THE PREPOSTEROUS GAP IN DANIEL'S 70 WEEKS
I have of late considered the thought of the gap in Daniel's seventy weeks in light of all we have learned about the context of Daniel 9:24-27. Allow me to lay forth the facts found in the bible and try to express my general beliefs about this issue. After considering this for some time, I am increasingly more amazed at people's rejection of the thought of there being no gap in this stretch of time as foretold by Daniel.
First of all, the simple fact remains that Daniel mentioned no gap.
Second, each one of the six elements Daniel was told would be fulfilled in the 70 weeks can be found in the New Testament explicitly referring to the work of the cross. When the New Testament explicitly notes each element associated with the cross there can be no doubt the weeks are fulfilled without a gap to an open minded seeker of truth.
Third, the bible relates to us Christ spent 3.5 years of ministry, having confirmed the New Covenant for the people of Israel. Daniel's 70 weeks are proposed for the nation of Israel. And Christ ministered about the coming New Covenant through His blood to Israel alone for 3.5 years. And even after Christ was crucified, time passed before anybody outside of Israel obtained New Testament salvation. Only the Jews experienced New Birth on the day of Pentecost. And Samaritans received it, as well, before any Gentile. Acts 10 shows us when the Gentiles received the new birth.
This perfectly coincides with the reference to the 70th week in Daniel 9:27. Confirming the covenant to Israel for 7 years does not mean everybody else is excluded from the New Covenant. Nothing whatsoever is said nor implied to the effect that Gentiles will not come into the New Covenant simply because it was to be confirmed to Israel for 7 years. The truth is Israel would be privy to the New Covenant before anyone else would be.
At any rate, the elements of 3.5 years matching Christ's ministry, and the note of causing sacrifices to cease as noted to be caused by Christ's crucifixion in Hebrews 10, and the fact that Gentiles never came into this salvation until years after the cross, in Acts 10, all are explicit points mentioned in the New Testament. To attribute these acts to an "antichrist" by juggling together into one picture of references to various evil men, if the truth be known, where there is no where near the explicit statements found as there are in regards to the work of the cross, is preposterous! It is depending upon juggling of truly unrelated scriptures (such as the man of sin in 2 Thess 2 who would come after the writing of Thessalonians, together with the references to Antiochus Epiphanes in Daniel 8 and 11 who lived and died decades and decades before Christ) in contrast to allowing the New testament statements speaking of the cross to interpret the context of Daniel's words.
In other words, we have all these same references in Daniel 9 pointing to the cross in the New Testament, causing us to focus upon the cross in our assessment of Daniel's words, in contrast to dispensationalism's juggling of scriptures that have no direct correspondence to one another to produce, at best, a most groundless picture of some mythical man of evil yet to come. Which idea has more weight? -- the myriad of scriptures speaking about the cross associated with Daniel's 6 points of purpose for the seventy weeks in Daniel 9:24, or a jumbling together of references to evil people where there is no real and solid connection between any of these scriptures whatsoever? That is the picture we are faced with!
People would rather choose a vague and more groundless interpretation of scripture in contrast to a far greater foundation of scripture proposing something they have not been taught due to human nature's tendency to not desire to "rock the boat."
For details of this line of study, please refer to these studies online at our site: