The gap in the 70 weeks is not absurd

[_AARONDISNEY]

schoel,
The first question is why wouldn't we think they would be consecutive? Here is what is said to have to happen in the 70 years that are determined....Daniel 9:24 "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"

Notice it simply says that 70 years are determined. He is going to deal specifically with Israel for 70 years. He did so for 483 years and then the Church age began. At the end of that He will specifically deal with Israel (the time of Jacob's touble) for 7 more years.
483 + 7 = 490 years. That is 70 years that are determined.
After that final 7 years the transgression will be finished and the most Holy will be anointed King and will rule on the earth for 1,000 years.

The red shirt and blue shirt in my analogy represented God's dealing with the nation Israel and God's dealing with the church, and then once again dealing with israel for the final 7 years.

Also it does seem that the prince that is to come, being mentioned prior to the covenant that is made with many should be included in that time period.

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.

To me, it would seem that making that occur outside of the 70 weeks would be an unnatural way to read it.

[Guest]

Aaron,

Daniel 9:24 "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."

Which of these things do you imagine remains to be fulfilled in a future seventieth week? The New Testament indicates that Jesus accomplished all this in the first century.

Schoel asked where, in the Bible, you found evidence of a gap between the 69th and 70th weeks. You provided no scripture in your answer. Instead, you wrote:


"Notice it simply says that 70 years [I believe you mean "weeks"] are determined. He is going to deal specifically with Israel for 70 years [weeks]. He did so for 483 years and then the Church age began. At the end of that He will specifically deal with Israel (the time of Jacob's touble) for 7 more years.
483 + 7 = 490 years. That is 70 years [weeks] that are determined.
After that final 7 years the transgression will be finished and the most Holy will be anointed King and will rule on the earth for 1,000 years."

You have well stated the dispensational view, but you have not answered Schoel's specific question to you, which was, where is there any mention of such a gap in scripture? At this point, you have provided no better reason for believing your scenario than there would be to believe, say, the following:

After the first forty-nine years (7 weeks) there will be a gap of 1335 days (Dan.12:12), followed by the period of prophetic silence (Amos 8:11), which will last 434 years (62 weeks), after which the heavens and the earth will be dissolved and reconstituted for seven years (1 week). Then there will be a triple millennium of 3000 years, followed by a second church age (the first church age was not mentioned in this scenario, because it was a "mystery").

I am not, of course, suggesting any such thing as that described above. It is clearly ridiculous. However, it is no more or less arbitrary than is the scenario you presented. The only difference between your scenario and the one I presented in the previous paragraph is that some people believe and teach yours, and no one teaches the one I just made up. But then, some people also teach that the New Jerusalem will circle the earth, like the moon, and we will travel through space to different planets. Are any of these things true? Who knows? Since the scriptures do not mention them, it seems that the burden of proof falls upon those who wish to assert that they are true. Therefore, I would like to join Schoel in asking for the biblical evidencxe for the propositions you presented above.

You were having trouble understanding the relationship of the destruction of Jerusalem to the events in the seventy weeks. I believe that verse 26 has two predictions, which parallel the same two predictions in verse 27. Here is what I understand verses 26 and 27 to be saying:

First prediction: the death of the Messiah:

And after threescore and two weeks (that is, sometime subsequent to the 69 weeks, and thus during the seventieth week) shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself (v.26)—And he [Messiah] shall confirm the covenant with many for one week [the ideal length of Christ's ministry, had He not been "cut off"]: and in the midst of the week [that is, after three and a half years of ministry] he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease [by being crucified, thus ending the sacrificial system] (verse 27)

Second prediction: the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple:

,,,and the people of the prince that shall come [the Romans] shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood [that is, an invasion—Isa.8:7-8), and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. (verse 26)...and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it [the temple] desolate (Matt.23:38) [alternate translation (NASB): "on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate [the "abomination" that "makes desolate"="the abomination of desolation"]], even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate (verse 27).

Seen this way, there is simply a repetition of the same two themes in the two successive verses. This is not at all unlikely, or unusual, in the Old Testament writings. It also fits the facts described in the New Testament, as well as secular history, without having to import any imaginary characters or gaps.

[Guest]

I just finished listening to this part of the lecture. Let me see if I have my dispensaitonal New Math right. Seventy "Sevens" equal Seventy "Weeks". One weak, I mean week, equals one year. So a "seven" = "year" and "Seventy" sevens before its fulfillment equate to about 2,500 years. So 490 sevens come out to be about five years per "seven". Does that sum it up?
D.

[_AARONDISNEY]

Steve,
I am trying to get you to understand that the text doesn't say what you say it does. The text says that the Lord will accomplish a certain amount of things with Israel within the 70 weeks. He basically is saying "there are 490 years more that I will deal with you." The Lord can divide that up if He wishes to and it will still be 490 years. And the fact that you wish to deny so you can be a Maverick is that the years are divided up.

You say that the sacrifices and oblations ceased with the death of Christ. Do you know how wrong that is??? I thought you were intelligent enough to realize that the sacrifices and oblations did not cease for another 40 years, so you will have to explain how to stretch your consecutive 490 years into 530 years.

You see, Steve, where your problem is - is that you are trying to make the consecutive thing work for you when it actually does not.

This teaching robs the Christian of the hope that Christ laid out that we would rule and reign with Him on this earth.

I cannot find that the text says that there will be a gap (to answer your question) however, I don't think it needs to to make sense. Please just clear your mind of your preconceptions and answer me how in the world you can say thet the death of Christ ended the sacrifices. Don't worry, I don't actually expect a real answer but a lot of conjecture from you.

Aaron

[Guest]

Aaron,

Are you unfamiliar with the Biblical teaching that Jesus' one time sacrifice rendered all oher sacrifices obsolete? I am quite sure that is what is in view.

[_AARONDISNEY]

No, it isn't what's in view. If so why would it say he causes the sacrifices to cease. Jesus didn't do that. You find references of temple sacrifices in the book of Acts so it did not cease. The fact that the sacrifices were no longer God's way of covering sin because of Jesus' perfect sacrifice did not make the vast majority of Jews stop offering sacrifices. You are changing the meaning of a word when you say that.

I put a gap there because it is allowable and it makes logical sense considering the age of the church following the resurrection of Chirst in which Israel is no longer exclusively dealt with by God. Preterism changes the meaning of the word "cease" to fit their agenda.

I am much more comfortable with a sensible dispensational view of this. And evidently a lmajority of Bible scholars support the dispensational view.

[Guest]

AARON,

When do you think this "end of sacrifices" will occur?

I think I know what your answer is. Fair warning: I am setting you up for another question.

Thanks,
JD

[Guest]

Aaron,

You, and every other Christian, have a choice to make. You can either insist on an artificial hermeneutic of literalism, or you can understand the biblical prophecies in the same way that the apostles did.

If you read the openning verses of Hebrews 10, you will find that the writer speaks of the Old Testament period (before Christ died) as a time when the sacrifices had not yet "ceased" to be offered (v.2). In contrast, Christ, by offering Himself once for all, has changed that ceaseless ritual and brought it to an end—not its practice, but its validity. Specifically, it says that Jesus "takes away the first" (the sacrificial system of the Old Covenant) "that He may establish the second" (v.9).

After quoting Jeremiah's prophecy of the New Covenant, Hebrews 10:18 says, "Now where there is remission of these [that is, of sins and iniquities, through the New Covenant], THERE IS NO LONGER AN OFFERING FOR SIN."

I would have imagined that the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews would have realized that Jews, in his day, were still offering animal sacrifices. Why (do you suppose) he mistakenly thought that the introduction of the New Covenant, and its forgiveness of sins, had resulted in there being "no longer an offering for sin"?

If I am mistaken, I am in good company. Whose company are you in?

[_AARONDISNEY]

Steve,
If this is what you're talking about........

Heb 10:1-2
1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
(KJV)

you are misunderstanding what is said.

It says that if the sacrifices were of any lasting true value, then once they were offered they would have ceased offering them...

Seems also that this.........


Heb 10:9-12
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
(KJV)

........is saying that He offered the only sacrifice that would be of any benefit from the point of His sacrifice on. And so this ushered in the Church age in which God is no longer dealing strictly with Israel but with the church. If this is so, then after the 69th week we have to wait until the times of the Gentiles are finished to see the 70th week.
In the above Bible text you will see that in v.11 it says every priest stands and minsters. Not stood and ministered, present not past tense. The sacrifices were still going on and there is nothing here that makes me think the writer didn't consider it so.

[Guest]

So, AARON,

What does the ending of sacrifices in Daniel 9 speak of?

Thanks,
JD