"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. 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. 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. 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."
This destruction of the city and sanctuary occurred in A.D. 70. But, if Jesus died in the midst of the final week, that would leave only 3 1/2 years after his death for the completion of the seventy weeks. The destruction of the city and temple occurred a little less than forty years after the death of Christ. But, should not the destruction have occurred within 3 1/2 years following the death of Christ? How do we explain the fact that the destruction occurred after the 70 weeks had ended? Some make a big issue in regard to this fact.
Those who believe Jesus died in the gap and not in the 70th week will use the above fact as argument against those, like Mauro, others, and I, who believe Christ was "cut off," not in the supposed gap, but "in the midst" of the 70th week, which is the time in which Christ nullified all the old testament ritual sacrifices for atonement. These say that since the destruction of the city and temple occurred outside of the 70 week time period (it ending 3 1/2 yrs. after his death), then this proves that a gap exists. But, such reasoning is not logical but is a case of reading more into the text than is there.
Some reply to this argument of the advocates of the gap and postponement theory by giving several options for explaining the fact that the destruction of city and temple occurred in a time when the 70 weeks had already ended. Mauro believed that God extended to the Jews a period of time to repent for their crime of crucifying their own Messiah. A better explanation is given by others, however.
In "Daniel’s Seventy Weeks and Biblical Prophecy" Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D. (here) writes these good words (emphasis mine) in answering the same objection:
"Although the event that serves as the terminus of the sixty-ninth week is clearly specified, such is not the case with the terminus of the seventieth. Thus, the exact event that ends the seventieth is not so significant for us to know. Apparently at the stoning of Stephen, the first martyr of Christianity, the covenantal proclamation began to be turned toward the Gentiles (Acts 8:1). The apostle to the Gentiles appears on the scene at Stephen’s death (Acts 7:58–8:1) as the Jewish persecution against Christianity breaks out. Paul’s mission is clearly stated as exceeding the narrow Jewish focus (Acts 9:15)."
This seems to me to be a very good response to the question. It also made me think of these words from Luke the historian:
"Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles." (Acts 13: 46)
Gentry continued:
"This confirmation of the covenant occurs “in the middle of the week” (v. 27). I have already shown that the seventieth week begins with the baptismal anointing of Christ. Then, after three and one-half years of ministry — the middle of the seventieth week — Christ was crucified (Luke 13:6–9; Eccl. Hist. 1:10:3). Thus, the prophecy states that by His conclusive confirmation of the covenant, Messiah will “bring an end to sacrifice and offering” (v. 27) by offering up Himself as a sacrifice for sin (Heb. 9:25–26, cf. 7:11–12, 18–22). Consequently, at His death the Temple’s veil was torn from top to bottom (Matt. 27:51) as evidence that the sacrificial system was legally disestablished in the eyes of God (cf. Matt. 23:38), for Christ is the Lamb of God (John 1:29; Acts 8:32; 1 Pet. 1:19; Rev. 5–7)."
Those who promote the gap theory generally put the fulfillment of the words "unto Messiah the Prince" to the time on Palm Sunday when Christ rides into Jerusalem on the donkey. Those who promote the traditional view, however, see the words "unto Messiah the Prince" as pointing to the time when Christ was "anointed with the Holy Spirit and power" at his baptism. Messiah means, like "Christ," "the anointed one."
If we ask the question "when did the sacrifices end?" we answer: they were "officially" ended by God with the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and ended practically when the Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70.
Gentry continued:
"But how are we to understand the latter portions of both verses 26 and 27? What are we to make of the destruction of the city and sanctuary (v. 26) and the abomination that causes desolation (v. 27), which most non-dispensational evangelical commentators agree occurred in AD 70?
In verse 26 we learn that two events are to occur after the sixty-ninth week: (1) The Messiah is to be “cut off” and (2) the city and sanctuary are to be destroyed. Verse 27a informs us that the Messiah’s cutting off (v. 26a) is a confirmation of the covenant and is to occur at the halfway mark of the seventieth week. So, the Messiah’s death is clearly within the time frame of the Seventy Weeks (as we expect because of His being the major figure of the fulfillment of the prophecy).
The events involving the destruction of the city and the sanctuary with war and desolation (vv. 26b, 27b) are the consequences of the cutting off of the Messiah and do not necessarily occur in the Seventy Weeks’ time frame. They are an addendum to the fulfillment of the focus of the prophecy, which is stated in verse 24. The destructive acts are anticipated, however, in the divine act of sealing up or reserving the sin of Israel for punishment. Israel’s climactic sin — her completing of her transgression (v. 24) with the cutting off of Messiah (v. 26a) — results in God’s act of reserving Israel’s sin until later. Israel’s judgment will not be postponed forever; it will come after the expiration of the Seventy Weeks. This explains the “very indefinite” phrase “till the end of the war”: the “end” will not occur during the Seventy Weeks.[35] That prophesied end occurred in AD 70, exactly as Christ had made abundantly clear in Matthew 24:15.
My own explanation has been similar to this. The prophecy does not say that the destruction of the city and temple were to occur within the 70 week time period. It is not listed among the six things delineated in verse 24 that would be accomplished by the coming of "Messiah the Prince." That is important to note. Based upon this we can say that the prophecy does not say that the destruction of city and temple, along with the dispersion of the Jews, was to occur within the time period of the 70 weeks, unlike the six things listed in verse 24. One may really view the words "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" as a parenthesis.
When one looks at the new testament gospel narratives we see how Jesus, after being rejected by the builders, pronounced desolation upon the city and temple. He said "your house is left unto you desolate." (Matt. 23: 38) The judgment upon the city and temple was announced by the Savior in the seventieth week and its execution was carried out fully in A.D. 70.
When did the sacrifices and oblations cease? In the middle of the week, the 70th week. But, after the death of Christ, these continued to be offered until the destruction in A.D. 70.
Gentry continued under the sub title "The Gap in the Seventy Weeks":
"Dispensationalism incorporates a gap or parenthesis between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks. This gap spans the entirety of the Church Age from the Triumphal Entry to the Rapture.[36] The dispensational arguments for a gap of undetermined length between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks are not convincing. Let us consider a few of their leading arguments for a gap.
First, the peculiar phraseology in Daniel: Daniel places the cutting off of the Messiah “after the 62 ‘sevens,’ not in the 70th ‘seven.’”[37] This is so stated to allow for a gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks. If the cutting off did not occur during the sixty-ninth week or during the seventieth week, there must be a gap in between wherein it does occur."
But this line of argument is a "begging the question," assumes a fact not in evidence and then reasons upon it.
Gentry responded:
"In response, it is obvious that seventy occurs after sixty-nine and thus fits the requirements of the prophecy. Consequently, such an argument does not prove that the “after” requires a gap. Besides, Daniel mentions only seventy weeks and, as Hans LaRondelle has pointed out, Daniel most certainly does not say “after sixty-nine weeks, but not in the seventieth.”[38] Such an explanation is a gratuitous assumption. Since Daniel has yet to deal with the seventieth week, and since he has clearly dealt with the preceding sixty-nine weeks (v. 25), it is quite natural to assume this cutting off of the Messiah must be sometime within the seven-year period covered by the seventieth week."
Well said. The gap view simply has "no legs to stand on."
Gentry continued:
"Second, a fatal admission: “Historically the destruction of Jerusalem occurred in AD 70 almost forty years after the death of Christ.”[39] Since this was given in Daniel’s prophecy and was to occur within the Seventy Weeks, “the continuous fulfillment theory [is] left without any explanation adequate for interposing an event as occurring after the sixty-ninth seven by some thirty-eight years.”[40]
I have already explained the relation of the Seventy Weeks to the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 (see above). The goal of the Seventy Weeks is not the AD 70 destruction of the Temple, which is not mentioned in verse 24. That destruction is a later consequence of certain events brought to fulfillment within the Seventy Weeks. The actual act of God’s reserving judgment (v. 24) occurred within the Seventy Weeks; the later removal of that reservation did not. There is no necessity at all for a gap."
Again, the reasoning of the gap theorists simply "will not hold water."
Gentry continued:
"Third, the general tendency in prophecy: Walvoord writes: “Nothing should be plainer to one reading the Old Testament than that the foreview therein provided did not describe the period of time between the two advents. This very fact confused even the prophets (cf. 1 Pet. 1:10–12).”[41] His argument then is this: Old Testament prophecy can merge the First and Second Advents into one scene, though separated by thousands of years. Consequently, we have Biblical warrant for understanding the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks as merged into one scene, although separated by a gap of thousands of years."
The fact that many of the prophets of old did not clearly foresee the duality of Christ's coming, and of many things in this "church age," does not prove that such a "gap" understanding is to be applied to cases where a specific and definite time period is given, whether in days, weeks, months, or years.
Gentry continued:
"This argument is wholly without merit. The Seventy Weeks are considered as a unit, though subdivided into three unequal parts: (1) It is one period of seventy weeks that must transpire in order to experience the events mentioned. The plural “seventy weeks” is followed by a singular verb “is decreed,” which indicates the unity of the time period. (2) An overriding concern of the prophecy, in distinction to all other Messianic prophecies, is that it is designed as a measuring time frame. If the dispensational gap theory regarding the seventieth week is true, then the gap separating the seventieth from the sixty-ninth week is now almost 2000 years long, or four times the whole time period of the Seventy Weeks or 490 years. And who knows how much longer it will continue. The concept of measuring is thus destroyed."
Exactly! There is really nothing about the Dispensational gap theory that is based upon sound exegesis and reasoning.
Gentry under sub title "The Dispensational Covenant" wrote:
"The confirmation of the covenant mentioned in verse 27 is woefully misunderstood by dispensationalists. According to Walvoord: “[T]his refers to the coming world ruler at the beginning of the last seven years who is able to gain control over ten countries in the Middle East. He will make a covenant with Israel for a seven-year period. As Daniel 9:27 indicates, in the middle of the seven years he will break the covenant, stop the sacrifices being offered in the temple rebuilt in that period, and become their persecutor instead of their protector, fulfilling the promises of Israel’s day of trouble (Jer. 30:5–7).”[42]
Several problems plague this interpretation, some of which have already been indicated in another connection:
The covenant here is not made; it is confirmed. This is actually the confirmation of a covenant already extant, i.e., the covenant of God’s redemptive grace confirmed by Christ (Rom. 15:8)."
"Several problems plague this interpretation"! Amen to that.
Gentry continued:
"As noted above, the term is related to the name of the angel of God who delivered the message to Daniel: Gabriel (“God is strong”). The lexical correspondence between the name of the strong angel of God (who reveals the Seventy Weeks to Daniel) and the making strong of the covenant, themselves suggest the divine nature of the covenant. In addition, covenantal passages frequently employ related terms, when speaking of the strong God of the covenant.[43]
The parallelism with verse 26 indicates that the death of the Messiah is directly related to the confirming of the covenant. He is “cut off” but “not for himself” (v. 26a), for He “confirms the covenant” for the “many” of Israel (v. 27a). His “cutting off” brings the confirmation of the covenant, for “without shedding of blood there is no remission” (Heb. 9:22).
The indefinite pronoun “he” does not refer back to “the prince who is to come” of verse 26.[44] That “prince” is a subordinate noun; “the people” is the dominant noun. Thus, the “he” refers back to the last dominant individual mentioned: “Messiah” (v. 26a). The Messiah is the leading figure in the whole prophecy, so the destruction of the Temple is related to His death. In fact, the people who destroy the Temple are providentially “His armies” (Matt. 22:2–7)."
The great error of the Dispensational interpretation is that it ends up making, not Christ, but the Antichrist, as "the leading figure in the whole prophecy." That in itself should make it highly suspect as a legitimate interpretation. They do the same thing with the rider on the white horse in Rev. 6: 2, making Antichrist to be the rider rather than Christ.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment