The Preterist Gap

[CharismaticLady]

Good night everyone.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

I’ve been somewhat surprised to learn that some Preterists finish Daniels 70th week in AD 70. They postulate a 40 year gap between the “cutting off of Messiah in the midst of the week” and the destruction of the temple in AD 70. We might expect this kind of theory from full Preterists, but it comes from part-Preterists as well.

However, in so doing Preterists are being hypocritical when condemning Futurists for doing exactly the same thing by inserting a 2000 year gap. The only difference is length – but a gap nonetheless.

The proper explanation is simple. The 70 weeks finished 3 1/2 years after the crucifixion. Can someone explain why they believe the 70th week ends in AD 70? I suspect it is to do with verse 26 of Dan. 9. But there is a better way of interpreting that verse.

I never heard of anyone saying the 70th week ends in 70ad. It obviously ends 3.5 years after the crucifixion. But the prophecy about the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of Titus in Daniel 9:26-27 doesn’t put a precise timeline on the destruction of the city. Jesus verifies this by saying some of those standing there will live to see it. Also that it would happen in the space of that generation.

 

[Guojing]

I’ve been somewhat surprised to learn that some Preterists finish Daniels 70th week in AD 70. They postulate a 40 year gap between the “cutting off of Messiah in the midst of the week” and the destruction of the temple in AD 70. We might expect this kind of theory from full Preterists, but it comes from part-Preterists as well.

However, in so doing Preterists are being hypocritical when condemning Futurists for doing exactly the same thing by inserting a 2000 year gap. The only difference is length – but a gap nonetheless.

The proper explanation is simple. The 70 weeks finished 3 1/2 years after the crucifixion. Can someone explain why they believe the 70th week ends in AD 70? I suspect it is to do with verse 26 of Dan. 9. But there is a better way of interpreting that verse.

Generally, its because they took Jesus's words literally when he stated in Matt 16:28

"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

So since they figured Jesus must know what he is talking about, the tribulation and his 2nd coming must have happened by AD 70.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

Berean has made an important point. The 70 weeks ended when the gospel was taken to the Gentiles. This occurred 3.5 years after the Cross. (Acts 10)

That’s what I always assumed. The 3.5 years ending with ancient Israel’s leaders officially rejecting Jesus’s ministry through the apostles. Killing Stephan and driving the believers out of Judea.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Seeing as I view 1st century Jerusalem in Revelation,
What great City is being symbolized in Revelation?

I can also view the 70weeks as fulfilled on the 1st century OC Nation of Judah, Judea, Jerusalem. Josephus confirms it:

The Destruction of Jerusalem - George Peter Holford, 1805AD
Proof that Matthew 24 was fully fulfilled in 70 AD!
Also see: Rapture refuted
===================
That aside, there are some very good Preterist studies on this rather large and extensive site
One of the best Preterist resources on the net.. imho.............

The Preterist Archive of Realized Eschatology

Daniel’s Seventy Weeks – The Preterist Archive of Realized Eschatology


BOOKS: BIBLICAL STUDIES (1500BC-AD70) / EARLY CHRISTIAN PRETERISM (AD50-1000) / FREE ONLINE BOOKS (AD1000-2008)

Daniel's 70 Weeks - Future or Fulfilled?   |  Partial Preterism  |  The Preterist Archive

Daniel's 70 Weeks - Future or Fulfilled?
By Ralph Woodrow
From "Great Prophecies of the Bible"

The first half of the "week", the time of our Lord's ministry, was definitely directed toward ISRAEL. But what about the second half—the final three and a half years of the prophecy—was it also linked with Israel? Did the disciples continue to preach for the duration of the remaining three and a half years (as Christ's representatives) especially to Daniel's people—to Israel? Yes, they did!

Jesus had told the disciples to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature (Mk. 16:15; Mt.28:19; Acts 1:8), YET—and this is significant—after Christ ascended, the disciples still at first preached only to Israel! Why? We know of only one prophecy which would indicate that this was to be the course followed. It is the prophecy of the 70 weeks which implied that after the death of Messiah there would still be three and a half years that pertained to Israel!

Bearing this in mind, we can now understand at least one reason why the gospel went "to the Jew first" and then later to the Gentiles (Rom. 1:16). Peter preached shortly after Pentecost: "Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant... unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities" (Acts 3:25, 26). "It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you" (Acts 13:46).

In person, Christ came to Israel during the first half of the "week"—three and a half years. Through the disciples—for the three and a half years that remained—his message still went to Israel, "the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following" (Mk. 16:20). In a very real sense of the word, the ministry of the disciples was a continuation of the ministry of Christ.

Then came the conversion of Cornelius which completely changed the missionary outreach, outlook, and ministry of the church. Though the New Testament does not give an exact date when this happened, apparently the time for special exclusive blessing upon Daniel's people had drawn to a close. The gospel which had gone first to the Jews was now to take its full mission—to be preached to all people of all nations!

This time of changeover was marked by a number of supernatural events. Cornelius received a heavenly visitation. An angel appeared to him and told him to call for Peter "who shall tell thee words whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved" (Acts 11:14). God showed Peter a vision which caused him to know that the gospel was now to go to the Gentiles and not to Israelites only. All of these things were timed perfectly—showing that God's hand was accomplishing a definite purpose.

Returning to Jerusalem, Peter explained what had happened. "When they heard these things, they... glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life" (Acts 11:18). From this very point, more and more, there was a turning to the Gentiles with the gospel message. God's measurement of 490 years pertaining in a special way to Israel had obviously been completed.

And finally,

12. THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM AND THE TEMPLE. This part of the prophecy was not dated within the framework of the 70 weeks as was the time of the appearance of Messiah to Israel, the time of his death, etc. Nevertheless, living on this side of the fulfillment, we know that the predicted destruction found fulfillment in 70 A.D. when the armies of Titus brought the city to desolation.

With Adam Clarke we say: "The whole of this prophecy from the times and corresponding events has been fulfilled to the very letter." (Clarke's Commentary, note on Daniel 9)
=========================
TK Burk: Jesus is Not a Failed Messiah: Six Proofs from Daniel 9:24 (2019)
Jesus is Not a Failed Messiah: Six Proofs from Daniel 9:24

One key in determining the correct view of Bible prophecy is found in whether or not there is a one-week gap between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel 9:24-27. The time frame of when this 70th week is to occur can be surmised by knowing when the six points found in Daniel 9:24 were to be fulfilled. If all of these six points are yet unfulfilled, as Dispensationalists claim, then there has to be a gap of time to allow them time to take place; but if these points have already taken place, as Fulfilled Eschatologists claim, then there would be no scriptural reason for a gap, which would mean Daniel’s 70th week is now a past event.

Even though both prophetic camps agree upon the importance of this verse, I noticed that Dispensationalists mostly stay clear of verse 24 of Daniel 9. This has been true in articles and videos that have been produced against the Preterists’ stance. Maybe the reason why they can’t talk about this is because (1) if they show these six points are now fulfilled they thereby nullify the reason for a gap between the 69th and 70th week, or (2) if they say that Jesus did not complete that which He came to do, all of which are found in these six points, then their ministries, like the critics of Christianity, would be saying that Jesus is a “failed messiah.” This last point may seem harsh, but if a person will study the anti-missionary writings of Jewish Rabbis who work to “unconvert” Jewish Christians, they will see that this is exactly the approach that they use.

To give you an example of this, I am including a study from a leading anti-missionary group called “Jews for Judaism.” (www.jewsforjudaism.org) Found in the “Reference Center” area of their website, under “How to Respond,” is an answer to the following question: “How can we be sure that Jesus’ promises to return are false prophecy?” The writer responded, “Jesus, it is claimed, prophesied that certain unspecified individuals would not die until they would see either ‘the Son of Man coming in his kingdom’ (Matthew 16:28), or ‘see the kingdom of God after it has come with power’ (Mark 9:1), or see the ‘kingdom of God’ (Luke 9:27).” He then specified how he accounted for such a finding by using the following biblical illustrations:
==========================

 

[CharismaticLady]

I never heard of anyone saying the 70th week ends in 70ad. It obviously ends 3.5 years after the crucifixion. But the prophecy about the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of Titus in Daniel 9:26-27 doesn’t put a precise timeline on the destruction of the city. Jesus verifies this by saying some of those standing there will live to see it. Also that it would happen in the space of that generation.

3 1/2 years after the Crucifixion is a made up date that nothing is verified happened. Open your minds people and stop making stuff up.

Again, verse 25 has the Messiah being cut off. What is said after that is the fulfillment of Jesus prophecy in Matthew 24:2, the second paradigm for the destruction of the temple in 70 AD which was in the middle of the second Jewish revolt from 66 AD to 73 AD with 70 AD in the middle of the week (7 years). Then Matthew 24:15 is not regarding the destruction of the temple in 70 AD but the end of the world and the Antichrist. The first paradigm of Daniel 8:13-14 happened in 160 BC to 167 BC, of the first Jewish revolt during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes IV. The temple then was desecrated in 164 BC, then the ruler died, again in the middle of the week. We have the real one of 7 years at the end of the world. No more samples/paradigms.

 

[Christian Gedge]

3 1/2 years after the Crucifixion is a made up date that nothing is verified happened. Open your minds people and stop making stuff up.

Lady, Ive been studying Bible dates for a long time now, and I can assure you that the outpouring of the Spirit on the Gentiles happened close to 3 1/2 years after the crucifixion. This event was deemed to be highly significant by the early church. Here is a chart if you wish to check the chronology.

That’s what I always assumed. The 3.5 years ending with ancient Israel’s leaders officially rejecting Jesus’s ministry through the apostles. Killing Stephan and driving the believers out of Judea.

Hi Daniel.
You and I are close, but if you study the timeline I would suggest that the event at Cornelius house is more precise than the much quoted stoning of Stephen.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Lady, Ive been studying Bible dates for a long time now, and I can assure you that the outpouring of the Spirit on the Gentiles happened close to 3 1/2 years after the crucifixion. This event was deemed to be highly significant by the early church. Here is a chart if you wish to check the chronology.

View attachment 264518




Hi Daniel.
You and I are close, but if you study the timeline I would suggest that the event at Cornelius house is more precise than the much quoted stoning of Stephen.

Neither is verifiable. The stoning of Stephen is a Seventh-day Adventist interpretation. Still the dates are made up. Charts don't make it real. Daniel 9:27 has you believing it is Jesus who puts and end to sacrifice and offering, even though that was up in verse 25, and then you don't read the rest of verse 27. And it doesn't matter how long you've been wrong. It is time to read this in context. This happens to be in chronological order. Jesus cut off (Crucified), the prince to come is not back-tracking and referring to Jesus again. And neither is Jesus crucified again in the middle of verse 27.

 

[keras]

3 1/2 years after the Crucifixion is a made up date that nothing is verified happened. Open your minds people and stop making stuff up.

Again, verse 25 has the Messiah being cut off. What is said after that is the fulfillment of Jesus prophecy in Matthew 24:2, the second paradigm for the destruction of the temple in 70 AD which was in the middle of the second Jewish revolt from 66 AD to 73 AD with 70 AD in the middle of the week (7 years). Then Matthew 24:15 is not regarding the destruction of the temple in 70 AD but the end of the world and the Antichrist. The first paradigm of Daniel 8:13-14 happened in 160 BC to 167 BC, of the first Jewish revolt during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes IV. The temple then was desecrated in 164 BC, then the ruler died, again in the middle of the week. We have the real one of 7 years at the end of the world. No more samples/paradigms.

Posters here do 'make things up' to suit their agendas.
The serious error we see here is in saying that the Crucifixion of Jesus was at the middle of the 70th 'week'. This idea is totally refuted by Daniel 9:26 After the 62 [62+7 = 69] have passed, the Anointed Prince will be removed....
The Crucifixion happened at the end of the 69th 'week'. At year 483. Any theory that places that defining event elsewhere, is false and a deception.

Plainly, Revelation does describe the final 7 year period, divided into two halves and culminating with the glorious Return of Jesus.
The nearly 2000 year 'gap' is true, because it has happened!

 

[CharismaticLady]

Posters here do 'make things up' to suit their agendas.
The serious error we see here is in saying that the Crucifixion of Jesus was at the middle of the 70th 'week'. This idea is totally refuted by Daniel 9:26 After the 62 [62+7 = 69] have passed, the Anointed Prince will be removed....
The Crucifixion happened at the end of the 69th 'week'. At year 483. Any theory that places that defining event elsewhere, is false and a deception.

Plainly, Revelation does describe the final 7 year period, divided into two halves and culminating with the glorious Return of Jesus.
The nearly 2000 year 'gap' is true, because it has happened!

Posters here do 'make things up' to suit their agendas.
The serious error we see here is in saying that the Crucifixion of Jesus was at the middle of the 70th 'week'. This idea is totally refuted by Daniel 9:26 After the 62 [62+7 = 69] have passed, the Anointed Prince will be removed....
The Crucifixion happened at the end of the 69th 'week'. At year 483. Any theory that places that defining event elsewhere, is false and a deception.

Plainly, Revelation does describe the final 7 year period, divided into two halves and culminating with the glorious Return of Jesus.
The nearly 2000 year 'gap' is true, because it has happened!

Did you read the two paradigms before the final 7 year period? Did you know that 70 AD was in the middle of a 7 year Jewish revolt, and was the second such revolt with the temple being desecrated in the middle both times. If you didn't read my whole post, please do so.

 

[BABerean2]

The Destruction of Jerusalem - George Peter Holford, 1805AD
Proof that Matthew 24 was fully fulfilled in 70 AD!

This person has said they did not read Holford's book, but continue to make the claim above.

I read the book and it does not say that.

The book does prove that most of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled during 70 AD.

.

 

[BABerean2]

Posters here do 'make things up' to suit their agendas.
The serious error we see here is in saying that the Crucifixion of Jesus was at the middle of the 70th 'week'. This idea is totally refuted by Daniel 9:26 After the 62 [62+7 = 69] have passed, the Anointed Prince will be removed....
The Crucifixion happened at the end of the 69th 'week'. At year 483. Any theory that places that defining event elsewhere, is false and a deception.

Plainly, Revelation does describe the final 7 year period, divided into two halves and culminating with the glorious Return of Jesus.
The nearly 2000 year 'gap' is true, because it has happened!

Daniel Chapter 9: Dr. Kelly Varner

Jer_31:31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—

Mat_26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mar_14:24 And He said to them, "This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many.

Luk_22:20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

1Co_11:25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."

2Co_3:6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Heb_8:8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "BEHOLD, THE DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL MAKE A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH—

Heb_8:13 In that He says, "A NEW COVENANT," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Heb_9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

Heb_12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.

.

 

[Erik Nelson]

1) The Messiah is "cut off" after the 69th week, not half-way through the 70th week:

Daniel 9:26a
After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing.​

That predicted the Crucifixion and abandonment of Jesus on the cross (by all Apostles save John)

2) The following sentences clearly describe the coming of the Roman legions under Vespasian & Titus to desolate Jerusalem & Herod's temple in the 7-year long Jewish-Roman war (66-73 AD)

Daniel 9:26b-27
The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.

He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’

In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.
​

= 70 AD destruction of the temple

The second half of the "seven" = 3 1/2 years the zealots held out at Masada (70-73 AD)

 

[Christian Gedge]

1) The Messiah is "cut off" after the 69th week, not half-way through the 70th week:

2) The following sentences clearly describe the coming of the Roman legions under Vespasian & Titus to desolate Jerusalem & Herod's temple in the 7-year long Jewish-Roman war (66-73 AD)

So, you have Daniels 69th week finish in AD 30 and the 70th week resume in AD 66? Two questions please Erik:

1. Is this position widely held among other Preterists?
2. How do you explain the gap of 36 years between the 69th and 70th week?

 

[Erik Nelson]

So, you have Daniels 69th week finish in AD 30 and the 70th week resume in AD 66? Two questions please Erik:

1. Is this position widely held among other Preterists?
2. How do you explain the gap of 36 years between the 69th and 70th week?

1. IDK
2. Rev 10 speaks of a "delay" which finally is "no more delay" at "Armageddon" vs. "Babylon" symbolizing the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD
   • Pentecost (30 AD) alludes back to Moses receiving the Law at Sinai...
   • after which the Israelites wandered 40 years foreshadowing early Church hardships under Jerusalem-rooted persecutions until 70 AD
   • when the Holy Land was entered & conquered alluding back to Joshua

 

[BABerean2]

1) The Messiah is "cut off" after the 69th week, not half-way through the 70th week:

If I agree to paint your house "after" 69 weeks, it will not be painted until the 70th week, or later.

.

 

[DavidPT]

Dan 9:27 And he shal confirme the couenant with many for one weeke: and in the middes of the weeke he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the ouerspreading of the abominations, he shall make it desolate, euen vntill the consummation determined shalbe powred vpon the desolate.

Daniel 9:27
And he (a) 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 (b) cease, (c) and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

(a) By the preaching of the Gospel he affirmed his promise, first to the Jews, and after to the Gentiles.

(b) Christ accomplished this by his death and resurrection.

(c) Meaning that Jerusalem and the sanctuary would be utterly destroyed because of their rebellion against God, and their idolatry: or as some read, that the plague will be so great, that they will all be astonished at them.

.

Verse 27, every single thing mentioned in it, they all involve the 70th week. (c) above proves your conclusions about (a) and (b) above are incorrect. (a) above proves the entire verse involves the 70th week. After all, it does say this---And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week

Also, and most of you already know this, the pronouns in verse 27 have to be meaning the prince that shall come. Some incorrectly identify that prince to be meaning the same prince as in verse 25, IOW Christ. Yet (c) above in verse 27 clearly proves it can't be meaning Christ.

IMO, even though futurists might even disagree with me here, but in verse 26----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---that is not meaning what happened in 70 AD, but is meaning what happens during (c) above in verse 27. IOW, what occurs in the last half of the 70th week. Where in my view, the destroying of the city and sanctuary is not meaning in the literal sense. I tend to think it's describing Revelation 11:1-2 for one.

 

[Erik Nelson]

If I agree to paint your house "after" 69 weeks, it will not be painted until the 70th week, or later.

.

If you agree to paint my house "after" you eat breakfast, it doesn't mean years or decades later

We read "after the 69th week" the Messiah is Crucified and abandoned on the cross

We don't read about the "70th week" until the topic has changed completely

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I’ve been somewhat surprised to learn that some Preterists finish Daniels 70th week in AD 70. They postulate a 40 year gap between the “cutting off of Messiah in the midst of the week” and the destruction of the temple in AD 70. We might expect this kind of theory from full Preterists, but it comes from part-Preterists as well.
However, in so doing Preterists are being hypocritical when condemning Futurists for doing exactly the same thing by inserting a 2000 year gap. The only difference is length – but a gap nonetheless.
.

M.F. Blume: What Do Preterists Believe About “The Prince” in the 70 Weeks of Daniel? (2001)

What Do Preterists Believe About “The Prince” in the 70 Weeks of Daniel?

By Michael F. Blume
August, 2001

I recently read an article in the Summer 2001 edition of CONNECT magazine written by an Apostolic who proposed that Preterism incorrectly teaches that there was only one prince mentioned in Daniel 9:24-27, regarding the 70 weeks of Daniel. The argument was based upon an attempt to prove there must be a gap between the 69th and the 70th weeks of Daniel’s 70 weeks noted in Daniel 9:24. However, the information said to be promoted by Preterists in this article was absolutely incorrect. Let me try to set the record straight regarding what Preterists and Partial Preterists actually believe regarding the issue of the “prince” in Daniel 9, and also address some other concerns raised by the particular author who misrepresented Preterism.

Here is the scripture in question:

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.

Daniel 9:25 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.

Daniel 9:26 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.

Daniel 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.

THE REAL QUESTION CONCERNS THE IDENTITY OF “HE” IN VERSE 27

The entire issue circles around the identity of the “he” in verse 27.

Daniel 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: …

Who is the “he” who confirms a covenant with many for one week? Futurists, who believe that the entire 70 weeks is not yet fulfilled, contend that the “he” is the antichrist. Preterists and Partial Preterists contend that the “he” is not the antichrist but is the Messiah the Prince, Jesus Christ. Let us prove that the “he” most certainly is Jesus Christ.

It has been argued by some Futurists that Preterists teach the prince in verse 26 is Jesus, and that Preterists therefore teach that Jesus destroyed the temple accord to the statement, “the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.” This is simply a straw man argument (an argument that attacks a belief supposedly held by another group while in reality the other group holds no such belief at all!).

Jesus is certainly the Messiah the Prince of verse 25. Nobody in Christianity argues that. The second prince noted in verse 26, “the prince that shall come,” is not Jesus Christ. That is not the problem between Futurists and Preterists. The real issue is the identity of the “he” noted in the first phrase of verse 27.

THERE ARE TWO PRINCES MENTIONED IN THE DISCOURSE

In the straw man argument proposed by some futurists, the aspect of the lower case letter “p” in the word “prince” from the phrase, “prince that shall come,” is a matter of supposed proof that Preterists are incorrect. Once again, Preterists do not believe the prince in verse 26 is Jesus. So the argument about who this prince is, is not an issue anyway! But simply for the sake of noting proper study manners, I do wish to point out that it is unwise to prove a doctrine based upon the translators’ preference of capitalization in a word! In the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, every word was comprised of capital letters! This shows some very weak study manners used by those Futurists who argue their point using such methods as pointing to what words are capitalized or not..

The prince in verse 25 is Jesus and the prince in 26 is not Jesus.

That is a fact.

That is not the question, though. The question is the identity of the “he” in verse 27.

So it is not a question of whether Jesus destroyed the temple and the city according to verse 26. The prince in verse 26, who was responsible for the temple and city destruction of 70 AD, was not Jesus! It was the Roman “prince”. The Roman people came and destroyed the temple and City by 70 AD. Jesus and His people did not destroy the temple.

GRAMMAR PROVES CHRIST IS THE “HE”

Analyzing the grammar of verses 25 through 27 shows us that the “he” who confirms a covenant for seven years is Jesus Christ. The subject of the discussion is found in verse 25, and is the Messiah the Prince. Verse 25 mentions a span of time of “seven weeks” and “threescore and two weeks.” Seven plus sixty-two is sixty-nine. The Messiah the Prince is on the scene after the first 69 weeks. And we read that after the “threescore and two weeks”, Messiah shall be cut off. What is “after” the threescore and two weeks? It is the 70th WEEK! During the time after the 69th week, which is during the 70th week, Messiah is cut off. And this fits perfectly with the sequence of events that occurred in the Biblical texts of the New Testament. Jesus came, and 3.5 years later was crucified, or cut off. The “week” is a week of seven years. All agree with that. And in the midst of the “week”, the sacrifice and oblation ceased. God would never again accept sacrifice of blood, since Christ was the final sacrifice God would ever recognize. This refers to the crucifixion where Christ was “cut off” due to an untimely death, as opposed to death by natural old age. He was “cut off” since He was killed. And he was not cut off for Himself! He died for the salvation of humanity! Praise God!

Not only would Christ be cut off after the 69 weeks, but the people of the prince that shall come would destroy the city and the sanctuary (temple). This was fulfilled by the year 70 AD. Desolations were “determined.” Jesus Christ referred to the destruction of the Temple, Himself, in Matthew 23.

Matthew 23:37-38 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

“Your house is left unto you desolate.”

And then we come to the verse in question. After all this information is provided, we suddenly read of “he” who confirms the covenant with many for one week. Grammar demands this “he” simply cannot be the “prince that shall come” in verse 26. The subject in question is the Messiah the Prince of verse 25.

Get the sequence of events.

The Messiah comes and is cut off.

Then a certain people destroy the city and sanctuary.

And “he” confirms the covenant with many for one week. Who? “He.” This “he” must be the Messiah of verse 25! It cannot be the “prince that shall come” because this reference to the “prince that shall come” is not the subject in any point of the entire writing! After noting the cutting off of the messiah, we read that a certain people come and destroy the city and temple. And a side note to this temple destruction is that this particular people belong to a “prince that shall come”. The point that is stressed, though, is not this “prince that shall come”. Reference to this second prince serves only as a side note, telling us who this “people” belong to and what nation they are from.

Saying that the “he” in verse 27 is some antichrist, is similar to misinterpreting the following sentence, “Steven went to the store beside the house owned by Mr. Brown, and he purchased a loaf of bread.” To say that the “he” at the end of the phrase is Mr. Brown is to make the same error as do the Futurists when they say that the “he” in verse 27 is antichrist. The ‘”he” in my example of Steven going to the store is of course referring to Steven. It is not Mr. Brown. It cannot be due to the grammar I used. “Steven” is the subject. Mr. Brown is only a side note! And that is exactly the manner in which the prince that shall come is involved in the discussion. He is a side note, and only a clarifier as to the identity of the people who will destroy the city and temple. He is not the subject in any sense of the word. And to make him the grammatical “subject” of Verse 27 is to simply destroy all methods of proper grammar and the association of sentences and their grammatical “subjects” with one another in the context of the particular discussion.

The Bible says nothing about a “prince” other than Jesus who confirms a covenant with anybody for seven years.....................................
===============================
TO BE CONTINUED

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

CONTINUED..........

The Preterist Archive of Realized Eschatology

M.F. Blume: What Do Preterists Believe About “The Prince” in the 70 Weeks of Daniel? (2001)

TO “MAKE” OR “CONFIRM” A COVENANT FOR 7 YEARS

Those who argue this reasoning state that Jesus did not make a covenant with anybody for a seven year period. The text reads that he would confirm a covenant with many for seven years. To confirm a covenant is to refer to an already existent covenant! It is to support a covenant and make it sure. And Jesus most certainly did make a covenant sure! He “confirmed” the covenant.

Hebrews 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me

In other words, God never did ultimately desire animal sacrifice. Jesus Christ fulfilled the perfect will of God by coming as the sacrifice ultimately planned before the foundation of the world. He confirmed this covenant of God in the statement noted in Hebrews 10:5.

Jeremiah noted the covenant as follows:

Jeremiah 31:31-34 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

And Hebrews speaks of this covenant that Jesus made sure through His death.

Hebrews 8:6-13 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

His death confirmed it by His blood.

Hebrews 9:14-20 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

Jesus also said His blood confirmed the covenant.

Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Above we read of Christ, the one to confirm the covenant. And we also read of the covenant itself. And the blood is said to be the element that would confirm that covenant. Jesus even said that his blood would be shed “for many” for the remission of sins. Daniel 9:27 said the covenant was confirmed “with many.” What perfect fulfillment of the words of Daniel 9:27!

The great covenant prophesied to come in Jeremiah stressed the forgiveness of sins.

Jeremiah 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Jesus noted that as the stress of the covenant confirmed by His blood in saying, “which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” Remission of sins is the same language in Greek as saying “forgiveness of sins.”

STRONG’S GREEK LEXICON

aphesis {af’-es-is}

AV – translated as “remission” 9 times, as “forgiveness” 6 times, as “deliverance” 1 time, as “liberty” 1 time — used 17 times in the New Testament.

1) release from bondage or imprisonment

2) forgiveness or pardon, of sins (letting them go as if they had never been committed), remission of the penalty

Isaiah used the term “many” in reference to who would be saved by the great covenant.

Isaiah 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

Jesus also made a covenant. When Jesus Christ read from the scroll of Isaiah after His baptism, He quoted these words:

Luke 4:18-19 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

He then said it was fulfilled that day.

Luke 4:20-21 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

Let us turn to the reference Jesus took from Isaiah.

Isaiah 61:1-3 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified.

As we go through this chapter we eventually come to these words:

Isaiah 61:8 For I the LORD love judgment, I hate robbery for burnt offering; and I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them.

All of this is in the contextual frame of time of verses 1-3. And Jesus said that was fulfilled in the day He read the text in the synagogue. So we find that Jesus did indeed fulfill the scripture in making a covenant, and also confirming it. He confirmed the covenant that was foretold to come by the Old Testament prophets. And He also made it. It did not say that He “made” it for seven years, though. He “confirmed” it for seven years. That does not mean the covenant would only work for a seven-year duration. It was confirmed to the Israelites. 70 Weeks were determined strictly for natural Israel alone, and as prophecy was fulfilled, the Gospel was finally experienced by the Gentiles. And 3.5 years after the cross, the restriction to natural Israel was completed..................................

WHO IS THE DELIVERER WHO SHALL
TURN UNGOLDINESS AWAY FROM JACOB?

Romans 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Paul quoted the following:

Isaiah 59:20 And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.

Isaiah writes in the next verse words that clarify this thought.

Romans 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

Isaiah 59:21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

This covenant is none other than the New Testament plan of salvation! And before verse 20 we read:

Isaiah 59:16-17 And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him. For he put on righteousness as a breastplate, and an helmet of salvation upon his head; and he put on the garments of vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloke.

This is clearly the plan of salvation as we know it! What other covenant causes us to turn from transgression or take away their sins besides Acts 2:38 and the remission of sins in the name of Jesus Christ?

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

What other means does God have besides remission of sins in Jesus’ name that He uses in order turn ungodliness away from anybody?

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Romans 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Romans 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

Romans 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.

Above Paul states that then-presently there was a remnant not yet converted. They were still enemies at that time, as far as the Christians were concerned. But before the times of the gentiles would be fulfilled, the remainder of the elected remnant would have come in due to God’s promise of their election.

Only one other verse refers to the fullness of the gentiles.

Luke 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

And that is found written after the flowing:

Luke 21:20-22 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

This is undoubtedly referring to 70 AD. When the Christians saw Jerusalem encompassed with armies, they indeed did flee the city and went to Pella. Rome devastated the city for 3.5 years. And Jesus said that event would end the times of the gentiles. Jerusalem would be no more the home of the temple and the ritual sacrifice of Law.

Thank God that there was a remnant of Israel who represented the whole, thus fulfilling prophecy that all Israel shall be saved!

This explanation of Jesus’ words agrees with Daniel’s vision of four beasts, the last being Rome, with no further beasts, or kingdoms of concern, to follow.

Notice this connection:

Revelation 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

Reference to the gentiles being given the opportunity to tread the holy city beneath their feet is directly connected to Jesus’ words concerning the times of the Gentiles.