Daniel; "He makes covenant with many"

What does Daniel mean when he says about “the prince who is to come” that “he shall make a strong covenant with many”?
We’re told, in Daniel ch9 v27, that the time of this prince occupies the period of “one week”.
This week is defined, in fact, by the “covenant with many”.
While the other business of the time, “causing the sacrifice to cease”, only occupies half the week- presumably the second half.

The making of a covenant is a common act in the Old Testament.
They tend to be direct agreements between two parties.
They might be between men of equal status, like the covenant which ended the feuding between Abraham and Abimelech at Beersheba, or the covenant of friendship between Jonathan and David, or the peace covenant between Ahab and Ben-Hadad.
On the other hand, the covenant which David made with the elders of Israel at Hebron (1 Chronicles ch11 v3) was not an equal relationship, because they were accepting him as their king.
It was still an agreement between two parties, though, allowing for the fact that one of the parties (the people of Israel) was a corporate body.

Obviously the most important covenants in the Old Testament are the covenants which are established by God himself.
The other party in the covenant may be a corporate body, the people of Israel, or a human individual acting as a representative..
Clearly, this is an unequal relationship.
But the common factor in all these examples is that a covenant is made between two parties, with the purpose of setting out the terms of the relationship between them.

If we look at the wording of Daniel ch9 v27, we find that the prince makes covenant “for one week”. In other words, this is not a single event, but an on-going relationship.
.
The further question is what is meant by covenanting “with many”.
The currently popular interpretation is that he would be making a treaty or peace settlement of some kind. The assumption is made, though nothing in the text says so, that this would be about establishing peace in the Middle East.
But such a peace treaty would be a single event, and it would necessarily be a multi-party agreement (or a minimum of three parties, counting himself as a mediator).
As I was observing, covenants in the rest of the Bible are direct agreements between two parties.

I suggest, then, that the prince in this verse is not making a single covenant involving a large number of people.
What he is doing, instead, is making a large number of one-to-one covenants.
And the effect of these covenants would be to set the terms of his relationship with a large number of people, over the full period of “one week”.

What kind of relationship would this be?

There may be a clue in that passage in Revelation which describes the relationship between the Beast and the “ten kings”, who have dominion together for the space of “one hour” (Revelation ch17 v12).
We’re told in the next verse that the kings “give over their power and authority to the Beast”.
So the relationship between them is that the kings are giving the Beast their allegiance.
They are a network of subordinate allies, on which his power is built.

On my own interpretation, this is precisely what the first part of Daniel ch9 v27 is describing.
The prince “makes covenant with many”; he attaches a large number of subordinate allies to himself and builds up a network.
These relationships are on-going, lasting for the full “week” of his rule.
In fact they are the real basis of his ability to be a dominant power.

And that is the power-base which enables him to embark on the dramatic venture of the second part of the week, the “stopping of the sacrifice” and the Abomination of Desolation.
“Those who acknowledge him he shall magnify with honour. He shall make them rulers over many and shall divide the land for a price”- ch11 v39
These rewards will surely be showered upon those, in particular, who have “made covenant” with him from the beginning.

the covenant... with the many:

may start as an asset or gold backed monetary unit that the 10 'kings' agree upon as replacing the USD/Petro-Dollar as the once universal 'reserve currency' for all the modern global community of nations

the BRICS (brazil-russia-india-china-S Africa) along with the Saudi Gold Dinar and the Nordic Euro established by the Germans-Dutch-Swedes-Fins...might just be the 10 'Kings' which bestow this finance system power to the Beast individual who conceived such a system...

reply to post by St Udio

But this would still be one multiple covenant.
Whereas I'm arguing for many one-to-one covenants.

N.B. I compared this passage in Daniel with Revelation ch17 v13.
For the purposes of understanding the expression in Daniel, I was content to treat them as similar situations.
However, in understanding Daniel and Revelation as prophecy, I'm inclined to regard these two passages as alternative descriptions of one and the same event, viz. what this hostile ruler does to establish his global client-system.

D, you mentioned that the covenant lasts the full 'week'.

Why would the members want to continue to follow after it's broken halfway thru?
Wouldn't anger and betrayal be felt by those?

btw, another great and informative thread.

reply to post by will615

Because he's not breaking the covenant with them.
My assumption is that he and they remain together all the way through- they're his cronies, his gang.
Thinking back to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, he had supporters even among the Jews.

reply to post by will615

To enlarge on that point- I'm assuming that these "covenants" are not with God's people, as such.
And so the fact that he effectively declares war on God's people is not a breach of the covenants.

reply to post by DISRAELI

Daniel 9 begins to expand on Antiochus Epiphanes first introduced at the end of the Greek empire in Daniel 8.

While I am ok with later applications in principal...
...not first understanding this primary historical fulfillment leads to much error in interpreting this reference in Daniel 9:

reply to post by DISRAELI


But he discards the covenant.
So if the mass' feeled betrayed the 'kings' will still stay on board?

reply to post by troubleshooter

I agree entirely.
Most of the narrative being about Antiochus Epiphanes in the first instance, I'm all for using that episode as a guideline for any later application.
I'm always referring back to this myself.

reply to post by will615

My theory, you see, is that these particular covenants have nothing to do with the "covenant" between God and Israel.
They are just private arrangements between the ruler and the others that they will support him and he will support them. The word "covenant" is only used because that was the standard way of making agreements.
In other words, "he will reach private understandings with a large group of supporters".
And the mass of population of the world at large won't identify with God's people anyway.

reply to post by DISRAELI


Got it now. Thanks D
Hence the whole 'shower with rewards' statement.

reply to post by will615

That's right. I'm thinking "the Godfather" on a large scale.

Yeah, i do agree with your take on this

Probably the same "deal" ... and i'm guessing along the lines of the vatican way, whereby each country has their own "deal", but ALL pay homage to the pope.

reply to post by harryhaller

Thank you for those comments.
And another argument in favour is that empires throughout history, up to and including the British in India, have often operated on the principle of working through local subordinate rulers.
It would be the most effective way for the beast to dominate the world.

This passage from Daniel refers to the soon to appear strongman of Germany, who will gather around himself the most robust members of the European Union, numbering 10 and all giving their allegience to Germany.

EU2 if you will.

This German led Beast ( King of the North) will eventually attack Iran and her allies (King of the South) utterly defeating them. (Naturally, this will be about oil supplies to Europe) This will result in treaties being signed between many Middle Eastern nations including Israel and the Beast. These treaties will be renewable after seven years.

Halfway through the treaty period, the Beast government will break the treaty and occupy Jerusalem. This will be as a result of the collusion between the German government and the Vatican. Jerusalem is the most sought after prize of the Vatican. (think crusades)

This is all to take place in the very near future, between 5 to 15 years by my calc. The temple to be rebuilt after the defeat of Islam by the Beast. The Beast to set himself up in the temple after the breaking of the treaty, and then the terrifying decent into the chaos of Revelation.

reply to post by triune

The theory that the covenant is a treaty which "will be broken half-way through the seven years", which I keep seeing, breaks down on the clear statement in Daniel ch9 v27 that the covenant lasts for the whole week. The "breakdown of the covenant" just isn't there in the text. There is nothing to say that the Abomination is a breach of the covenant.

I gave reasons against treating "the covenants" as a multi-party treaty, and regarding them instead as governing the relationships between the ruler and his various allies.

The idea that "the 10" represented Europe was originally proposed when the Common Market was about to have exactly ten states. Now that the European Union has gone way above that number, that reason for making the identification has disappeared. You suggest the number being reduced again- but there is no particular reason which dictates that they represent that area rather than another area. If you take "10" as a literal number, it could be a completely different set of 10.

In any case, I always argue that "10" in Revelation is a symbolic number, the number that represents "completeness". In that passage, the real meaning is that between them they are ruling the world.

reply to post by DISRAELI


Looking at your question here I thought I would point out this flaw in your initial reasoning. The prince of verse 26 is not the one making the covenant. Verse 26 occurred in the first century AD. And as far as I know there was no 7 year agreement back then to use up the 70th week. That 70th week I would pose is still a future event. Therefor the Prince was Titus.

Now verse 27 says this.
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 one of the rules of determining the meaning of a difficult bible verse is to look for other verses covering the same subject. And looking through Daniel I would pose that verse 11-5 and 6 is covering the same subject.

5 And the king of the south shall be strong, and one of his princes; and he shall be strong above him, and have dominion; his dominion shall be a great dominion.
6 And in the end of years they shall join themselves together; for the king's daughter of the south shall come to the king of the north to make an agreement: but she shall not retain the power of the arm; neither shall he stand, nor his arm: but she shall be given up, and they that brought her, and he that begat her, and he that strengthened her in these times.

I would pose that Daniel 11 even though this prophecy may have been fulfilled once is a "end time prophecy." It has dual fulfillments. It's supposed to happen again. And the evidence for that is this.

Verse 11-6 happens in the end of years. Verse 11-40 happens at the time of the end. And the abomination of desolation event is verse 11-31. A event predicted in Matthew 24-15 as a future end time event. Daniel 11 appears to have multiple fulfillments.

So it would appear that at the start of the end times the world's governments will have gone under major reorganization. Based on the terminology of kingdoms of the north and south I would pose that Europe has reorganized into a federation of nations. And that the Muslim world of Africa and SE Asia has organized into a Caliphate. The many are the many nations of both confederacies. So you would have one agreement between 2 large confederacies.

reply to post by ntech

Sorry, I've only just seen this, because I've been offline for several days. Modem problems.
You observe that the prince of v26 is not the prince of v27. But I don't refer back to v26; I was taking v27 on its own. Let's just call that person the "hostile ruler", then.
Ch.11 vv5-6, as it stands, is a single one-to-one covenant.
Your suggestion that it would be one-to-one between two confederacies makes it many-to-many on both sides of the agreement.
But that doesn't quite match the situation described in v27, which has the single person on one side, and the "many" on the other side.
Nor does the currently fashionable theory of the multiple "peace treaty". That's why I was favouring the "many one-to-one agreements" idea.