Sheltonmac states:
The Hebrews of the time would have never assumed that the fulfillment of those 70 weeks would be thousands of years in the future. Looking at the timeline of events that occured after Daniel's prophecy, we can see the 70 weeks culminating with the birth, ministry, death and resurrection of Christ. But in order for the still-future fulfillment interpretation to hold up, a gap had to be inserted into the text.
This is misstated. Yes, there is a 'gap' between Daniel's 69 weeks and the 70th week. However, Daniel's prophecy of 69 weeks beginning with the decree of Artaxerxes I given to Ezra was fulfilled with the baptism (anointing) of Jesus Christ (Dan 9:25). Dan 9:26 refers to the cutting off of the anointed one (Christ's crucifixion) which is after the 69 weeks, and not included in the 69 weeks. This has already been explained here, and elsewhere. Specifically then, the incorrect phrase above is 70 weeks culminating with the birth, ministry, death and resurrection of Christ. It was 69 weeks and did not include Christ's ministry, death and resurrection. Yes, those happened, but not as part of Daniel's 69 week prophecy, and not as part of the 70th week either, as the math obviously doesn't work.
(Sheesh Starwind! Get it together!)
I challenge you to find a single passage of Scripture that refers to a gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th weeks. The fact is that there are none. What I find strange is that no premillennialist I have met has ever tried to argue in favor of a gap between the 7th and 8th weeks.
Let's take a look at a couple key portions of Daniel 9:
"There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks" (v. 25).Again, nowhere in Scripture will you find a reference to a gap after week 69. Messiah is cut off after week 69, which is another way of saying he is cut off during week 70.
This gives breaks up the first 69 weeks into two sections, yet no one is arguing for a gap after week 7. Why? If there were no gap between weeks 7 and 8, why not say "69 weeks" instead of "7 weeks and 62 weeks"? But to the premillennialist there is an obvious gap after week 69."And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off" (v. 26).
All rightly assume that this is talking about an event occuring after week 69. Now, I learned to count at a very early age and, unless things have changed since then, 70 comes after 69. So, if 69 weeks transpire with one week remaining, and something occurs after week 69, wouldn't it be safe to assume that the event described occurs during week 70, the week that comes immediatley after week 69?
For some interesting reading, check this out:
Daniel's 70 Weeks—Future or Fulfilled?