The gap in the 70 weeks is not absurd

[Guest]

Schoel,
If there is a 40 year gap, that's still a gap and you guys are saying there can be no gap. However without that 40 year gap you have to make cease mean "become powerless". That's not the same thing. They either ceased or they didn't - they didn't until 70AD. So in my understanding you have to fit 70 AD into the 70 weeks and it doesn't work.

Plus, when they finally did cease, that was when God was dealing with the Church and not exclusively Israel, so that doesn't make sense either.

To me dispensationalism is the only logical way to view it.

Now you have to forgive me because I am new to this whole preterist/dispensational viewpoint. I was brought up on premillenial teaching, but I am definitely open to the preterist ideas. Also, I agree with Schoel, this is secondary to being a Christian. I do have a question though for both parties:

Could the ceasing just mean that Christians no longer performed the sacrifices? Meaning that both the Jews and Gentiles who became Christians didn't see a need for sacrificing anymore? Or does the destruction of the temple have to be the moment it ceases?

[Guest]

Sean,
SOrry it took so long to get to your comment. Yes in the tithing thing I said the sacrifices were no longer necessary or effective. I never ever said that they were no longer practiced. I never said that they had ceased. I am not wishy washy on this. They were still practiced (although in vain). If you think I'm being wishy washy I suppose you are too because you said that sacrifices were never said to need to be stopped in the NT, yet you say that they "ceased" after the sacrifice of Christ.

I do not think you are taking both sides of the fence on this so don't accuse me of it. If you do you must also own up to it that you have. What I am saying is that the sacrifices didn't cease but they did cease to be effective. That isn't what Daniel 9 says. It says he will cause them to cease.

This is a mountaintop interpretation. The writer is seeing the nearer future and the distant future all in one instant.

For instance.
Isa 9:6
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
(KJV)

At the point of his birth was the government upon his shoulder...Is it even upon his shoulder today? Not to me, some of you may inexplicably believe so but I can't understand that....
THis is just exactly what the 70 weeks text does.

And again - why the need to point out a gap? There doesn't need to be one stated. The Lord said he would deal with Israel for 70 weeks, He has dealt with them for 69 weeks and will deal with them for one more week. That is 70 weeks which he said was determined for Daniel's people.

[Guest]

These Steve Gregg cronies would do good to check it out as well. I actually got tangled up in this garbage until I started researching the dispensational understanding of it and began to realizt that the Steve Gregg Mavericks on here are just wanting to be different and cannot accept that their position is non-sense.

1. I had never heard of Steve Gregg when I reached the same conclusions he has.

2. It is the dispensationalists who are 'different' from the interpretation of the historic christian church in regards to Daniel 9. Read any pre 1830 commentary on the passage and see who they equate the 'he' with.

3. How old are you?

[Guest]

Aaron,

You wrote:

"At the point of his birth was the government upon his shoulder...Is it even upon his shoulder today? Not to me..."

If the government of God's kingdom was not placed upon Christ's shoulder when He took His throne at the right hand of the Father, then I do not understand why the New Testament writers (and Jesus Himself) speak of Him as a King (Matt.2:2; 21:5; 27:11/ Acts 17:7/ 1 Tim.6:15).

According to your statement, Christ's kingdom and rule are apparently not realities to you. I will take this statement at face value, and am not inclined to dispute it. That is, in fact, probably the greatest distinction of practical importance between dispensational theology and that of the historic church.


It does not bother me that you, or anyone else, would be a dispensationalist. If you are acting as if Jesus is your de facto King, day-by-day (though you withold the title from Him), you and I may not be that different from one another. My concern is not about your doctrine, but about your loyalties. Yours seems to be to a system embraced by your pastor. You seem compelled by conscience to conform to your church's system. Such conformity does not bother me—its the sense that you are duty-bound to conform that would be my concern.

This is the only explanation I can imagine for your strange assumption that I hold my views simply in order to "stand out." The furthest thing from my mind, in determining biblical doctrine, is how such and such a belief affects my conformity or non-conformity to majority opinion. If anything, I would wish that my views were those of the majority, in which case, I wouldn't "stand out" at all.

Such considerations (conformity Vs. "standing out") appear to be very central to your theological commitments, and you apparently cannot conceive of people who choose their beliefs on the basis of their disinterested love of truth.

I hope you may become acquainted with this alternative kind of motivation.

[Guest]

These Steve Gregg cronies would do good to check it out as well. I actually got tangled up in this garbage until I started researching the dispensational understanding of it and began to realizt that the Steve Gregg Mavericks on here are just wanting to be different and cannot accept that their position is non-sense.

1. I had never heard of Steve Gregg when I reached the same conclusions he has.

2. It is the dispensationalists who are 'different' from the interpretation of the historic christian church in regards to Daniel 9. Read any pre 1830 commentary on the passage and see who they equate the 'he' with.

3. How old are you?

What's with the "How old are you?" question?
I am 31 years old. I was born 2/14/75.....What does that have to do with absolutely anything?

How old are you?

[Guest]

I was curious because your approach to dialogue seemed childish

I am 24

[Guest]

Aaron,

I will ask you once more: Do you believe the temple and sacrifices in Ezekiel 40-48 are yet future?

Thanks,
Steve Gregg Cronie

[_Sean]

Sean,
Sorry it took so long to get to your comment. Yes in the tithing thing I said the sacrifices were no longer necessary or effective. I never ever said that they were no longer practiced. I never said that they had ceased. I am not wishy washy on this. They were still practiced (although in vain). If you think I'm being wishy washy I suppose you are too because you said that sacrifices were never said to need to be stopped in the NT, yet you say that they "ceased" after the sacrifice of Christ.
I do not think you are taking both sides of the fence on this so don't accuse me of it. If you do you must also own up to it that you have. What I am saying is that the sacrifices didn't cease but they did cease to be effective.

That was not my point. My question in the other thread was WHY are sacrficies not offered anymore not WHEN did they stop. You didn't say that sacrifices were not offered anymore because the temple was destroyed in 70AD (unless I missed it). Instead you pointed to Hebrews as your proof text for why Jewish Christians (remember who Hebrews was written to) no longer need to offer sacrifices.

You didn't point to the temple, you pointed correctly to Christ.

You see, the new covenant replaced the old covenant. There are Jews today who try to keep the old covenant, that doesn't mean the new covenant hasn't yet taken effect.

Your trying to show that people's response determines reality. If God ends the old covenant and calls people into the new and there are those who reject the new covenant, does that mean they can live under the OC indefinatlely and their actions cause it to remain a valid covenant?

Here is another way to look at it. 70AD is not the first time God physically prevented the Jews from offering animal sacrifices. Yet those other times were not considered "making an end of sacrifice and offering".

You made the point that sacrifices didn't count/weren't effective (or something to that effect) after Christ. Why do they not count anymore? What "ended". If they are no longer recognized by God, then how could they have not "ended".

This brings me to the analogy I made about sin. You didn't answer my question about that. If Jesus took away our sins, then why is there still sin? Sin didn't cease. So according to your logic, if sin didn't cease, then Jesus failed to take it away. But the NT says Jesus did take away sins. How can this be?

Also, as already pointed out, if you still take sacrifices as ended literally, then when the final week of Daniel plays out (in your view) then they will end. So there can be no literal sacrifices offered during the 1,000 year reign of Christ, right? Now read other dispensationalsits, they will tell you there are going to be sacrifices offered during the 1,000 years.

Hebrews says the old covenant is replaced by the new. Do you know what the point of the temple was? Do you know what was suppose to be in the Holy of Holies? The Arc with the law inside, on stone tablets. This was the arc of the covenant that was made obsolete! Does this mean that they had to keep the law of the old covenant until 70AD or was it actually obsolete when Hebrews says it was? If the word of God says 'there is no longer an offering for sin', and you say 'no, there were still offerings for sin until 70AD'. If God didn't see them as valid, then what's the point? I mean, we could offer them today and by that act "prove" they didn't cease?

Aaron, I'm just trying to follow your points out to their logical conclusion. If Christ ended it, then it ended. If Christ didn't end it, then we'd better build an altar. Remember, sacrifices were done before the law, so knocking down the temple doesn't mean we don't need to offer sacrifices.

Either Christ ended it, or it's still valid. The temple was destroyed well before 70AD and they didn't take that to mean they never had to offer sacrifices ever again.

This is a mountaintop interpretation. The writer is seeing the nearer future and the distant future all in one instant.

For instance.
Isa 9:6

Do you know why Isaiah has a double fulfilment? Because the NT quotes it and applies it that way. Jesus quoted from Daniel 9's Abomination of Desolation and applied it to 70AD. He must have been a preterist.

The 70 "sevens" were decreed to accomplish 6 things:

Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

Destruction of Jerusalem isn't mentioned. That happends after the 70 weeks.

And again - why the need to point out a gap? There doesn't need to be one stated. The Lord said he would deal with Israel for 70 weeks, He has dealt with them for 69 weeks and will deal with them for one more week. That is 70 weeks which he said was determined for Daniel's people.

So God isn't dealing with Israel right now by bringing them back to the land?

Just wanted to be sure. So how are they being regathered?

[_Sean]

That isn't what Daniel 9 says. It says he will cause them to cease.

Look at the Greek old testament. That is what Jesus and the apostles quoted from:



The word used for "lifted away" is airō

It means:
G142
αἴρω
airō
ah'ee-ro
A primary verb; to lift; by implication to take up or away; figuratively to raise (the voice), keep in suspense (the mind); specifically to sail away (that is, weigh anchor); by Hebraism (compare [H5375]) to expiate sin: - away with, bear (up), carry, lift up, loose, make to doubt, put away, remove, take (away, up).

So is it to cause the physical act to stop or to do away with the shadows once the fulfilment in Chirst came?

[Guest]

It is obvious that it isn't talking about Muslim sacrifices or whatever. He is speaking about Daniel's people.
This person will put an end to the sacrifices...

. But who are Daniel's people? Is Daniel talking about the Messiah and if he is, then Daniel's people are those that follow the Messiah who he says will be cut off. So for "Daniel's people" the sacrifices did cease because Daniel's people follow Daniel's Messiah.
Once Daniel's Messiah is cut off then any and all other sacrifices are not accepted by God so it does'nt matter if it is a jewish,muslim or pagan sacrifice, it's all the same to God.