Page 279 - Daniel

reference is to Jesus Christ, a division has occurred as to whether the
event here described comes in the seventieth seventh described in the
next verse, or whether it occurs in an interim or parenthetical period
between the sixty-ninth seventh and the seventieth seventh. Two
theories have emerged: the “continuous fulfillment” theory posits that

the seventieth seven immediately follows the sixty-ninth; and the “gap”
or “parenthesis” theory argues that there is a period of time between the
sixty-ninth seven and the seventieth seven. If the fulfillment is
continuous, then the seventieth week is already history. If there is a gap,
there is a possibility that the seventieth week is still future. On this

point, a great deal of discussion has emerged.
Once again, the fulfillment of the prophecy comes to our rescue. The
center part of verse 26 states, “the people of the prince who is to come
shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.” The destruction of Jerusalem

occurred in A.D. 70, almost forty years after the death of Christ.
62
Although some expositors, like Young, hold that the sacrifices were
caused to cease by Christ in His death, which they consider fulfilled in
the middle of the last seven years, it is clear that this does not provide in
any way for the fulfillment of an event thirty-eight years or more after
the end of the sixty-ninth seven. Young and others who follow the

continuous fulfillment theory are left without any explanation adequate
for interposing an event as occurring after the sixty-ninth seven by some
thirty-eight years—which, in their thinking, would actually occur after
the seventieth week since the temple is still standing in the final seven
(Dan. 9:27). In a word, their theory does not provide any normal or
literal interpretation of the text and its chronology.

The intervention of two events—namely, the cutting off of Messiah
and the destruction of Jerusalem—after the sixty-ninth seven, which in
their historic fulfillment occupied almost forty years, makes necessary a

gap between the sixty-ninth seven and the beginning of the seventieth
seven. Those referred to as “the people of the prince who is to come” are
obviously the Romans and in no sense do they belong to Messiah the
Prince. Hence it follows that there are two princes: (1) the Messiah of
verses 25 and 26, and (2) “the prince who is to come,” who is related to
the Romans. That a second prince is required who is Roman in character
and destructive to the Jewish people is confirmed in verse 27 (see