The gap in the 70 weeks is not absurd

[Guest]

What delay are you referring to? I think most non-dispensationalist types do not see a delay between the 69th and 70th week at all. Perhaps you can clarify.

The 69th week included some part of the end of Christ's life. The 70th week would have been 7 years if taken literally. Yet Jerusalem did not fall until 40 years or so later. Perhaps it would make more sense if I could see it drawn out or outlined somewhere to indicate what happened in each "week".
D.

[Guest]

The 69th week included some part of the end of Christ's life. The 70th week would have been 7 years if taken literally. Yet Jerusalem did not fall until 40 years or so later. Perhaps it would make more sense if I could see it drawn out or outlined somewhere to indicate what happened in each "week".

No i don't think so because Christ was cut off after the 69th week "But in the middle of the week (70th) He shall bring and end to sacrifice and offering" 9.27 So in the middle of the 70th week He is cut off and for the remaining 3 1/2 years the gospel is preached to the House of Judah until either Stephen's stoning or Paul's vision.
The destruction of the temple is after the 70th week but the text does'nt mention how long after so it's not a gap it's just some time after.

[_AARONDISNEY]

The thing is that if "annointing the Most Holy" refers to crowning Jesus as the King of the (as preterists believe) Kingdom that is now...then the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD would have to be within that last 'week' of Daniel. The reason being is that they interpret Luke 21 to be concerning Jerusalem's destruction and the Kingdom of God is said to come after all the described events.........
Luke 21....
22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. 24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. 25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; 26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. 27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.
29 And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; 30 When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. 31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. 32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. 33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. 34 And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares.

[Guest]

29 And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; 30 When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. 31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. 32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. 33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. 34 And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares.

Hey Aaron, Good observation, it would be nice if everything fit into a nice neat package then there would be no disagreements. One thing everyone agrees on is that the Kingdom of God was not established in 70AD. Either it arrived spiritually when Jesus arrived or literally at his second coming but no one believes it arrived in 70AD. So this verse can't mean what you suggest preterists or historists have to accept it as because there are many verses that suggest the kingdom of God arrived in Christ's lifetime as opposed to this one ambiguous verse which may not be in chronological order.


"Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the Kingdom of God WOULD COME ,He answered them and said "The Kingdom of God does not come with observation (rules out 70AD) nor will they say ,see here,see there, for indeed the kingdom of God is within you" (within the hearts of believers). Luke 17.20 So Jesus says it has arrived but to see it you must believe He is the Christ.

[_AARONDISNEY]

Right Steve,
The Kingship of Christ is in the hearts of his followers. But His literal Kingdom is nigh at hand after all the things that are expressed in Luke 21 occur. Those are things that will occur in the future tribulation. Other than that, that "ambiguous" verse would remain ambiguous. But if seen through the dispensational understanding, it is not at all ambiguous and can be easily understood.

Matt Rose explained it as compared with when we elect our president. He is destined to be our president in November and all through December and up until late January, but the exchange of power doesn't officially take place until he's sworn in. He seemed to say that the end of Israel (at that time, even though it is a nation once again) is the official beginning of His Kingdom.
Matt, if you read this and I misrepresented your view of this verse please let me know, because I don't want to misrepresent you.

That could be a legitimate explanation, but it doesn't really jive real well with me. That's about the only preterist point of view I've heard on this. Are there any others?

One more thing, how could this possibly not be chronological? The time that is specified is governed by the phrase "when you see these things come to pass". If the Kingdom began when He came, this would make no sense. No one had seen these things come to pass by the time of His birth, or by the time disciples began following Him.

[Doug]

So far I am tracking with the following:

1. There is no stated scriptural basis to infer that a gap exists between the 69th and 70th weeks of Daniel's prophecy.

2. Christ fulfilled all aspects of Daniel 9:24 in His first coming, despite the fact that the nation of Israel rejected Him.

to finish transgression
to put an end to sin
to atone for wickedness
to bring in everlasting righteousness
to seal up vision and prophecy
to anoint the most holy.

3. The same "He" Christ is referred to in the first half of Daniel 9:27

He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering

This certainly can apply to Christ's sacrifice on Calvary after 3 1/2 years of ministry which put an end to the legitimacy of any subsequent animal sacrifices,

4. The end of the last 7 year period relating to Israel could apply to the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles through one of these events: the dispersion of the church through Stephen's martyrdom, Peter's preaching to the house of Cornelius or Paul's conversion.

Here is my sticking point.

I don't see how the second half of Daniel 9:27 applies to Christ.

And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.

Giving a lot of latitude (in my opinion too much), this could refer to Christ's sacrifice where he became an "abomination" for us by bearing the judgment of God for the penalty of our sins. Though this seems like a stretch in the way it is phrased, because in no sense did Christ "set up" an abomination.

I would like to hear a reasonable explanation for how the second half of Daniel 9:27 could apply to Christ. Thanks.

[Guest]

I'll just add this, mike:

And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.

The original does not say "on a wing of the temple" so maybe this will help you to take another look.

[Guest]

I don't see how the second half of Daniel 9:27 applies to Christ.

And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.

Giving a lot of latitude (in my opinion too much), this could refer to Christ's sacrifice where he became an "abomination" for us by bearing the judgment of God for the penalty of our sins. Though this seems like a stretch in the way it is phrased, because in no sense did Christ

set up

an abomination.

I would like to hear a reasonable explanation for how the second half of Daniel 9:27 could apply to Christ. Thanks.

That's a poor translation from the NIV (Cr). In the NT, Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Greek septuagint, which actually includes the phrase Jesus quoted "Abomination of Desolation"



I believe this is speaking of the effect the new covenant has. Just as the OC brought 40 years of wandering were the unbelievers perished, The NC Jesus made brought 40 years of "wandering" between Judaism and Christianity, which seems to be some of the point that the book of Hebrews brings out.

Anyway, at the end of the period of time set forth by Christ himself "this generation" destruction came upon the symbol of the OC (the temple/tabernacle) and the unbelieving Jews.

I believe Jesus speaks to this event and explains Daniel 9:27's context (the destruction of Jerusalem):


Mat 22:2 "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son,
Mat 22:3 and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding feast, but they would not come.
Mat 22:4 Again he sent other servants, saying, 'Tell those who are invited, See, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast.'
Mat 22:5 But they paid no attention and went off, one to his farm, another to his business,
Mat 22:6 while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them.
Mat 22:7 The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.

Mat 21:40 When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?"
Mat 21:41 They said to him, "He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons."
Mat 21:42 Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: "'The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes'?
Mat 21:43 Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits.
Mat 21:44 And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him."


Luk 19:42 saying, "Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes.
Luk 19:43 For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side
Luk 19:44 and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation."

Because they "cut-off" the Messiah, they will suffer under God's wrath. He sent "His troops" to "destroy those murderers and burn up their city".

I believe to "annoint the most Holy" refers to:

Heb 9:24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.

[Guest]

Right Steve,
The Kingship of Christ is in the hearts of his followers. But His literal Kingdom is nigh at hand after all the things that are expressed in Luke 21 occur. Those are things that will occur in the future tribulation. Other than that, that "ambiguous" verse would remain ambiguous. But if seen through the dispensational understanding, it is not at all ambiguous and can be easily understood.

Matt Rose explained it as compared with when we elect our president. He is destined to be our president in November and all through December and up until late January, but the exchange of power doesn't officially take place until he's sworn in. He seemed to say that the end of Israel (at that time, even though it is a nation once again) is the official beginning of His Kingdom.
Matt, if you read this and I misrepresented your view of this verse please let me know, because I don't want to misrepresent you.

That could be a legitimate explanation, but it doesn't really jive real well with me. That's about the only preterist point of view I've heard on this. Are there any others?

Aaron, Very good points and it's possible this could be referring to his second coming but please consider the following points.

1."Truly i say to you this generation will not pass away until all things take place." Luke 21.32 Everytime the phrase "this generation"is used in Matt, 5 times meant the generation Jesus was speaking to and Luke was paraphrasing Matthew.

2. "The kingdom of God is near" could simply refer to Christ himself being near in 70AD not necessarily to the initiation of the kingdom of God but only that it's presence is near.

3. The "fig tree" is assumed to be Israel but is it? Not in the OT ,i believe it's the Olive tree plus what about the "other trees?"

4. Even if this referred to Christ's second coming it does'nt prove a milleneum or a 7 year trib from Dan 9.26-27. In fact Jesus was "annointed the most holy" because that's what Messiah means "the annointed one" and as the Son of God he is the most holy one who was annointed at his baptism.

5. Read Dan 9.27 closely and it actually says after the 69 weeks "desolations are determined" for Jerusalem by the jews rejecting Christ in the midst of the 70th week and it did happen within the "this generation" that Christ referred to.

[_AARONDISNEY]

1."Truly i say to you this generation will not pass away until all things take place." Luke 21.32 Everytime the phrase "this generation"is used in Matt, 5 times meant the generation Jesus was speaking to and Luke was paraphrasing Matthew.

This generation truly is always (as far as I've seen) used to indicate the direct audience in Matthew (except for possibly this incident). However, this isn't always the case. It's also been brought up by your position that when Jesus speaks to them he directs it to them by saying "you".....This is also the word that Moses (I believe) said to the children of Israel when He said "A Prophet shall God raise up among YOU". He was speaking of Jesus, however, Jesus didn't come up out of those particular people, but of the family line of Jacob. So He simply said "from among you".
That He says "this generation" does seem to pose a problem, but it isn't a slam dunk for preterists. It is suspect, and could mean "This people", after all, they as a people have not "passed".

2. "The kingdom of God is near" could simply refer to Christ himself being near in 70AD not necessarily to the initiation of the kingdom of God but only that it's presence is near.

I suppose this could be true, but did Jesus ever refer to Himself personally as "The Kingdom Of God"? (I ask this knowing that He could have referred to Himself that way..I just can't remember Him doing so

3. The "fig tree" is assumed to be Israel but is it? Not in the OT ,i believe it's the Olive tree plus what about the "other trees?"

I don't think that the Fig Tree parable here has anything to do with Israel being re-assembled. I don't buy that dispensational teaching. After all Luke says "the fig tree and all the trees", So we're in complete agreement here.
But I do believe other scriptures point to Israel being regatherd into their own country.

4. Even if this referred to Christ's second coming it does'nt prove a milleneum or a 7 year trib from Dan 9.26-27. In fact Jesus was "annointed the most holy" because that's what Messiah means "the annointed one" and as the Son of God he is the most holy one who was annointed at his baptism.

I agree that He was annointed as the King long before this, but I understand Him to be King to His sons and daughters but not the earthly Kingdom of God yet.
David was anointed as King of Israel before it actually occurred that He sat on the Throne. So it is with Jesus. He is our anointed King but He has not come to claim His throne in Jerusalem yet.
You make a good point that it doesn't necessarily have to mean that Daniel 9 indicates a gap if you view things from a preterist perspective, but it indicates a tribulation period still future to me, since the Kingdom of God is not yet here (according to how I believe it to be).

5. Read Dan 9.27 closely and it actually says after the 69 weeks "desolations are determined" for Jerusalem by the jews rejecting Christ in the midst of the 70th week and it did happen within the "this generation" that Christ referred to

Again, this is one of those verses that I am still trying to wrap my mind around. Maybe one of these days I'll understand it well enough to see what it truly means..(hopefully )

Aaron