weeks.“

The English translations lack this key phrase. Is this an example of where the Masortite Jews tried to point their translations to a future Messiah rather than Jesus?

The Septuagint also clearly references the end of time, but not in regards to a future Antichrist. Instead, it indicates that in the end time there will be an end to the desolation of Jerusalem. This shows that the abomination that causes desolation will remain until the end time. Once again, this prophecy, as translated in the Septuagint, is amazingly accurate as we have witnessed the rebuilding of Jerusalem.

My Position

The Bible states that two to three witnesses are required to establish truth. I can see both sides of the argument when reading modern translations of Daniel 9:27. However, the Bible is filled with scripture about Jesus’s covenant with many. Yet I have not found two or three other scriptures that clearly support a covenant between the Antichrist and many.

In addition, the pre-incarnation Septuagint indicates that 9:27 is a prophecy about the coming Messiah and the desolation and rebuilding of Jerusalem, not an end-time prophecy of the Antichrist.

Considering these factors, I do not see sufficient support to hold the position that the Antichrist will form a seven-year covenant. So, even if you see this differently, I suggest holding to the position loosely.

I would encourage others to watch for this possible event but not miss the times, expectantly waiting for a seven-year covenant to transpire.

Hold on Loosely

The main takeaway from this series of posts is that prophecy may not play out exactly how we think. Prophecy is not meant to be a play-by-play account of what will happen and how it will happen. If prophecy were so, Satan could thwart it. For instance, when looking back today, it’s easy to see how Jesus met the prophecies of the Messiah. But this was not clear at the time. Paul wrote of how the rulers would not have crucified Jesus had they understood His purpose on earth. And Jesus had to explain this even to the apostles after he was resurrected.

Daniel 9:27 is an instance where we have placed specificity and certainty onto a prophecy that is debatable as to its meaning. And though this prophecy may play out as expected, it may not. So, my message here is to keep your expectations broad. So even if this prophecy is fulfilled differently than expected, you will not be deceived or miss the signs of the times because you are waiting for a different sign to manifest.

Post Script – The Masoretic Text:

Most modern English translations are based on the Masoretic text, produced around 600 AD, and translated by Jews who did not believe Jesus was the Messiah. So, certain messianic verses appear to have been translated with a bias pointing away from Jesus as the Messiah. An excellent example is Isaiah 61, a prophecy of the coming Messiah.

The Septuagint states, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind…“

The Masorites knew Jesus was known for giving sight to the blind, so it appears they interpreted this prophecy differently. They translated the phrase “recovery of sight to the blind” to “freedom to prisoners.”

This resulted in an oddly duplicative statement, “He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to captives and freedom to prisoners.”

This scripture always puzzled me because “liberty to captives” and “freedom to prisoners” seemed redundant.

The New Testament testifies to the original meaning as Jesus read Isaiah 61 in Luke 4:18. In Jesus’s reading of a pre-Masoretic text, Jesus used the term “recovery of sight to the blind.“

Daniel 9:26-27 appears to bear the mark of a Masoretic translation that differs from the pre-incarnate text captured in the Septuagint.

Now Available: the podcast of this post at

www.westcloudsrisingpodcast.com

Also available on Apple Podcasts and Spotify

Related Posts:

The Anti-Apocalypse: Revealing the Cruelest Man in History

How the Antichrist Will Fool the World with Prophecy

Creation of the Antichrist Now Walking Among Us (Part I)

Sign up for Updates on New Posts (email not shared)