Gap in Daniel's 70 weeks

[tim-from-pa]

Dee Dee:

Then if the 70th week is over, then who was the "prince that shall come"?

Notice this prince made a covenant for one week, and in the midst of the week broken it. Does that sound like Christ? It sounds like someone more diabolical.

Secondly, consider Leviticus 26 where Israel is punished "seven times". This, by theologians, is considered seven time 360 or 2520 days or years when Ezekiel compared a day to a year. There was the long fulfillment in Israel's exile, and the short one or a literal 7 years which fits this.

Jeremiah calls this the "time of Jacob's trouble" i.e. the Tribulation.

Lastly, the justification for "splitting" the passage in time is given by Jesus Himself when he quoted about himself Isaiah 61:1-2. The NT says he quoted half way thru verse 2, then CLOSED the book where is said," and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;". That's because that part would not be fulfilled until He returns again. So if Christ made a gap, that justifies a possibility of a gap in Daniel chapter 9.

 

[Vic C.]

Hi Tim. I haven't talked enough with Dee Dee to determine how she feels about this, but here it is, for your consideration:

http://www.historicist.com/newton/p1c10.htm
http://www.historicist.com/newton/nutshell.htm

Newton has some insight on this subject.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dee Dee:

Then if the 70th week is over, then who was the "prince that shall come"?

Notice this prince made a covenant for one week, and in the midst of the week broken it. Does that sound like Christ? It sounds like someone more diabolical.

Secondly, consider Leviticus 26 where Israel is punished "seven times". This, by theologians, is considered seven time 360 or 2520 days or years when Ezekiel compared a day to a year. There was the long fulfillment in Israel's exile, and the short one or a literal 7 years which fits this.

Jeremiah calls this the "time of Jacob's trouble" i.e. the Tribulation.

Lastly, the justification for "splitting" the passage in time is given by Jesus Himself when he quoted about himself Isaiah 61:1-2. The NT says he quoted half way thru verse 2, then CLOSED the book where is said," and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;". That's because that part would not be fulfilled until He returns again. So if Christ made a gap, that justifies a possibility of a gap in Daniel chapter 9.

I am looking for a verbal debate. I have the answers to those inquiries, but not really interested in a written debate. I have been attempting to find a dispensational interested futurist opponents for several years.

 

[tim-from-pa]

Sorry Dee Dee.

I do not think I'm up to a verbal debate because I stammer. Ya know how one tries to think of a word for something and cannot---- can be the same things with facts and figures. Too jagged.

When I'm on a forum. I can at least think faster than type, plus I have time to look up my resources, cut and paste scripture, etc. In short, I'm not a high pressure kinda guy.

Vic

Thanks for the links. I remember looking over some of their stuff months back, I believe under Isaac Newton when my son was doing a report on him. Historicists believe a lot of the "apocalyptic stuff" happened around 70 AD. While I believe prophecy (like history as they say) repeats itself, it is not the final event.

In this case, for example, I must say that the 70th week being fulfilled at the fall of Jerusalem still needs a gap (albeit a shorter one), and actually supports the gap theory. The apostle John wrote Revelation after this all started happening (well some of it anyway). It would not take too much foresight to see that. Yet, he also spoke about the abomination of desolation. Other passages of Daniel, if one takes a historicist view, were not completely fulfilled (e.g. 'bring in everlasting righteousness'). You get the point.

Each time Israel or the Jews were about to be exiled, the temple underwent damage with desecration. However, one time will be a final time when the everlasting righteousness will finally come and all the prophecies fulfilled.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Sorry Dee Dee.

I do not think I'm up to a verbal debate because I stammer. Ya know how one tries to think of a word for something and cannot---- can be the same things with facts and figures. Too jagged.

I am not a great verbal debater either which is why I would like to get the experience. I am not terrible, but below average. Perhaps this could be a good experience for both of us?

 

[Vic C.]

Hi again Tim.

In this case, for example, I must say that the 70th week being fulfilled at the fall of Jerusalem still needs a gap (albeit a shorter one), and actually supports the gap theory.

I agree and have brought this up in the past. But when reading Newton, he completes the week at Cornelius, which leaves the timeline unbroken.

Yet shall he confirm the covenant with many for one week. He kept it, notwithstanding his death, till the rejection of the Jews, and calling of Cornelius and the Gentiles in the seventh year after his passion.

What I am still trying to grasp is this:

And in half a week he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease; that is, by the war of the Romans upon the Jews: which war, after some commotions, began in the 13th year of Nero, A.D. 67, in the spring, when Vespasian with an army invaded them; and ended in the second year of Vespasian, A.D. 70, in autumn, Sept. 7, when Titus took the city, having burnt the Temple 27 days before: so that it lasted three years and an half.

Is he adding an additional 3 1/2 years to the prophecy? He's the mathematician. 8-) So, what is he saying here? Where is he starting the 70 weeks (not the 70th. week)? What is he seeing in Daniel's prophecy that I'm not seeing?

*pulls hair out* :

 

[JM]

Folks,

I found it interesting that J. Barton Payne [Historic Premil] agrees with the common Preterist/Amil view of Dan. 9.

Here’s a quote from taken from his massive volume titled, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy:

Young, however, seems justified in insisting that “that subject is Messiah…To construe ‘prince’ as subject does not appear to be the most natural reading, for the word occupies only a subordinate position in v.26, where it is not even the subject of sentence…Furthermore this entire passage is Messianic in nature, and the Messiah is the leading character, the great terminus ad quem of the 69 sevens. They lead up to Him, who is their goal.†Fulfillment [per. 13]: as in Isa. No. 93 [42:6a], Christ’s embodiment of the redemptive testament of God. As the Servant of Yahweh, He proclaimed the gospel to Israel during His 3 ½ year ministry [Isa. 42:1-4, Mt. 12:17-21], thus confirming to them the grace of the divine testament [Isa. 42:6] Next, upon Calvary, He brought to a close the OT economy of redemption, rending the veil of the temple [Mt. 27:51] and causing legitimate typical sacrifices once and for all to cease [Heb. 9:12]. The 490 years of Daniel’s 70 weeks then conclude with the latter 3 ½ years of the final week, during which time the testament continued to be confirmed to Israel; cf. Acts 2:38. But this open message terminated with the stoning of Stephen; cf. 8:1, on the church being driven from Jerusalem. The occasion, moreover, is datable to a.d. 33/34, the year to which Paul’s conversion is to be assigned. Dispensational writers commonly take Dan. 9:27 as separated from, and subsequent to, v.26 rather then as an explanation of it: and the subject who confirms the testament [or covenant] is held to be the prince of v.26, meaning the Antichrist. Serious problems, however, beset such a reconstruction. To note but a few:

1/ it breaks up the sequence of the 70 weeks by introducing an interval before this last part; and, as Hengstenberg long ago cautioned, “The period of 70 hebdomads, or 490 years, is here predicted as one that will continue uninterruptedly from its commencement to its close…what can be more evident then this? Exactly 70 weeks in all are to elapse; and how can anyone imagine that there is an interval between 69 and the 1, when these together make up the 70?â€Â
2/ it assumes an unprecedented covenant-making by the Antichrist, when Scripture contains no hint of any such covenant at all, let alone some earlier one that he could confirm at this point in Dan.9; and
3/ it transforms a past prince of Rome into a future deputy of the devil, for as Young points out, “The emphasis of v.26 is not upon the prince from a people, but upon the people who belong to the prince…In other words, he must be their contemporary, alive when they are alive.â€Â

The dates may be moved around a little, but Payne makes a good case for his understanding of the Dan. 9 and the 70 weeks. As I continue to read thru this work [over 700 pages] I’ll post more quotations. Historic Premil maintains

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

JM that is a very good point, which is why my debate invitatin is to dispensational futurists. It is primarily only dispensationalists to whom this is a critical passage. I stand with many Christians of many persuasions on my interpretation of this passage, it is NOT a uniquely preterist one.

 

[tim-from-pa]

Is he adding an additional 3 1/2 years to the prophecy? He's the mathematician. So, what is he saying here? Where is he starting the 70 weeks (not the 70th. week)? What is he seeing in Daniel's prophecy that I'm not seeing?

*pulls hair out*

I think we just don't understand Newton. : Anyone who invents calculus to solve his problems cannot be all bad!

 

[lecoop]

Dee Dee said:

I am looking for a verbal debate. I have the answers to those inquiries, but not really interested in a written debate. I have been attempting to find a dispensational interested futurist opponents for several years.

You also mentioned that you have a many pages written on the Olivet Discourse. I would really enjoy seeing you post a brief summary of the Olivet discourse here, as I also have written extensively on this. Oh, I am most definitely a dispensational premillennialist, pre-trib, prewrather, so this should be FUN! With Vic as a classic pre-wrather, this should be very interesting.

Coop

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Oh heck, me and "brief" are not two words that co-exist well together.

My brief position is pretty much the classic preterist one - Matthew 24, at least up to verse 34, is speaking primarily about the events leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. Any other application is typological though unlike most preterists, I absolutely do not rule out entirely a future typological application. The "coming" mentioned in that passage is not the Second Coming. I confess the Second Coming, just do not believe it is being referred to in that passage at all, and in fact, do not believe it is directly referred to in many passage since the focus of the Second Coming is not the bodily appearance of Christ, though He does return bodily, but what He does when He returns bodily, therefore it is the resurrection passages that are the Second Coming passages for the most part. The word "coming" is quite equivocal in the NT, and I believe the "coming" of Christ is not some solely future discreet (meaning at a distinct point in time, and notice the word "solely") event, but coming=messianic rule and therefore the coming of Christ is and includes His first coming, this period of time, and His final Physical Advent to consummate history and resurrect the dead bodily. I also firmly believe that a denial of the bodily resurrection is a denial of the Christian faith - as attested to by many Biblical passages.

I hope that was brief