Fig Tree Cursed

Don’t you love it when someone explains a passage that has puzzled you for a while? Alistair Begg did the honors recently. Do you recall the story of the fig tree that had no figs and Jesus cursed it? (Matthew 21)
18 Now in the morning, when He was returning to the city, He became hungry. 19 Seeing a lone fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it except leaves only; and He *said to it, “No longer shall there ever be any fruit from you.” And at once the fig tree withered.

This is Monday, the day after the Triumphal Entry. And some of us, myself included, wonder if He was just a little petty here. Then, we read in Mark 11 that it was not time for figs, so expecting a fig out of season makes Him seem almost irrational. One mitigating explanation is that even though it was not “fig season,” the tree had developed leaves, which usually indicated that it bore fruit. So it was a “false witness” against itself.

Well, that helps a little, but still why the little tantrum? Then Begg explained some significant background. It was from the following Scriptures. What happened next? Read v. 23:
When He entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to Him while He was teaching, and said, “By what authority are You doing these things, and who gave You this authority?”

Recall that yesterday, He had just thrown the money changers and merchandisers from the Temple. Now He is faced by the very instigators of the travesty that He had cleansed. “What gives You the authority to do this?” (They probably did not capitalize, “You.”) Then He avoided a trap question they posed, and we are now back to “today.”

In answer to the question, He told two parables. The first was of two sons, one of which promised to help his father, and one who refused. They later reversed their positions and the one who refused, actually obeyed. “Which did the will of his father?” They correctly identified the one who did obey, even after initially refusing.

His next parable was even more pointed. A landowner planted a vineyard. (He exchanged grapes for figs, but the story is identical.) The tenants refused to render the fruit to the owner. His question to them is what would happen to the unrighteousness land tenders. And they admitted that they would be thrown out and punished.

The final parable to add here is the one about a fig tree planted in a vineyard. (Luke 13) The owner came over three years looking for fruit and finding none. He agreed to let the tender fertilizer and husband it for one more year, then it would be cut down.

So Jesus had come to the Temple two times, once in the beginning of His ministry and the second here. (And He had been there many times is not mentioned.) Since He had not only found no fruit, it seemed like the tenants were being very antagonistic.

Conserquently, the story about the fig tree was included in Matthew and Mark was aimed at exposing the “failure to flourish” by the Jewish leaders.  It all fits together now.

Hosea 9:10 explicitly correlates Israel with grapes and figs.
I found Israel like grapes in the wilderness; I saw your forefathers as the earliest fruit on the fig tree in its first season. But they came to Baal-peor and devoted themselves to shame, And they became as detestable as that which they loved.

They turned from God and became detestable. The fruit that He expected from Israel was rotten and repulsive. His response was to “cut it down.” And Jesus’ visual parable with the tree warned that the time was close. And in fact, AD 70 ushered in the complete destruction of the Temple, the City, and the nation. (Sounds like Daniel 9:24 doesn’t it? It is.)

Jesus used every possible method to shake the nation back to sanity, even the withering of a fig tree. The Jews had shown promise, but not deliveed. The time was coming when the threatened disaster would literally splatter them across the globe.

This was not an irrational outburst. It was a calculated call to anyone who was astute enough to listen. Jesus used every tool in His arsenal to call the nation to repentance. Thank you for the insight, Alistair Begg.

And God is calling people today. We are not the nation of Israel, but He is still dedicated to producing useful fruit to attract unbelievers to hear and respond to the Gospel.  Incidentally, the picture of fruit was repeated in Galatians 5:22, 23. Be fruitful.

The Masterpiece Ruth

One of our pastors told a story about the TV program, “The Love of Painting.” The subject of the show painted a picture and each week would “finish” the portrait or other picture and then add on a couple of “happy trees” that he explained, “Completed the Masterpiece.” I did not watch “The Love of Painting” or whatever the name of the program was, but the story was entrancing. The painter cautioned his watchers about not turning the page or channel until the masterpiece was complete. The final installment of the series on Ruth completed the picture–almost.

This is not my idea, I heard it from Alistair Begg. But it is a marvelous completion to the sermon that we heard. Begg noted that a lot of sermons on Ruth omit the final five verses. Since the point of the book of Ruth is redemption, it is almost ironic that these capstone verses are neglected.

The story of the redemption of a childless widow is intriguing and captivating, particularly when the child turns out to be the grandfather of King David. But there were probably other instances of Levirate marriage in the godly line from Seth down to Joseph. This one is particularly significant because it deals with Perez. As you recall Perez was the offspring of Judah. He held the ignominious distinction of being an illegitimate child. (Genesis 38)

Judah had failed to perform the Levirate function for his third son, after Tamar had the misfortune of having two husbands, his first two sons, die. He literally thought that she must have been the origninal black widow, and gave his youngest son to another woman. So Tamar, a resourceful and insightful young lady schemed to get pregnant by Judah. It was neither honest nor honorable, but, in her reasoning, it was her only option.

Interestingly, Perez, whose name means, “Breach,” was born in the breach position. So he fulfilled his name in a dual manner. He was physically born breach, and he was theologically a “breach” in the godly line. Deuteronomy 23:2 says, “A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.” (NKJV)

Since Perez was disqualified from being “in the congregation,” he could not have fathered an ancestor of the Messiah. Satan seemingly had thwarted God’s plan for the Redeemer. I am not sure whether Mahlon or Elimelech  was in the godly line, but a childless Boaz would have interrupted and terminated God’s plan to redeem both Israel and all of mankind.

But, by employing the Levirate marriage process, a Judean mother, from Elimilech’s line was joined with Boaz and Judah’s line. And now we come to verses 18-22.
Now these are the generations of Perez: Perez begat Hezron, 19 and Hezron begat Ram, and Ram begat Amminadab, 20 and Amminadab begat Nahshon, and Nahshon begat Salmon, 21 and Salmon begat Boaz, and Boaz begat Obed, 22 and Obed begat Jesse, and Jesse begat David.

Counting from Perez down, we come to Boaz at seven; Obed, eight; Jessie nine; and David, ten. David is the 10th generation and thus eligible to enter the “congregation,” spiritually, and therefore is qualified to be both the king and, more importantly, the progenitor of the future Messiah. The “line” has been redeemed! And Boaz had a critical role in this. That is a story that completes the picture and produces a masterpiece of redemption. Glory! What did he call those, “happy trees?”

Star Spangled Banner

If you have not listened to Sandi Patty sing the "Star Spangled Banner" in a while, this is a good time to do so.

Enjoy.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=star+spangled+banner+long+version&view=detail&mid=D82C12885E3EE59C8D78D82C12885E3EE59C8D78&FORM=VIRE

Remember.

God Speaks

Does God speak to you?  Not too long ago, a politician was ridiculed and denigrated for saying that he heard God speaking to him. Recently, I heard a preacher respond to a questioner who said that he would like to hear God speaking to him in an audible voice.

“Well, that is easy,” the pastor replied. “Read your Bible out loud.”

I have to agree with the politico. I also hear God speak. It is not always audible, but it is clearly definitive. Just last week, we were approaching the end of the Sunday School class period and the lesson that I had prepared. Now the “voice” was embodied in my watch, but I could have ripped through the final portions of the lesson and dismissed almost on time.

We have all heard our pastor say, “I will be finished in just a few minutes,” and then get out about ten minutes late.  I think it was J. Vernon McGee who said, “You know what it means when a preacher looks at his watch, don’t you? Absolutely nothing.”

More seriously, if the Lord is moving him, we usually do not notice any time slippage. Occasionally, I am not tuned into what either the pastor or the Lord is saying and the time seems interminable.

But I was paying attention last time, and this approach seems more enlightening and applicable than what I originally planned. I hope.

It is interesting how different passages coalesce when you are studying the Bible. One recent one was when I was preparing to teach Genesis 11 and the tower of Babel. The people were rebelling against God and rather than dispersing through the entire earth, they began to congregate and build a tower. The tower was a literal replica of their conglomerating together. This was a tower of stones.

Another class was on Revelation 18 and another Babel (Babylon) was discussed. This “building” process was also stopped by Divine intervention. It was stated that...
her sins have piled up as high as heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities.
(Revelation 18:5) And God terminated the construction of this “tower.”

Genesis 11 features a tower of stones with the intent of “reaching heaven.” Revelation 18 features a structure that has piled sins up to heaven. Both were initiated by a rebellion against God and His rule in the world and our lives. Both were subject to interdiction by the Lord.

The story of the Bible is bookended by towers and their destruction. It demonstrates God’s  continuing concern with the affairs of men. And even when they rebel, He is in control. And ironically we have two instances of His "speaking" against rebellion.

Glory.

Scripture Explains Scripture

Two questions occurred to me as I read the Old and New Testament readings. One was new, so we will start with it. It is probably somewhat trivial. Why did John the Baptist go around baptizing people? Incidentally that was the same question that was aked of him. John 1:24
Now they had been sent from the Pharisees. 25 They asked him, and said to him, “Why then are you baptizing, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”

So my question is not trivial. They asked John the same thing. And his answer was quick and concise. When Jesus came to him for baptism, John testified. (1:33, 34)
I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, ‘He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.’ 34 I myself have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God.”

He confessed that he did not recognize the One, but had been given a sign.
‘He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One...”

Now if you had been told that you would see the Spirit descending upon the One who is God’s son and Who baptizes in the Holy Spirit, would you just sit around home watching the local swimming hole? Not on you life. John hit the road, baptizing everyone he could find and convince.

As a kid, I was a Cub Scout. We were told that if we tried to sell a ticket to the Scout Jamboree to an unknown merchant, we would get a ticket to win a prize. I hit every place in town, including the beer joint. (Oops, I hope Mom didn’t see me going into or coming out of there.) The proprietor replied to my query, “No I can’t go, but I have this for you!” And he handed me one of the coveted tickets. I traded it for a scout hatchet that I still have in the garage today.

John found an even better prize. Instead of going to a Jamboree, we are going to a Jubilee. Who have you asked about attending the Jubilee?

The second question was posed by someone who may have even had nefarious motives. Levirate marriage was introduced in the Old Testament. If a man died without offspring, his brother was to take his deceased brother’s wife and raise children for him. This is the core of the story of Ruth. Boaz was not the closest relative, but the closest declined, so Boaz took his place and got Ruth, to boot.

The question arose when someone was reading the lineage of Jesus and the name of neither Mahlon or Chilion appeared. The specific woman taken by which man is not defined, but we will find the answer later in 4:10. Hang on. Ruth was the widow through which the inheritance of Elimelech would pass.

The genealogical list is given in Ruth 4 and in Matthew 1 and Luke 3. (If you have been following my Genesis class, you know that genealogies are fascinating, and illuminating.)
Now these are the generations of Perez: to Perez was born Hezron, 19 and to Hezron was born Ram, and to Ram, Amminadab, 20 and to Amminadab was born Nahshon, and to Nahshon, Salmon, 21 and to Salmon was born Boaz, and to Boaz, Obed, 22 and to Obed was born Jesse, and to Jesse, David.

All three list Boaz, Obed, Jesse, and David. So what happened to Mahlon? Read on. Ruth 4:10 quotes Boaz addressing the Bethlehem city council: (Ruth’s husband was Mahlon.)
Moreover, I have acquired Ruth the Moabitess, the widow of Mahlon, to be my wife in order to raise up the name of the deceased on his inheritance, so that the name of the deceased will not be cut off from his brothers or from the court of his birth place; you are witnesses today.”

Read carefully. Boaz did not supplant Mahlon from his place in the godly line. Boaz rightly was listed there. But Mahlon was preserved “on his inheritance,” and his name was not cut off from his brothers or the court of his birth place. God explains what needs to be known, and sometimes other trivialities that might trip us up.

Read the Bible. It is good for the soul.

Daniel’s Seventy Weeks

As I studied for this lesson in Daniel 9:24-27 I was surprised at how many different interpretations there are on the internet. It would be safe to guess that there are at least 70 different explanations of the prophesy and perhaps even 490. Get my drift?

This little guide will help you to differentiate between the patently bogus and the ones that are worthy of examination. It is simply where the author places the cross. Most of the ideas are a chart of graph and they place the cross on the time line of history. If the cross is anywhere besides at the end of the 69th week, it is wrong. Follow this now. (V. 25)

“...from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks;”
This gives us the time frame” 69 weeks until Messiah the Prince. Then what? (V. 26)
“Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing,”

That is where the cross goes. Period. No question. Some of the false interpreters place the cross at the three and one half year point, others at the end of the 70th week. Read the verse again. Do not even waste time looking at these frauds.

Some others rightly place the cross at the end of 69, but then claim that the count down clock continues right on. Look back at the verse.
Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. 
After the cutting off of Messiah we find the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. This happened in AD 70, which immediately and definitively rules out a contiguous 70th week. It has to wait until after the destruction is complete.

My interpretation is based on a literal reading of the entire prophetic statement. Those who choose a different analysis must use a literal sense in the first part, about rebuilding the City of Jerusalem and its environs (plaza and moat). But then switch to a figurative interpretation of the final portion after the cutting off of Messiah.

Prophesy does sometimes layer two meanings onto a single statement. For instance Isaiah’s famous “a virgin shall conceive.”  (Isaiah 7:14) That had an immediate fulfillment when Isaiah’s wife had a baby and the King of Syria and the King of Israel were deposed from their kingdoms. (V. 16) But then the prophesy telescoped into the future to a different Son, Immanuel. But they were both literal events. (The second is only partially complete, because the Messiah got cut off. And that brings us back to the present story.)

After the City is destroyed, by “the people of the prince who is to come,” we find the next initiator. (V. 27)
And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week....
The next step to restarting the clock will occur after the City is destroyed, and it will be a seven year “covenant” or treaty. The who of the “he” is also misinterpreted. The antecedent of “he” is the prince who is to come. And he is identified as the guy whose armies destroyed Jerusalem. This cannot be the Messiah. It is unthinkable that Jesus would destroy the City. He did predict it.  (Matthew 23:37, 38; Luke 21:20-24) But He would in no way be involved with its destruction.

If we place the cross where Gabriel said it would be, and correctly identify the prince, again as Gabriel described him, we are on the way to a correct interpretation of the prophesy.

That will save a lot of wasted time evaluating corrupt interpretations.

Provenance

Provenance, what a delightful word. I heard an interesting story recently presented by a preacher and was in the process of confirming that it was legitimate. That is known as confirming the provenance or reliability of data. Just to be sure, here are a couple of definitions:
the place of origin or earliest known history of something,
and
the beginning of something's existence; something's origin.

The exact story is a retelling of Alexander the Great in his quest to control the eastern Mediterranean. The local cities had refused to aid his conquest and once he had swept up the coast, he was systematically marching back down through the cities that had refused to help him. He was destroying them. When he approached Jerusalem, another rebel, the high priest went out to meet him, carrying a copy of the book of Daniel.

The priest showed him in the scroll that his conquest of Persia and all of the intervening area had been prophesied over two hundred years before he showed up. The soldier was so impressed with that fact, and the God Who could do that, that he relented, and off all the cities in Israel, only Jerusalem was spared.

This was reported by the Jewish historian, Josephus, and thus seemed reliable. One web site I encountered flatly declared the story to be a fabrication due to the fact that the book of Daniel was not authored until about 167 to 165 BC. For the historically challenged, the date of this conquest was 332 BC.  Perhaps Josephus merely fabricated the story. “Fake news.”

I carefully crafted a response, including generating my own illustrative story to clarify the point. (I will include it at the end, so that you will not be deprived of my creative genius, nor my time not well spent.) I was going to research the provenance of the entire book of Daniel, including the final six chapters that are filled with such unsettling predictions of the future that our friend and some other critics question. This is not a new process as one of the original critics was Porphyry, who lived between AD 234 and 305.

I might add that old Porph was not a believer, and in fact hated Christianity and the Bible, so we should not be to startled to find him attempting to undermine the veracity of both. Unfortunately for him, the reasarch tools available to us were not at his disposal. It would seem that a minimal amount of effort would have surfaced the bit of proof that I will offer presently. In fact our current “expert,” and several others I discovered on the internet, would also do well to polish their critical thinking and research skills.

All of the critics claim that Daniel had to have been written near the Maccabean period around 167-165 BC. They conveniently omit any proof. And, being an avid debater, I jump on that.

Rabbit trail: My partner and I were debating for our college and the opponents concluded their final rebuttal with this tantalizing statement. “We have cited numerous experts who agree with our analysis, and in conclusion, request that you join us in rejecting this ill conceived proposition.”

The door was wide open and which ever one of us had the final rebuttal stepped right in. We hoped that the judge had been paying attention. “The negative final rebuttal mentioned several “cites” but conveniently omitted reading even one of them to you to prove their point. And if their analysis of these sources was no better than the three they previously offered, and we refuted, this list is probably misconstrued as badly as the first ones were.

“To be frank, we suspect that the list is just that, a compilation of potential sources written on a note card in their evidence box, to be brandished in the final rebuttal as if it contained probative force. ‘A cite,’ our coach advises us, ‘ does not conclusive proof produce–without reading it.’

“You, like we, have probably read most of those, and that is why we do not use them in our negative rounds.”

Such fun. Memories. I do not recall losing a debate. But that was a couple of uh,...decades or more in the dim past. But that judge was listening and we prevailed. End digression.

Back to the topic at hand. Our opponent has propounded a late date for the production of Daniel. This is literally without foundation, as the Septuagint, a Greek version of the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament), was produced mid third century BC, in the neighborhood of 250 BC. And this is a translation of an earlier document. The book of Daniel is virtually identical to the one found in our Bibles today.

The pronouncement that Daniel was written “late” is merely wishful thinking from unbelievers who refuse to accept the concept of prophesy. The Old Testament is so filled with prophesy that were we to “Exacto knife” out every prophesy, the text would have less substance than Swiss cheese. Prophesy begins in Genesis 3:15 and suffuses the Scripture all the way to Revelation.

God did not give it to us merely to tickle our curiosity or even to prove that He really exists. Prophesy demonstrates that He is in control of the entire world and history itself. His message, the same as in Genesis, is that forgiveness and redemption is available to any who will accept it. Adam and Eve did. Cain refused and murdered his brother. The dichotomy has continued down through history until today.

We do not “hurt” God by refusing to believe and accept His gracious provision. We merely demonstrate our own deficiency, morally, intellectually, and academically. It is not too late to repent, but a time is coming, as prophesied, that it will be. Do not miss the boat.

Here is the illustration that I generated on my bed over night.


The book of Daniel is criticized by many skeptics because it contains so many specific, minute details that they claim it must have been written much later and dated as if it were an ancient document. And chapter 8 was the focus of an article that I read this week. Well, not really read, just looked at a few lines and put it down.

Imagine that a historian wrote a detailed account of WWII, including the blitzkrieg, Dunkirk, D-Day at Normandy, VE day, and the bombing of Japan with an atomic bomb. Then I told you that the book was dated, not 1950, but 1450, would you believe it? Probably not.

But, if we had a letter written by George Washington, stating that he had found this book in an old library in Virginia, our attitude would have to be reconsidered. Right?

Many skeptics have taken their “Exacto knife” of literary criticism and “cut” passages of the Bible out of the text because they contain details that were not known when the book was supposedly written. Daniel is not the only book to be attacked. In fact a large portion of the Bible has been subjected to such treatment. This is serious, because the same Bible warns, “...and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.” Revelation 22:19

This does not seem to be a very good trade. And for those who may wonder, this warning is repeated several times in other passages, so it is not just restricted to the book of Revelation.


So our self proclaimed critical expert was full of bull-loney. I prefer belief to stupidity.

Pre-Tribulation Rapture Rebuttal

Pre-Trib Rapture Rebuttal to DeMar

I am not the final expert on any doctrinal discussion. And I do not claim to be even the best apologist for a doctrine, particularly the pre-tribulation rapture. But I have just read an article that made some obviously erroneous statements and I can answer them.

(Link to the actual article. Gary DeMar) A quick overview of his point is that in Daniel 9:24-27 there is no gap between the 69th and the 70th week. And here is his exact statement. I’m surprised that an entire chapter is not devoted to the key factor that makes any of the rapture positions work. If the 70th week (7 years) of Daniel follows the other 69 weeks (483) without a gap in time that has now stretched to nearly 2000 years, then there is no reason to believe their understanding of the ‘rapture’ is biblical.

They also must demonstrate from Scripture that “the antichrist enters into a seven-year treaty or covenant with Israel” and so much more. You don’t need to be a biblical scholar to see that there is no mention of a gap in the prophecy (Dan. 9:24-27) or an antichrist who makes a covenant with the Jews. Read the passage for yourself.

Before we look at his specific statement, consider his first statement. There was no “chapter” devoted to proving the gap between 69 and 70. I am surprised that he did not devote a chapter to his claim of no gap. He just assumed it. So let’s take his advice and look at the actual text.
Daniel 9:24-27
24 “Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place. 25 So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. 26 Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. 27 And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.”

For sake of brevity, we will jump to the 69th year. Verse 26 says the Messiah will be cut off. Notice the timing: “...after the 62 weeks.” (Explanation, there was a 7 year period added in v. 25). So Messiah is cut off BEFORE the 70th week starts. This will be evident in a minute.

Back to the narrative: Messiah is cut off. Then “the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.” Question, who destroyed the city and the sanctuary? Titus the Roman did it in AD 70. This was what Jesus predicted in Matthew 24:2, Mark 13:2, Luke 19:44, and Luke 21:6. So the cutting off is followed by the destruction of the city–in AD 70. This seems to indicate a gap.

Then verse 27 begins the final seven year period. It has a seven year treaty being made with Israel, which is broken at the three and one half year mark. Notice first who breaks the treaty and  that this occurs AFTER the Messiah is cut off. His time line shows Jesus being “cut off” and crucified at the 3.5 year mark.

I would suggest that he needs a chapter to explain that discrepancy. DeMar extends the time line by saying that it concluded with Peter taking the Gospel to the Gentiles at Cornelius’ house. (Acts 10) This is dated about AD 40 or 41, which is seven or eight years past the beginning of the church, and past the final 3.5 year extension of the 70th week according to his evaluation.

Now re-examine v. 27. This “cutting off” seems to be effected by the treaty maker.
... in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.

Granted, Jesus did “stop,” by satisfying the need for, the sacrifice and offering. But the literal  sacrifices continued until AD 70 as noted above. And Jesus certainly did not usher in the “one who makes desolate.”

The chronology proposed by DeMar fails to match Daniel, does not portray events as they happened, and puts Jesus into the role of facilitating the coming of the anti-Christ, who, by the way has not yet appeared historically, as far as we can tell.* Finally, we skipped the first verse which outlined the purpose of the 490 year time line. There are six or seven (depending on how you count) specific results. The end of the 70 weeks does not fulfill any of those if we use DeMar’s evaluation.

(*Disclaimer: some do equate Nero with the anti-Christ. Easily disproved. Nero died in AD 68 and the destruction of the city was two years later. After the destruction, the events in v. 27 occur. Nero is dead, or “tot” in German. He was not AC.)

DeMar might need more than a chapter to reconcile all of the problems with his interpretation. (His final explanation is appended now.) His contention of "no gap" seems to have some pretty big gaps in it.

Jesus’ ministry begins at the beginning of the 70th week (7 years) that follows directly after the 69th week (483 years). Jesus is “cut off” in the middle of the week by crucifixion but not before He (not the Antichrist) “makes a covenant” with “the many” (Dan. 9:27; Matt. 26:26-28). The following 3.5 years of the 70th week when the gospel is embraced by Jews “from every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5-11; also see 2:14, 22, 39, 47; 4:4; 5:11, 14). The 70th week ends when Peter receives instructions by God to take the gospel to the Gentiles (nations) who are grafted into an already growing body of  Jewish believers. There is no mention of a gap in time or a need for one. (END QUOTE)