Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

LindaR

The Gap (Daniel 11:33-35)

Recommended Posts



Please!
There are gaps all through Scripture.
How long from the creation to the fall?
How long did it take for Noah to build the Ark?
There is a gap of 13 years from the time of Ishmael's birth to the time of Isaac's birth.
What I mean by this is that there is a period of time in Scripture that we know absolutely nothing about. The narrative of Genesis 16 ends abruptly with Ishmael's birth, and then we have a "gap" up until Gen. 18 and 19 when Isaac are born. What happened during that time? We don't know, because God didn't consider it important for us to know.
There is a "gap" from Joseph's death until Moses shows up.
There is a gap of 40 years in the desert. We really don't have a whole lot of information about that time - just bits and pieces.
There is a gap between Malachi and Matthew.

Why would anyone think it strange that there might be a gap between the 69th week and the 70th week?

You basically answer this yourself. The Bible isn't a complete record of everything from creation to the end. The "gaps" you point to are not actual gaps, but rather periods of time that God had nothing to say about to us.

However, when God said there would be 70 weeks He gave us a specific time and nowhere does God ever say there will be a bunch of other weeks in there but we're not going to count them. As I pointed out before, when God gives a specific time, that time is followed, such as the 70 years of captivity. It wasn't 69 years plus a bunch of years that don't count for some reason and then when they finally were released it's called the 70th year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please!
There are gaps all through Scripture.
How long from the creation to the fall?
How long did it take for Noah to build the Ark?
There is a gap of 13 years from the time of Ishmael's birth to the time of Isaac's birth.
What I mean by this is that there is a period of time in Scripture that we know absolutely nothing about. The narrative of Genesis 16 ends abruptly with Ishmael's birth, and then we have a "gap" up until Gen. 18 and 19 when Isaac are born. What happened during that time? We don't know, because God didn't consider it important for us to know.
There is a "gap" from Joseph's death until Moses shows up.
There is a gap of 40 years in the desert. We really don't have a whole lot of information about that time - just bits and pieces.
There is a gap between Malachi and Matthew.

Why would anyone think it strange that there might be a gap between the 69th week and the 70th week?



Steve, you are playing games here. They are all naturall gaps,

We are speaking about something completely different. God says the time af the restored Jewish economy after their return fro captivity under Cyrus would be 70 weeks, or 490 years. The gap is a strange teaching, not taught by any of the church till the 19th century and picked up by Scofield and incorporated into his infamous 'bible.' Edited by Invicta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHENCE CAME THIS MODERN SYSTEM? (Dispensationalism)
As regards the origin of the system: the beginnings thereof and its leading features are found in the writings of those known as "Brethren" (sometimes called "Plymouth Brethren," from the name of the English city where the movement first attracted attention); though it is but fair to state that the best known and most spiritual leaders of that movement — - as Darby, Kelly, Newberry, Chapman, Mueller and others, "whose names are in the Book of Life" — - never held the "Jewish" character of the kingdom preached by our Lord and John the Baptist, or the "Jewish" character of the gospels (especially Matthew), or that the Sermon on the Mount is "law and not grace" and pertains to a future "Jewish" Kingdom.
From what I have been able to gather by inquiry of others (who were "in Christ before me") the new system of doctrine we are now discussing was first brought to the vicinity of New York by a very gifted and godly man, Mr. Malachi Taylor, (one of the "Brethren") who taught it with much earnestness and plausibility. That was near the beginning of the present century, either a little before of a little after.
And among those who heard and were captivated by it (for truly there is some strange fascination inherent in it) was the late Dr. C. I. Scofield, who was so infatuated with it that he proceeded forthwith to bring out the new edition of the entire Bible, having for its distinctive feature that the peculiar doctrines of this new dispensationalism are woven into the very warp and woof thereof, in the form of notes, headings, subheadings and summaries. There is no doubt whatever that it is mainly to this cleverly executed work that dispensationalism owes its present vogue. For without that aid it doubtless would be clearly seen by all who give close attention to the doctrine, that it is a humanly contrived system that has been imposed upon the Bible, not a scheme of doctrine derived from it.
A REVIVAL OF ANCIENT RABBINISM
Then as to what this modern system of teaching is, it will be a surprise to most of those who love the Lord Jesus Christ to learn that, in respect to the central and vitally important subject of the kingdom of God, twentieth century dispensationalism is practically identical with first century rabbinism. For the cardinal doctrine of the Jewish rabbis of Christ’s day was that, according to the predictions of the prophets of Israel, the purpose and result of the Messiah’s mission would be the reconstituting of the Jewish nation; the reoccupation by them of the land of Palestine; the setting up again of the earthly throne of David, and the exaltation of the people of Israel to the place of supremacy in the world.
Now, seeing that a doctrine is known by its fruits, let us recall what effects this doctrine concerning the kingdom of God had upon the orthodox Jews who so earnestly believed it in that day. And in view of what it impelled those zealous men to do, let us ask ourselves if there is not grave reason to fear its effect upon the orthodox Christians who hold and zealously teach it in our day? The effect then was that, when Christ came to his own people, proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand, but making it known that that kingdom did not correspond at all to their idea of it; when he said," My kingdom is not of this world," and taught that, so far from being Jewish, it was of such sort that a man must be born of the Spirit in order to enter it, then they rejected him ("received him not"), hated him, betrayed him and caused him to be put to death.
Now let it be carefully noted in this connection, that the apostle Paul, referring to what had been done to Jesus by them "that dwelt at Jerusalem and their rulers," said that the reason for their murderous act was "because they knew him not, nor yet the voice of the prophets which are read every sabbath day"; and furthermore, that they have fulfilled them in condemning him" (# Ac 13:27). This plainly declares that it was because the Jewish teachers had misinterpreted the messages of the prophets, that they were looking for the restoration of their national greatness, instead of what the prophets had really foretold, a spiritual kingdom ruled by "Jesus Christ of the seed of David raised from the dead (#2Ti 2:8).
Have we not, therefore, good reason to fear disastrous consequences from the fact that the teachers of the new dispensationalism say the Jewish rabbis were right in their interpretation of the prophecies, that the kingdom foretold by the prophets is an earthly kingdom of Jewish character, and that in fact Christ’s mission at that very time was to restore again the earthly kingdom to Israel? And why then did he not do it? The answer the dispensationalists give to this crucial question is one of the strangest features of the whole system. They say, in effect, that Christ was ready to do it, and that he would have done it, but that when he "offered" them the very thing they were ardently expecting, they (most inconsistently, it would appear) "refused the offer," whereupon it was "withdrawn" and the kingdom "postponed to a future dispensation." And when we ask for a citation of a single scripture that mentions the alleged "offer," or "its "refusal," or the alleged "withdrawal" and "postponement," not a reference is produced. And particularly, when we press the vital question, what, in case the offer had been accepted, would have become of the cross of Calvary, and the atonement for the sin of the world, the best answer we get is that in that event, "the atonement would have been made some other way." Think of it! "Some other way" than by the cross!
Now, in view of the above facts, I do most positively insist that, whatever the conclusion one may reach after an examination of the whole subject, there is to begin with, and because of the facts just stated, a very heavy "burden of proof" resting upon those who advocate this novel and radical system of teaching.
And specially I insist that, as regards the doctrine of a future restoration of national Israel, with the accompaniment of supreme earthly greatness and dominion, there are two relevant facts that should receive our most serious attention: first, that that doctrine was the very cornerstone of the creed of apostate Judaism in its last stage, and the prime cause of their rejection and crucifixion of Christ; and second, that it made its first appearance among Christians near the end of the nineteenth century. These facts may not settle anything; but certainly they do impose a heavy "burden of proof" upon those who now teach that the apostate Jews were right in their interpretation of the prophets (whose "voices," the apostle declares, "they knew not." # Ac 13:27) and that Christian teachers and expositors for nineteen centuries were all wrong. Philip Mauro, writing about 1923.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Rick, I sometimes wonder if you understand the same English language as others of us. Where does it say the Messiah will be cut off before the 70th week? It doesn't. What it does say is that he will be cut off after the 69 weeks, not at the end of them as some on here keep posting. That is misquoting scripture. In my maths 70 comes after 69 so after 69 means during the 70 weeks. When during the 70th week was Messiah cut off? The following verse tells us, in the midst of the week. The first part of verse 27 refers to the work of Christ when he confirmed the promises (The Covenant) given to the fathers, to those of the circumcision. The last part to his prophecy that all these things would come upon this generation.


First of all, the last part (the abomination of desolation) is supposed to happen during the 70th week, but you are trying to move it out of there because it doesn't work with your system.

As far as whether or not the Messiah was cut off during the 70th week or before it, that's why verse 25 is critical. If all we had to go by was verse 26 then you'd have a case for it being sometime during the 70th week. If the Messiah was cut off in the 70th week, then verse 25 would have said, "...from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and THREE weeks:" Then the next verse would have remained the same demonstrating that it was during the 70th week and after the 69th. But as it is, there is no evidence that it is during the 70th week, everything within the text points to the Messiah being cut off before the 70th week. Nothing states that it was during the 70th week.

The covenant that is confirmed for one week, but ceases half way through, is not of God. It is of the Prince that shall come spoken of in verse 26 (the future Antichrist). The people of the prince that shall come are Romans in 70 A.D., and the prince that shall come is a Roman Catholic Antichrist in the future. The Roman Antichrist will declare himself to be God while standing in the temple of God, committing the abomination of desolation in the 70th week. Edited by Rick Schworer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 69 weeks expired with the baptism of Jesus, that is when the 70th week began, when Jesus said "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel." Mark 1:15. He was announced by God, John the Baptist and himself, to the woman of Samaria."

John 1:40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother.
41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
John 1:49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.


Jesus was announced as Messiah at the beginning of his ministry, you have no authority to change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter you cut it, there is still a "gap." If in fact the preterist view is correct, how do we get from 33 AD to 70 AD without a GAP???? Ian says it is a "continuation of time."
It is nothing of the sort. The text of Daniel 9 says NOTHING about a "continuation of time." It says it would be 70 weeks. 33 AD to 70 AD is more than a "week" no matter how you cut it.

THERE IS A GAP no matter what side you take on this!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God predestined to allow the fall. Adam was the only man who had an innocent neutral free will, the rest of us are born with a sinful and therefore not free nature. In Adam we all chose sin. The fall was an example of where man's free choice leads given the temptation and without God's intervention - sin. So God did predestine to allow the fall (He could have easily prevented it) but He did not make Adam do it. Adam did it by his own free will. It is because free will does not lead to God; only His grace does.


anime, does this mean you do not witness to those who have not received Christ as their Savior?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHENCE CAME THIS MODERN SYSTEM? (Dispensationalism)
As regards the origin of the system: the beginnings thereof and its leading features are found in the writings of those known as "Brethren" (sometimes called "Plymouth Brethren," from the name of the English city where the movement first attracted attention); though it is but fair to state that the best known and most spiritual leaders of that movement — - as Darby, Kelly, Newberry, Chapman, Mueller and others, "whose names are in the Book of Life" — - never held the "Jewish" character of the kingdom preached by our Lord and John the Baptist, or the "Jewish" character of the gospels (especially Matthew), or that the Sermon on the Mount is "law and not grace" and pertains to a future "Jewish" Kingdom............


STuff and nonsense.
1. THe Jews RULERS (priests, Pharisees, Saducees, Lawyers, etc. at al) for the most part did NOT believe what we are teaching. If they did, they would have accepted Jesus Christ as their Messiah.
2. The Jewish PEOPLE had every RIGHT to believe in a "Jewish" Kingdom with a resurrected David on the Throne and the Messiah bringing deliverance from their captors SINCE THE OT IS FILLED WITH SUCH PROMISES.
3. This same old argument about Darby, Scofield, etc. is simply NOT TRUE. "Church" history is NOT the History of the local, NT, Bible-Believing saints for the last 2,000 years, but rather the history of the "big shots" and their stupidity. Augustine is about as good a "saint" as Pope Benedict the (whatever number he is.) We really don't get an accurate picture of the theology of the REAL Bible-Believing saints because they were so viciously hunted and persecuted by the standing order STate-Churches. The writings and sermons of the REAL Bible-Believers were burned and destroyed right along with them - up to and including their own PERSONAL correspondence.
So to say that Dispensationalism is a "recent" invention is in fact a LIE. The few scant records we do have from the REAL BIble-Believing Christians indicate that they were Baptistic in their church governance and observance of ordinances, and that a good number of them had a basic understanding of what we would now call "dispensationalism."
Once religious freedom began to roll along, THEN we could start writing. So what Darby really did was systematize and commit to writing what many others had believed for centuries! Those former saints simply did not have money or means to write and distribute what they believed. They were too busy making a living (since they were noted for being poor!), and hiding from their persecutors.

I could just as easily make the case that this preterist - allegorical - post-trib/a-mill or whatever nonsense had its origin with the old heretic and Bible corrector Origen. Augustine then picked up the mantle, and it was carried over by Calvin, Henry, and the Wesleys. But notice - NONE OF THESE MEN ARE BAPTISTS.

So lets stop the ad hominem arguments, and discuss the IDEAS from a Scriptural perspective.

WHAT SAITH THE SCRIPTURES???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



anime, does this mean you do not witness to those who have not received Christ as their Savior?


I don't see where you got that. I do witness.

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? - Romans 10:14-15a

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


STuff and nonsense.
1. THe Jews RULERS (priests, Pharisees, Saducees, Lawyers, etc. at al) for the most part did NOT believe what we are teaching. If they did, they would have accepted Jesus Christ as their Messiah.
2. The Jewish PEOPLE had every RIGHT to believe in a "Jewish" Kingdom with a resurrected David on the Throne and the Messiah bringing deliverance from their captors SINCE THE OT IS FILLED WITH SUCH PROMISES.
3. This same old argument about Darby, Scofield, etc. is simply NOT TRUE. "Church" history is NOT the History of the local, NT, Bible-Believing saints for the last 2,000 years, but rather the history of the "big shots" and their stupidity. Augustine is about as good a "saint" as Pope Benedict the (whatever number he is.) We really don't get an accurate picture of the theology of the REAL Bible-Believing saints because they were so viciously hunted and persecuted by the standing order STate-Churches. The writings and sermons of the REAL Bible-Believers were burned and destroyed right along with them - up to and including their own PERSONAL correspondence.
So to say that Dispensationalism is a "recent" invention is in fact a LIE. The few scant records we do have from the REAL BIble-Believing Christians indicate that they were Baptistic in their church governance and observance of ordinances, and that a good number of them had a basic understanding of what we would now call "dispensationalism."
Once religious freedom began to roll along, THEN we could start writing. So what Darby really did was systematize and commit to writing what many others had believed for centuries! Those former saints simply did not have money or means to write and distribute what they believed. They were too busy making a living (since they were noted for being poor!), and hiding from their persecutors.

I could just as easily make the case that this preterist - allegorical - post-trib/a-mill or whatever nonsense had its origin with the old heretic and Bible corrector Origen. Augustine then picked up the mantle, and it was carried over by Calvin, Henry, and the Wesleys. But notice - NONE OF THESE MEN ARE BAPTISTS.

So lets stop the ad hominem arguments, and discuss the IDEAS from a Scriptural perspective.

WHAT SAITH THE SCRIPTURES???

Spurgeon was Baptist and he spoke out strongly against what he said was the new and unbiblical teachings of Darby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Spurgeon was Baptist and he spoke out strongly against what he said was the new and unbiblical teachings of Darby.

Appeal to man....
Maybe all the men who are trying the "historical" argument to disprove dispensationalism are wrong.
Maybe Spurgeon was wrong on this point.

Here is the inconsistency. Those who promote this "historical" argument against dispensationalism are left with this preterist/allegorical system that was promoted and used by the ancient HERETICS such as Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, and Augustine. Therefore, based on your own criteria, we should dismiss your theory.

But where does this leave us? Does this "historical" argument really answer the questions?

NO!

WHAT SAITH THE SCRIPTURE?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
& slightly edited:

As I understand it from intertestamental history, Daniel's prophecy is so accurate with regard to the rise of Antiochus Epiphanes & subsequently Herod, & the struggle of the Maccabees, that they have accused him of recording that history rather than prophesying it. Inserting 2,000 years of predestined persecution, justified by a supposed gap, is adding to Scripture. Bear in mind the Jews have not got that KJV colon to reassure them that their 2,000 years of suffering is the will of God.


Don't you folk see that you are justifying millennia of persecution of the Jews by your additions to Holy Scripture? God's purpose is taught by Paul:
28
As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.

29
For the gifts and calling of God are without repe
nt
ance.

30
For as ye in times past have n
ot
believed God, yet have now
ob
tained mercy through their unbelief:

31
Even so have these also now n
ot
believed, that through your mercy they also may
ob
tain mercy.

32
For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

33
O the depth of the riches b
ot
h of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgme
nt
s, and his ways past finding out!


Is Paul teaching that the Jews are rejected by God throughout the Gospel age? God forbid! They are saved by the Gospel - the same Gospel that saves us - & Paul himself.

The teaching of the OP is blatantly anti-semitic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ian, it was God that said "blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in." You know that no one here said that Jews can't get saved, we've been through that before. The nation as a whole has been set aside.

The abomination of desolation either occurred in 70 A.D. or will sometime in the future. Either way, both sides have a gap to explain whether you want to admit it or not. We're open about it, you like to hide it.

When pinned to the mat the non-dispensationalist will always change the subject by muttering things about Darby and Scofield or mischaracterizing our position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ian, it was God that said "blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in." You know that no one here said that Jews can't get saved, we've been through that before. The nation as a whole has been set aside.

The abomination of desolation either occurred in 70 A.D. or will sometime in the future. Either way, both sides have a gap to explain whether you want to admit it or not. We're open about it, you like to hide it.

When pinned to the mat the non-dispensationalist will always change the subject by muttering things about Darby and Scofield or mischaracterizing our position.

When did the fulness of the Gentiles be come in ? Are we still waiting, or was it when the Gospel was opened wide to the Gentiles? Every racial group has been & is blind in part. I don't think any of us believe that we will see fulness in the sense of 100% salvation of either Gentile or Israel before Jesus returns. (Whether millennium (which isn't 100% salvation) or NH&NE (which is.))

Is this what Paul means?
24
And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed n
ot
.

25
And when they agreed n
ot
among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet u
nt
o our fathers,

26
Saying, Go u
nt
o this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall n
ot
understand; and seeing ye shall see, and n
ot
perceive:

27
For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

28
Be it known therefore u
nt
o you, that the salvation of God is se
nt
u
nt
o the Ge
nt
iles, and that they will hear it.

29
And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.


Remember that Paul has also written:
11
I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come u
nt
o the Ge
nt
iles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

12
Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Ge
nt
iles; how much more their fulness?


Does he mean the Gospel going out to all nations, including Jews after AD 70, or some distant future. He did write:
8
Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made u
nt
o the fathers:

9
And that the Ge
nt
iles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Ge
nt
iles, and sing u
nt
o thy name.

10
And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Ge
nt
iles, with his people.

11
And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Ge
nt
iles; and laud him, all ye people.

12
And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a ro
ot
of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Ge
nt
iles; in him shall the Ge
nt
iles trust.



25
Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

26
But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandme
nt
of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the
ob
edience of faith:

27
To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.


Peter declared, after Pentecost:
25
Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covena
nt
which God made with our fathers, saying u
nt
o Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

26
U
nt
o you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, se
nt
him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.


The OP & those who consider the Gospel age a gap in God's dealings with Israel are in serious error - & antisemitic in their thinking. God no longer considers Israel as a nation to be a special people, but Jews are certainly not in any way excluded. They with us comprise a holy nation, & very special to God:
5
Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

6
Wherefore also it is co
nt
ained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall n
ot
be confounded.

7
U
nt
o you therefore which believe he is precious: but u
nt
o them which be dis
ob
edie
nt
, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

8
And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being dis
ob
edie
nt
: whereu
nt
o also they were appoi
nt
ed.

9
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness i
nt
o his marvellous light;

10
Which in time past were n
ot
a people, but are now the people of God: which had n
ot
ob
tained mercy, but now have
ob
tained mercy.


God has never changed, & this is a wonderful promise:

16
Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to an
ot
her: and the LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name.

17
And they shall be mine, saith the LORD of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him.

18
Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him n
ot
.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let’s not change the subject: we've already been through all of that, Romans 9 and 11 make it clear that God is not through with Israel as a nation.

Are you willing to admit that the system you adhere to creates a gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th week? Or how do you reconcile the Messiah being crucified half way through the 70th week only to have the abomination of desolation occurring 40 years later? That seems like a very long week to me. Kinda like the week where everyone has to go back to work from Christmas vacation or something.

Your system self-destructs when put to the test. The weeks in Daniel are supposed to be seven years long. The only way you can make it work is to remove the Abomination of Desolation from the 70th week, but anyone reading the text can clearly see that it is included.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also for Rick.


No matter you cut it, there is still a "gap." If in fact the preterist view is correct, how do we get from 33 AD to 70 AD without a GAP???? Ian says it is a "continuation of time."
It is nothing of the sort. The text of Daniel 9 says NOTHING about a "continuation of time." It says it would be 70 weeks. 33 AD to 70 AD is more than a "week" no matter how you cut it.

THERE IS A GAP no matter what side you take on this!

Please refer to Dan. 9. The point you are making completely misses the fact that Gabriel says nothing about events during the 68th week, when, if the crucifixion takes place after 69 weeks & before the 70th week Jesus ministry is taking place. Everything is ready for Messiah to begin his ministry after threescore and two weeks. The building, etc, takes place during those 7 & 62 weeks, & all is set for Messiah's ministry of redemption - beginning with his baptism & anointing by the Holy Spirit, even the prophecy that after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off. Further, that cutting off is the final effective sacrifice so Gabriel can say: in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.

A lot of things happen after threescore and two weeks but after threescore and two weeks does not necessarily mean during the 70th week. Obviously the formal sacrifices are finished when Messiah is cut off, even though they continue for a generation. Also Jesus shall confirm the covenant with many for one week which is during his earthly ministry & during the early apostolic preaching. The 70th week ends around the time of Stephen & Cornelius. Stephen declares the unbelieving Jews uncircumcised, while Peter welcomes the uncircumcised Cornelius by the Gospel.

Are the other prophesied events necessarily during the 70th week? They takes place after threescore and two weeks, & is a consequence of the rejection of the Messiah, but not necessarily during the 70th week.
the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and u
nt
o the end of the war desolations are determined.

Jesus prophesied that against this generation. Those who reject the wonderful salvation declared in v. 24 will suffer the prophesied desolation.

No need for a gap, the saving work was finished, the Gospel proclaimed, the old covenant rituals ended. God graciously allowed a full generation to live under the sound of the Gospel before he carried out the sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let’s not change the subject: we've already been through all of that, Romans 9 and 11 make it clear that God is not through with Israel as a nation.

Rick - the whole point of the thread - & the video link - is the predestined persecution of the Jews during the GAP in God's dealings with Israel during the so-called "church age." Many days so far nearly 2,000 years of persecution resulting from a colon, and without Jesus reassurance.
: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil,
many
days.



33
These things I have spoken u
nt
o you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.


Israel as a people are blessed, not Israel as a nation. Show me otherwise from the NT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Appeal to man....
Maybe all the men who are trying the "historical" argument to disprove dispensationalism are wrong.
Maybe Spurgeon was wrong on this point.

Here is the inconsistency. Those who promote this "historical" argument against dispensationalism are left with this preterist/allegorical system that was promoted and used by the ancient HERETICS such as Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, and Augustine. Therefore, based on your own criteria, we should dismiss your theory.

But where does this leave us? Does this "historical" argument really answer the questions?

NO!

WHAT SAITH THE SCRIPTURE?


Darby was an Irish high church man. These days he would be called an Anglo Catholic. he was or pretended to be an extreme Calvinist. He once wrote that a tract he wrote in oxford, defending the Calvinist view was the only tract that made him money. B.W. Newton thought it was too extreme and a modest defence of Calvinism would have been better. That would suggest to me that Darby was either not a Calvinst or had not developed his dispensationalist theories as you cannot believe the Doctrines of Grace and Dispensationalism as they are diametrically opposed. Although some try. Darby picked up a Jesuit teaching and developed it. Dispensationalism has never been a baptist teaching. B.W. Newton thought that Darby was sent to Oxford to spy on the evangelicals by the papists, and said that he had read nothing in Darby's writings that a papist could not have written. Newton became a Baptist, Darby became the pope of the Brethren.

What saith the scriptures? or we may add, what don't they say?

Well they certainly do not, in Daniel 9, mention an antichrist, do not mention a gap, do not say a covenant will be made, nor a covenant will be broken. Edited by Invicta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, ah, ah, not so fast.

Let's look again at Dan. 9:27, "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.”

In the middle of the week you have the sacrifice stopping and the abomination of desolation occurring. They happen at the same time! You can't do anything about it, it’s right there in the text and it’s very clear that they happen together.

Now if you're right, then Christ was crucified in the middle of the 70th week, the animal sacrifices become of no effect, and then we wait another 40 years for the abomination of desolation to happen in 70 A.D. Not only does this not work when you consider every week is supposed to be seven years long, but these events happen in the middle of the week together. That could mean your week would be very long. In fact, if we’re to take the Scripture as how they are written, and force your system of interpretation upon them, then that would mean the middle of the week would consist of a 40 year period. That would mean the entire week would have to be seven periods of 40 years equaling 280 years! This is why you force the abomination of desolation out of the text because it doesn't fit your system. Too bad brother, it's right there and it is part of the week whether you like it or not.

Here's the other alternative:

The 70th week is separated in the text from the other 69 weeks because it is unique. All 70 weeks tie in directly to Israel and her accepting the Messiah, and verse 24 describes what will happen to the nation once all 70 weeks are complete. Daniel has just finished praying one of the most sincere and heartfelt prayers about his nation ever recorded in Scripture. He is begging for forgiveness for his Israel, and God answers by sending Gabriel with a message about the future of his people. Gabriel tells Daniel about the 70 weeks of years and what will happen to his nation in stunning detail.

After 69 weeks the Messiah will be cut off. After describing the events before the 70th week begins, the end of verse 26 mentions a very interesting character and speaks of the 70 A.D. destruction. This character is "the prince that shall come." The people of this prince will destroy Jerusalem, and we see from history those people are Romans. The coming prince (where have I heard that before?) therefore is Roman as well, and he is spoken of in the next verse.

This coming prince confirms the covenant with the nation of Israel and many other people. In the middle of the week he stops the sacrifices and commits the abomination of desolation spoken of by Jesus (Matthew 24) and Paul (II Thess. 2:4). He is the little horn, the Beast, and the Antichrist, the head of the Babylon of Revelation. His position as head of Rome was revealed in the first century to Bible believers (II Thess. 2:3) and Christians have been calling the head of pagan Rome and religious Rome antichrist ever since. Just as there are many devils and one Devil, so too are there many antichrists and one Antichrist. The future Antichrist will top them all and when he is revealed to be the son of perdition (double application II Thess. 2:3 again). He'll do it by walking into the rebuilt temple in Jerusalem (Rev. 11) along with an image of the Beast that actually speaks (Rev. 13), and will declare himself to be God. If a Jew understands anything it's that you don't worship an image, and the ones who can will flee to the place prepared for them in the wilderness by God (Matthew 24, Rev 12).

This week is a seven year period, just like all the rest, and it has to do with the nation of Israel, just like all the other weeks do. To recap, it has the prince that shall come confirming a covenant with many people, the sacrifices will stop when he breaks the covenant (Is. 28:14-15, 18; 33:8, Ps. 55:20-21), and lastly he commits the abomination of desolation in the temple by declaring himself to be God (II Thess. 2:3-12). The book of Revelation tells the rest of the story.

The 70th week is separated from the other weeks in the passage because it is very unique and ties in directly to the Second Advent. Jesus said His Second Coming could happen at any time, and so too this week could begin at any time as well - neither are set in stone, but he said that the generation that sees the beginning of these things will see the end of them as well. The reason the week has not happened is because Israel as a nation repeatedly rejected her Messiah after His crucifixion and became partially blinded to the gospel while God worked with the Gentiles (Rom. 9, 11, Acts 7, 13:46, 28:28). For the events that are described to happen after the 70 weeks to occur, Israel must accept her Messiah. The Tribulation events of Matthew 24 and Revelation all happen within these 7 years and are part and parcel to bringing Israel back to God. Signs and wonders were God's standard operating procedure for dealing with Israel during the Old Testament as well as the time of Christ and the apostles, and it will be the same way again during the Tribulation.


Daniel 9:24-27, “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.

25) Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

26) And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

27) 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.”


Ps. 55:20, “He hath put forth his hands against such as be at peace with him: he hath broken his covenant.
21) The words of his mouth were smoother than butter, but war was in his heart: his words were softer than oil, yet were they drawn swords.


II Thess. 2:3-12, “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4) Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5) Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6) And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7) For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8) And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9) Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10) And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11) And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12) That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Edited by Rick Schworer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A very interesting interpretation but involves a lot of misinterpreting scripture.

Earlier I posted scriptures to show that the 69 weeks expired with the baptism of Jesus. If anyone posted scripture to show I was wrong, I missed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A very interesting interpretation but involves a lot of misinterpreting scripture.

Earlier I posted scriptures to show that the 69 weeks expired with the baptism of Jesus. If anyone posted scripture to show I was wrong, I missed it.


You must have missed this then from an earlier post:

"Let's look again at Dan. 9:27, "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.”

In the middle of the week you have the sacrifice stopping and the abomination of desolation occurring. They happen at the same time! You can't do anything about it, it’s right there in the text and it’s very clear that they happen together.

Now if you're right, then Christ was crucified in the middle of the 70th week, the animal sacrifices become of no effect, and then we wait another 40 years for the abomination of desolation to happen in 70 A.D. Not only does this not work when you consider every week is supposed to be seven years long, but these events happen in the middle of the week together. That could mean your week would be very long. In fact, if we’re to take the Scripture as how they are written, and force your system of interpretation upon them, then that would mean the middle of the week would consist of a 40 year period. That would mean the entire week would have to be seven periods of 40 years equaling 280 years! This is why you force the abomination of desolation out of the text because it doesn't fit your system. Too bad brother, it's right there and it is part of the week whether you like it or not."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is clear from Dan. 9 that everything happens AFTER the 69th week, during or after the 70th week. Only the rebuilding takes place during the previous 69 weeks.

It is also clear that THE covenant is confirmed, not made & NOT broken. That is the blood of the everlasting covenant AKA the new covenant in Jesus' blood. He confirmed the covenant by his ministry & the Apostolic Gospel.

In the middle of week 70, after the 69th week Jesus refers to the abomination, which Luke asserts is the besieging armies:

15
When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

16
Then let them which be in Judaea flee i
nt
o the mou
nt
ains:


20
And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

21
Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mou
nt
ains;


Jesus had every right to implement the prophesied destruction in the middle of the 70th week when the Jews rejected & crucified him. Also at the end of the 70th week when the Jewish leaders formally rejected the Holy Spirit speaking through Stephen. He graciously did not, though the judgment of that generation became inevitable, apart from national repentance - as occurred with Nineveh. In fact there was large-scale repentance of many thousands of Jews, & their presence delayed the destruction - as in the days of Lot. See also Rev. 7, & the sealing of the 144,000, & 2 Thes. 2, where the destruction is delayed by the "withholders" presumably the presence of the Jerusalem church.

Jonah was angry with God for not implementing his 40 day destruction message. Likewise YOU accuse God of making a false prophecy because he graciously delays judgment. In any case, it still was to take place AFTER 69 weeks. Rather than admit your misinterpretation, you invent a totally different scenario. You have to interpret - why don't you believe what is written, with the NT explaining & fulfilling the OT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "and" separates it. It is a result of the Jews rejecting Christ's sacrifice. You still haven't shown that the 69 weeks could have ended at any other time than Christ's baptism when He was declared "My Son", "The lamb of God", "The Messias" He said, "The time is fulfilled" and "I am He." What other scripture proof do you need.

He was the "Most Holy" which was to be annointed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do believe what was written. The abomination of desolation takes place during the 70th week.

You keep trying to take it out of there.

The OP claims that a colon means a gap - 2,000 years & counting.

I can claim that a comma separates the end of sacrifices from the abomination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 40 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...