The Gap (Daniel 11:33-35)

[John81]

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.

[Invicta]

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.'

[Invicta]

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.

[Brother Rick]

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 70^th 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.

[Invicta]

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.

[Steve Schwenke]

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!

[1Timothy115]

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?

[Steve Schwenke]

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???

[anime4christ]

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

[John81]

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.

[Steve Schwenke]

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?

[Covenanter]

& 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.

[Brother Rick]

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.

[Covenanter]

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

.

[Brother Rick]

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 70^th week, but anyone reading the text can clearly see that it is included.