Where is the Evidence of a Gap in the 70 weeks of Dan 9?

[Vicky gould]

What do we find in the summary of Daniel 9:24, which was fulfilled during the first century?


Dan 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.


Act 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.


Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; (Quoted from Jeremiah 31:31-34.)
Heb 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

.

What do we find in the summary of Daniel 9:24, which was fulfilled during the first century?


Dan 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.


Act 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.


Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; (Quoted from Jeremiah 31:31-34.)
Heb 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

.

What was fulfilled was the command to rebuild the sacrifice of our Passover Lamb Jesus Christ

What do we find in the summary of Daniel 9:24, which was fulfilled during the first century?


Dan 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.


Act 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.


Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; (Quoted from Jeremiah 31:31-34.)
Heb 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

.

the only things fulfilled are the decree to rebuild the Messiah’s coming and his becoming our Passover Lamb.

 

[BABerean2]

the only things fulfilled are the decree to rebuild the Messiah’s coming and his becoming our Passover Lamb.

Are you saying the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is quoted word for word in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, was not fulfilled by Christ during the first century?

.

 

[Vicky gould]

Are you saying the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is quoted word for word in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, was not fulfilled by Christ during the first century?

.

No what is being spoken of as new is not new as in something that had not been before it was new in the sense of the covenant with Abram being further expoundedon. Hebrews is retelling of Israel’s history and how it was not bait and switch on God’s part. Yeshua was able to be seen in shadow form with the offering of Isaac. The angel on the cross was another and on and on. Satan deceived Adam and Eve getting them to forsake Grace for Law, the knowledge of good and evil. The Lord Jesus, the Good Shepherd came seeking His Lost sheep. When He called His sheep heard His voice and came to Him. Then He sacrificed the unidentified animal which most surely was a lamb. By the time the Garden of Eden was closed Adam and Eve had been shown the first Passover. Cain’s rebellion was rejection of the Lamb of God. They knew when to offer, where to offer and what to offer, the Lamb. These things were seen through a glass darkly hence all the prophesy of the coming Lamb

 

[jgr]

No what is being spoken of as new is not new

You've said that it's not new.

Jesus disagrees:

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

Who's right?

 

[Vicky gould]

You've said that it's not new.

Jesus disagrees:

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

Who's right?[/QUOTE

Of course the Lord is correct and as the Great High Priest He was revealing that what was about to happen was the continuation of that revelation first given to Adam and Eve and its fulfillment was about to take place. The same covenant not a different one. The covenant of the Law was not given to teach it was used by Satan to bring Adam and Eve out from God’s Grace without which no man may be in the presence of God. With The Passover sacrifice the guilty passed over from death to life. It is that same Satan who continues to get men to remain under Law and away from the Blood shed that brings Grace.

 

[Vicky gould]

I think my reply was truncated but okay. Let try and approach it from this direction. The New is not something that does not run from the beginning of Scripture. It is New as opposed to the Old not new in that it never was. The Lamb who was slain from before the world was created and it is that covenant that from the beginning of Scripture until a man at the Jordan River said behold The Lamb of God. That Lamb in the Garden of Eden was a shadow cast by the Light of this World and possibly was His first High Priest duty

 

[jgr]

It is New as opposed to the Old not new in that it never was.

The New Testament never was, and the Blood of the New Testament never was, until Christ came incarnate among us.

Is there Scripture that declares otherwise?

 

[BABerean2]

No what is being spoken of as new is not new as in something that had not been before it was new in the sense of the covenant with Abram being further expoundedon.

It would not be like the Sinai Covenant.

Jer 31:31 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:
Jer 31:32 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:
Jer 31:33 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.
Jer 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.


The New Testament is a series of books about the New Covenant fulfilled by the blood of Christ at Calvary.

Mat 26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.


Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, the Two Peoples of God doctrine of modern Dispensational Theology falls apart, and the pretrib removal of the Church falls with it.

.

 

[Biblewriter]

Why don't you read the posts first?

The discussion was about the identity of the prince in Daniel 9:26.

What do you think "with the possible exception of Irenaeus" means?

Hippolytus was his pupil, so did not represent an independent view.

Who other than they claimed that the prince in Daniel 9:26 was antichrist?

Thank you for causing me to actually go back and study the ancient history of teaching on the Antichrist. What a simple, two hour, computer search of the "Early Church Fathers" found was no less than amazing.

An evil end time individual that the writer called either "Antichrist" or "the Antichrist" was explicitly predicted by:

The writer of the so-called "Epistle of Barnabas"
Irenaeus
Tertullian
Commodianus
Origen
Hippolytus
Cyprian
Methodius
Lactantius
Clement (not Clement of Alexandria)
Nicodemus
John Chrysostom
Theodoret
Athanasius
Jerome
Cyril
Hilary of Poitiers
John of Damascus
Ambrose
Sulpitius Severus
Gregory the Great

Of these, the following explicitly linked this prediction to Daniel:
Irenaeus
Origen
Hippolytus
Augustin
Sulpitius Severus

And of these, the following explicitly mentioned Daniel 9:
Irenaeus
Hippolytus
Augustin
Sulpitius Severus

So forget this nonsense about this concept being "prophetic modernism." That is 100% pure, unadulterated, fiction. And as it was invented out of thin air with the purpose of attacking the truth, it is simply a lie. I have no idea who originated this lie. But it is still nothing but a boldfaced lie, regardless of who originated it.

 

[BABerean2]

Thank you for causing me to actually go back and study the ancient history of teaching on the Antichrist. What a simple, two hour, computer search of the "Early Church Fathers" found was no less than amazing.

An end time individual that the writer called either "Antichrist" or "the Antichrist" was explicitly predicted by:

The writer of the so-called "Epistle of Barnabas"
Irenaeus
Tertullian
Commodianus
Origen
Hippolytus
Cyprian
Methodius
Lactantius
Clement (not Clement of Alexandria)
Nicodemus
John Chrysostom
Theodoret
Athanasius
Jerome
Cyril
Hilary of Poitiers
John of Damascus
Ambrose
Sulpitius Severus
Gregory the Great

Of these, the following explicitly linked this prediction to Daniel:
Irenaeus
Origen
Hippolytus
Augustin
Sulpitius Severus

And of these, the following explicitly mentioned Daniel 9:
Irenaeus
Hippolytus
Augustin
Sulpitius Severus

So forget this nonsense about this concept being "prophetic modernism." That is 100% pure, unadulterated, fiction. And as it was invented out of thin air with the purpose of attacking the truth, it is simply a lie. I have no idea who originated this lie. But it is still nothing but a boldfaced lie, regardless of who originated it.

And out of your entire list only 4 of them got Daniel 9 wrong.


The angel Gabriel appeared to Daniel to reveal the timeline of the Messiah who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34.
Daniel was reading from the Book of Jeremiah when the angel appeared.

Are we supposed to believe the angel Gabriel never mentioned the New Covenant in Daniel chapter 9?

Are we supposed to believe the covenant with the many in Daniel 9 is in no way related to the covenant with the many in Matthew 26:28?


Daniel Chapter 9: Dr. Kelly Varner

We are still waiting to see what you have written in your books about the New Covenant.

Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, the Two Peoples of God doctrine of modern Dispensational Theology falls apart, and the pretrib removal of the Church falls with it.

.

 

[Biblewriter]

And out of your entire list only 4 of them got Daniel 9 wrong.


The angel Gabriel appeared to Daniel to reveal the timeline of the Messiah who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34.
Daniel was reading from the Book of Jeremiah when the angel appeared.

Are we supposed to believe the angel Gabriel never mentioned the New Covenant in Daniel chapter 9?

Are we supposed to believe the covenant with the many in Daniel 9 is in no way related to the covenant with the many in Matthew 26:28?


Daniel Chapter 9: Dr. Kelly Varner

.

The question at the moment is not whether or not this interpretation is correct. It is only how far back this idea goes. And as the last twelve chapters of "Against Heresies," by Irenaeus, are the very oldest Christian commentary on Bible Prophecy (of any significant length) that has survived to the present day, And the "Commentary on Daniel" by Hippolytus is the very oldest surviving Christian commentary on scripture, this idea goes all the way back to the very beginning of the historical record in regard to the church's interpretation of the meaning of the prophecies in the Bible. And it continued to be widely held at least up to the fifth or sixth century.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Vicky gould said: ↑
the only things fulfilled are the decree to rebuild the Messiah’s coming and his becoming our Passover Lamb.

Are you saying the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is quoted word for word in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, was not fulfilled by Christ during the first century?
.

No what is being spoken of as new is not new as in something that had not been before it was new in the sense of the covenant with Abram being further expoundedon. Hebrews is retelling of Israel’s history and how it was not bait and switch on God’s part. Yeshua was able to be seen in shadow form with the offering of Isaac........

You've said that it's not new.
Jesus disagrees:
Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Who's right?

The New Testament never was, and the Blood of the New Testament never was, until Christ came incarnate among us.

Is there Scripture that declares otherwise?

Vicky gould said: ↑
It is New as opposed to the Old not new in that it never was.

The New Testament never was, and the Blood of the New Testament never was, until Christ came incarnate among us.

Is there Scripture that declares otherwise?

It would not be like the Sinai Covenant.
Jer 31:31 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:
Jer 31:32 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:
Jer 31:33 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.
Jer 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.

The New Testament is a series of books about the New Covenant fulfilled by the blood of Christ at Calvary.

Mat 26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, the Two Peoples of God doctrine of modern Dispensational Theology falls apart, and the pretrib removal of the Church falls with it.
.

Great post.
Perhaps we can discuss that on this other thread.............

NEW Covenant or RENEWED Covenant--

Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke's Temple/Jerusalem Discourses harmonized- Poll Thread
Matthew 24:3
Yet of Him sitting on the Mount of the Olives, the Disciples came toward to Him according to own saying "be telling to us! when shall these be being?
and what the sign of Thy parousia<3952> and full-consummation<4930> of the Age? [Hebrews 8:8]
==================================================
Did Christ come to establish a brand New Covenant or to Renew for the House of Judah and House of Israel?
And is the Olivet Discourse and Revelation showing the consummation of the Old/New Covenant?
[The poll is set up where one can change their vote or vote on more than 1 option.]
Discuss..........
[Translation of Hebrews is taken from an interlinear and Greek texts]

Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon

H2319 chadash from 2318; new:--fresh, new thing.
G2537. kainos of uncertain affinity; new (especially in freshness; while 3501 is properly so with respect to age:--new

Jeremiah 31:31
Behold! days, ones coming a declaration of Yahweh and I Cut/03772 karath with the house of Yisra'el and with the house of Y@huwdah a New<2319> Covenant
Hebrews 8:8
For faulting them He is saying 'behold! days are coming,' is saying Yahweh
'and I shall be consummating<4931> upon the house of Israel and upon the house of Judah a New<2537> Covenant

Jeremiah 31:32
'Not according to the Covenant that I cut 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 a husband unto them', saith Yahweh.
Hebrews 8:9
'Not according to the Covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day of My taking them by their hand, to bring them out of the land of Egypt --
because they did not remain in My covenant, and I did not regard them', saith Yahweh, --

Jeremiah 31:33
But this the Covenant which I shall be cutting with House-of Yisra'el after those days, declarations of Yahweh.
I-give My Law within them, and upon their heart I shall write it/her and I become to them for an Elohim and they, they shall become to Me for a people.
Hebrews 8:10
'That this the Covenant which I shall be Covenanting to the House of Israel after those days', is saying LORD
'Giving laws of Me into the minds of them, and upon hearts of them I shall be engraving them. And I shall to them into God and they shall be to Me into a People.'

13 in the to be saying `New<2537>,' He hath made Old<3822> the First.
The yet being aged<3822> and being obsolete, nigh of disappearance
=======================================
3822. palaioo from 3820; to make (passively, become) worn out, or declare obsolete:--decay, make (wax) old.
3820. palaios pal-ah-yos' from 3819; antique, i.e. not recent, worn out:--old.

Luke 5:
37 "And no one is casting young/neon <3501> wine into OLD<3820> skins, if yet no surely shall be ruined the young wine of the skins,
and it shall be being poured-out and its skin shall be perishing.
38 but young/neon <3501> wine into New<2537> skins is to be cast and both are preserved together.
39 and no one driking Old immediately is willing young,
for he is saying, 'for the the Old is kind/mellow'".
[Matthew 9:17/Mark 2:22]

Ezekiel 37:22
“and I will make them one Nation in the land, on the Mountains of Israel; and one King shall be king over them all;
they shall no longer be two Nations,
nor shall they ever be divided into two Kingdoms again.

Matthew 26:28
"For this is My blood of the New<2537> Covenant<1242>, the about many being poured out into a remission of sins"

Brand New, Renewed or Fulfill

1. 
   
   
   • *
     It is brand new
     5 vote(s)
     83.3%
   • It is a renewal
     0 vote(s)
     0.0%
   • Christ fulfilled the OC
     0 vote(s)
     0.0%
   • *
     He consummated it on the Cross and in 70ad
     2 vote(s)
     33.3%
   • All of the above
     0 vote(s)
     0.0%
   • Other
     1 vote(s)
     16.7%

=============================
New Covenant of Jeremiah 31 Hebrews 8
Jan 3, 2009

 

[Vicky gould]

Great post.
Perhaps we can discuss that on this other thread.............

NEW Covenant or RENEWED Covenant--

Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke's Temple/Jerusalem Discourses harmonized- Poll Thread
Matthew 24:3
Yet of Him sitting on the Mount of the Olives, the Disciples came toward to Him according to own saying "be telling to us! when shall these be being?
and what the sign of Thy parousia<3952> and full-consummation<4930> of the Age? [Hebrews 8:8]
==================================================
Did Christ come to establish a brand New Covenant or to Renew for the House of Judah and House of Israel?
And is the Olivet Discourse and Revelation showing the consummation of the Old/New Covenant?
[The poll is set up where one can change their vote or vote on more than 1 option.]
Discuss..........
[Translation of Hebrews is taken from an interlinear and Greek texts]

Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon

H2319 chadash from 2318; new:--fresh, new thing.
G2537. kainos of uncertain affinity; new (especially in freshness; while 3501 is properly so with respect to age:--new

Jeremiah 31:31
Behold! days, ones coming a declaration of Yahweh and I Cut/03772 karath with the house of Yisra'el and with the house of Y@huwdah a New<2319> Covenant
Hebrews 8:8
For faulting them He is saying 'behold! days are coming,' is saying Yahweh
'and I shall be consummating<4931> upon the house of Israel and upon the house of Judah a New<2537> Covenant

Jeremiah 31:32
'Not according to the Covenant that I cut 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 a husband unto them', saith Yahweh.
Hebrews 8:9
'Not according to the Covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day of My taking them by their hand, to bring them out of the land of Egypt --
because they did not remain in My covenant, and I did not regard them', saith Yahweh, --

Jeremiah 31:33
But this the Covenant which I shall be cutting with House-of Yisra'el after those days, declarations of Yahweh.
I-give My Law within them, and upon their heart I shall write it/her and I become to them for an Elohim and they, they shall become to Me for a people.
Hebrews 8:10
'That this the Covenant which I shall be Covenanting to the House of Israel after those days', is saying LORD
'Giving laws of Me into the minds of them, and upon hearts of them I shall be engraving them. And I shall to them into God and they shall be to Me into a People.'

13 in the to be saying `New<2537>,' He hath made Old<3822> the First.
The yet being aged<3822> and being obsolete, nigh of disappearance
=======================================
3822. palaioo from 3820; to make (passively, become) worn out, or declare obsolete:--decay, make (wax) old.
3820. palaios pal-ah-yos' from 3819; antique, i.e. not recent, worn out:--old.

Luke 5:
37 "And no one is casting young/neon <3501> wine into OLD<3820> skins, if yet no surely shall be ruined the young wine of the skins,
and it shall be being poured-out and its skin shall be perishing.
38 but young/neon <3501> wine into New<2537> skins is to be cast and both are preserved together.
39 and no one driking Old immediately is willing young,
for he is saying, 'for the the Old is kind/mellow'".
[Matthew 9:17/Mark 2:22]

Ezekiel 37:22
“and I will make them one Nation in the land, on the Mountains of Israel; and one King shall be king over them all;
they shall no longer be two Nations,
nor shall they ever be divided into two Kingdoms again.

Matthew 26:28
"For this is My blood of the New<2537> Covenant<1242>, the about many being poured out into a remission of sins"

Brand New, Renewed or Fulfill

1. 
   
   
   • *
     It is brand new
     5 vote(s)
     83.3%
   • It is a renewal
     0 vote(s)
     0.0%
   • Christ fulfilled the OC
     0 vote(s)
     0.0%
   • *
     He consummated it on the Cross and in 70ad
     2 vote(s)
     33.3%
   • All of the above
     0 vote(s)
     0.0%
   • Other
     1 vote(s)
     16.7%

=============================
New Covenant of Jeremiah 31 Hebrews 8
Jan 3, 2009

Great post thanks for the polls great idea. Will be checking into the thread you were so kind to direct us too.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

It would not be like the Sinai Covenant.
Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised Editto Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, the Two Peoples of God doctrine of modern Dispensational Theology falls apart, and the pretrib removal of the Church falls with it.
.

Hello BAB. You have brought up the "2 Peoples of God doctrine" so many times, I decided to see if there was a thread on CF. And behold!

Two-peoples-and-two-meanings theology

This thread will be posted at Dispensationalism as well.
Two-peoples-and-two-meanings systems

Those who believe there are two peoples of God will inevitably end up with a very different idea of "Eschatology--Endtimes & Prophecy". They see about 10,000 feet of concrete between the two, so that whatever took place at the coming of the Gospel has nothing to do with the other group of people. In fact, a full-blown restoration or return to the other group never does, or needs to, show up in Acts, in NT letters, in any of the MO of the apostles; it's "just there." It doesn't matter what NT passages say about promises to the other people, God doesn't "change," so any passage at all from the OT has to happen, no matter what the NT says.

Parallel to this is the "two meanings" of Mt 24 &//s (Mk 13, Lk 19&21). Becasue of the two peoples, it is absolutely clear to these good people that Jesus was perfectly normal in giving the most scattered of explanations. Utterly urgent warnings...for people thousands of years in the future! Why, of course. Wasn't he that schitzophrenic all through his ministry? How could I have missed it? No, I think he was completely coherent about the events that would take place in that generation, with a bit of an echo that if something would happen in the distant future it would at least copy or replicate what was described:

a pretend 'messianic' antichrist(s),
a failed messianic war for the land of Judea,
Sabbath (ie Mosaic law) police making many miserable...etc

A person needs to sort out:
1, whether the NT is the authoritative statement about the two peoples in Eph 2-3 etc (as opposed to popular prophecy teachers now), and
2, where he goes with #1 into prophecy. They don't go to the same place. Why would the plainly stated doctrinal passages of the NT never mention anything in the future for Israel--I mean not even the slightest 'need' for any prophecy to be fulfilled--in their treatments of the promises, shape, destiny, history and conclusion of Israel's role in the arrival of the redemption that is in Christ Jesus?

Whenever I hear that 2nd century church fathers wrote about Revelation like the popular prophecy teachers of today, I have to place this beside the remark I hear all the time from 'messianic' friends: that shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem, the church immersed in anti-semitism (as though the destruction of Jerusalem was the only statement by God about such things). Both cannot be true, and both have lost their grip, as far as I can tell.

--Inter

Now back to the topic at hand................

Where is the Evidence of a Gap in the 70 weeks of Dan 9?

It looks like the 70 weeks of Daniel is a popular topic in Christianity today, so I thought I would create one and include a poll. I also am interested in discussing this.

YLT)
Daniel 9:
24 ‘Sevens, seventy are determined for thy people, and for thy holy city, to shut up the transgression, and to seal up sins, and to cover iniquity, and to bring in righteousness age-during, and to seal up vision and prophet, and to anoint the holy of holies.
25 And thou dost know, and dost consider wisely, from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem till Messiah the Leader [is] seven weeks, and sixty and two weeks: the broad place hath been built again, and the rampart, even in the distress of the times.
26 And after the sixty and two weeks, cut off is Messiah, and the city and the holy place are not his, the Leader who hath come doth destroy the people; and its end [is] with a flood, and till the end [is] war, determined [are] desolations.
27 And he hath strengthened a covenant with many — one week, and [in] the midst of the week he causeth sacrifice and present to cease, and by the wing of abominations he is making desolate, even till the consummation, and that which is determined is poured on the desolate one.’
.

 

[BABerean2]

The question at the moment is not whether or not this interpretation is correct. It is only how far back this idea goes. And as the last twelve chapters of "Against Heresies," by Irenaeus, are the very oldest Christian commentary on Bible Prophecy (of any significant length) that has survived to the present day, And the "Commentary on Daniel" by Hippolytus is the very oldest surviving Christian commentary on scripture, this idea goes all the way back to the very beginning of the historical record in regard to the church's interpretation of the meaning of the prophecies in the Bible. And it continued to be widely held at least up to the fifth or sixth century.

The thread is about a "gap" in the 70 weeks of Daniel 9.

Based on Matthew 10:5-7, and Romans 1:16, and Galatians 1:14-18, the Gospel was taken "first" to the Jews for about 7 years before Paul took the Gospel to the Gentiles.
This was the 70th week of Daniel, during the first century.

Where is there a "gap" found in the New Covenant scripture above?

.

 

[Vicky gould]

The thread is about a "gap" in the 70 weeks of Daniel 9.

Based on Matthew 10:5-7, and Romans 1:16, and Galatians 1:14-18, the Gospel was taken "first" to the Jews for about 7 years before Paul took the Gospel to the Gentiles.
This was the 70th week of Daniel, during the first century.

Where is there a "gap" found in the New Covenant scripture above?

.

I may have missed all that was to happen with this fulfillment such as the Millennial Reign, Israel having stopped Transgressing and the other things promised that have not come to be. In the middle of that seven year period where did The Lord break the covenant? The Lord has never broken any covenant He enters into.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The thread is about a "gap" in the 70 weeks of Daniel 9.

Based on Matthew 10:5-7, and Romans 1:16, and Galatians 1:14-18, the Gospel was taken "first" to the Jews for about 7 years before Paul took the Gospel to the Gentiles.
This was the 70th week of Daniel, during the first century.

Where is there a "gap" found in the New Covenant scripture above?
.

I may have missed all that was to happen with this fulfillment such as the Millennial Reign, Israel having stopped Transgressing and the other things promised that have not come to be. In the middle of that seven year period where did The Lord break the covenant? The Lord has never broken any covenant He enters into.

I will state with what I found just doing a google search for "gap in daniel 70 weeks.
This commentary by Thomas Ice came up:

Why a Gap in Daniel's 70 Weeks

It has been well observed by various writers that if the seventy weeks are to end with the death of Christ and the incoming destruction of Jerusalem, it is simply impossible—with all ingenuity expended in this direction by eminent men—to make out an accurate fulfillment of prophecy from the dates given, for the time usually adduced being either too long to fit with the crucifixion of Christ or too short to extend to the destruction of Jerusalem.—George N. H. Peters [1]

Textual Reasons for a Gap
Here are some textual reasons for a gap of time between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel! First of all, the text says, “Then after the sixty-two weeks...” In other words, after the seven plus 62 weeks, which equals a total of 69 weeks of years (483 years total). The Hebrew text uses a conjunction combined with a preposition, usually translated “and after,” or better, “then after” (NASB) “It is the only indication given regarding the chronological relation between these sixty-two weeks and the cutting off of the Anointed One. This event will occur ‘after’ their close, but nothing is said as to how long after.” [4]

Robert Culver clearly states the implication of what this text says:

There can be no honest difference of opinion about that: the cutting off of Messiah is ‘after’ the sixty-two weeks. It is not the concluding event of the series of sixty-two weeks. Neither is it said to be the opening event of the seventieth. It is simply after the seven plus sixty-two weeks. [5]

Steven Miller in his Daniel commentary summaries developments in the passage thus far as follows:

After the reconstruction of Jerusalem in the first seven sevens (forty-nine years), another “sixty-two sevens” (434 years) would pass. Then two momentous events would take place. First, the “Anointed One” would come (v. 25), then he would be “cut off.” Apparently his coming would be immediately at the end of the sixty-nine sevens,...” [6]

There is no real debate among conservative interpreters as to who is spoken of by the phrase “the Messiah will be cut off,” as a referral to the crucifixion of Christ, which occurred four days later. Thus, it means that Jesus would be crucified after completion of the seven and 62nd week, but before the beginning of the 70th week mentioned in the next verse (9:27). For this to take place it requires a gap of time between the two time periods. This is not the result of an a priori belief like dispensationalism, as claimed by some. G. H. Lang notes, “it is here that the interval in the Seventy Sevens must fall. This is not a matter of interference, but of fact.” [7] There is no other way to put together this material into a chronological sequence than seeing a postponement in time of the 70th week.

The passage also tells us that after the death of Christ, He will “have nothing.” To what does this phrase refer? It has to refer to something already mentioned in the passage. I think it has to refer to the six purpose clauses in v. 24, which is said to be the goal of the prophecy for Daniel’s people and city. Therefore, if these items are to be fulfilled for Israel and Jerusalem in the same way the earlier parts of the passage were fulfilled, since they obviously did not occur in the past, they must take place at a time future even to our own day.

Then verse 26 goes on to describe the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, which took place in A.D. 70. No matter how anyone figures it, these events cannot fit into the remaining seven years of verse 27. There were at least 37 years between the death of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem. How does that fit? Well, it does not fit. However, our literal postponement view allows things to fit very nicely since both Christ’s death and the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem occur after the end of the 483-year period. Randall Price, when speaking of the events in verse 26 notes the following:

“the cutting off of Messiah,” and of “the people of the prince,” are stated to occur after the sixty-nine weeks. If this was intended to occur in the seventieth week, the text would have read here ‘during’ or ‘in the midst of’ (cf. Daniel’s use of hetzi, ‘in the middle of,’ verse 27). This language implies that these events precede the seventieth week, but do not immediately follow the sixty-ninth. Therefore, a temporal interval separates the two.” [8]
Only the literal, futurist understanding of the seventy weeks of Daniel can harmonize in a precise manner the interpretation of this passage.
Conclusion
I think that sound biblical exegesis of Daniel 9:24-27 must lead to an understanding that the seventieth week is separated from the first sixty-nine weeks of years because of Israel's failure to accept Jesus as their promised Messiah. Therefore, God has postponed the final week of years until the start of the seven-year tribulation. In the mean time, the New Testament teaches us that the church age will intervene during the postponement of Israel’s final week of years. Maranatha!

==================================
Some commentaries from a favorite site of mine
I would like to critique all of these commentaries some time in the future, but for now, I will let the members here peruse them and perhaps get their views.......

Daniel's Seventy Weeks

The Amillennial Preterism of Clement of Alexandria [A.D. 162]

Clement did hold to a future advent of Christ, and like many throughout history, supposed that it would be within his own lifetime. Thus, while Dispensationalists like Thomas Ice use the “immanence” argument to support a “pre-trib” rapture, the only real conclusion that we can draw from this statement is that Clement was wrong. Continue reading

Augustine: Letters on Matthew 24 and “The End of the World” (400-430)

I think that the one about the weeks of Daniel in particular should be understood in terms of time that is already past. He was correct to tell the Jews that the times were completed, because their times came to an end thirty-five or forty years after he preached. Continue reading

Karl August Auberlen Study Archive

.Christ Himself represents the destruction of Jerusalem as His Messianic coming Continue reading

John Evans: The 1,290 and 1,335 Days of Daniel 12 (2004)

The factional fighting among Zealot groups that occurred in the early months of 70 turned the Temple into a battleground where genuine worshipers risked being killed if they entered the grounds. The fighting made a mockery of the religion that the combatants supposedly embraced. By any reasonable standard, it constituted an abomination against the Jewish faith. Continue reading

 

[jgr]

Thank you for causing me to actually go back and study the ancient history of teaching on the Antichrist. What a simple, two hour, computer search of the "Early Church Fathers" found was no less than amazing.

An evil end time individual that the writer called either "Antichrist" or "the Antichrist" was explicitly predicted by:

The writer of the so-called "Epistle of Barnabas"
Irenaeus
Tertullian
Commodianus
Origen
Hippolytus
Cyprian
Methodius
Lactantius
Clement (not Clement of Alexandria)
Nicodemus
John Chrysostom
Theodoret
Athanasius
Jerome
Cyril
Hilary of Poitiers
John of Damascus
Ambrose
Sulpitius Severus
Gregory the Great

Of these, the following explicitly linked this prediction to Daniel:
Irenaeus
Origen
Hippolytus
Augustin
Sulpitius Severus

And of these, the following explicitly mentioned Daniel 9:
Irenaeus
Hippolytus
Augustin
Sulpitius Severus

So forget this nonsense about this concept being "prophetic modernism." That is 100% pure, unadulterated, fiction. And as it was invented out of thin air with the purpose of attacking the truth, it is simply a lie. I have no idea who originated this lie. But it is still nothing but a boldfaced lie, regardless of who originated it.

Of course.

How many of them pre-dated the Reformation?

How many would have recognized antichrist, as did the Reformers, once the Reformation era had dawned?

The answers are self-evident.

By the end of the Reformation, there was only one individual of significance espousing a futurized dispensationalized antichrist.

He wasn't a Reformer.

He was a Roman Catholic Jesuit named Francisco Ribera, the veritable godfather of dispensational futurism.

 

[Vicky gould]

What do we find in the summary of Daniel 9:24, which was fulfilled during the first century?


Dan 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.


Act 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.


Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; (Quoted from Jeremiah 31:31-34.)
Heb 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

.

Okay here we go.

The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and yet will come up out of the Abyss and go to its destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because it once was, now is not, and yet will come. Re. 17: 8 this my friends is anti- Christ as Jesus Christ taught about him. anyi- Christ is counterfeiting the Christ who we are told was, is and will be again. Anti-Christ was in the world Garden of Eden and numerous other times including tempting the Lord. Anti- Christ is not now in the world because he is being held in the passage way to the lake of fire. The abyss seems to be a prison where unbreakable chains hold him until the end. anti-Christ we are told will be again in the world. The Lord was in the world, is in the world because of omnipresence and will be in the world again physically, at His return where He defeats anti-Christ and the false prophet who then are thrown into the lake of fire. when was it that anti-Christ made this return? Who was the anti- Christ and when was he defeated by the Lord. So much more is said about these events it is hard to miss their teaching. No offense I have been tagged error filled futurist. yippie. So be it, I refuse to make the prophets and their prophecies yesterdays news. Sorry

 

[Biblewriter]

Of course.

How many of them pre-dated the Reformation?

How many would have recognized antichrist, as did the Reformers, once the Reformation era had dawned?

The answers are self-evident.

By the end of the Reformation, there was only one individual of significance espousing a futurized dispensationalized antichrist.

He wasn't a Reformer.

He was a Roman Catholic Jesuit named Francisco Ribera, the veritable godfather of dispensational futurism.

We have been around and around on this before. And I have presented CONCLUSIVE PROOF that what you are saying here is simply not true. You have seen this proof. Yet you continue to spew your disinformation.