Whether you are a preterist that believes Daniel's 70th 'seven' (week of 7 years) was fulfilled in 70 AD or a futurist that believes Daniel's 70th week is yet to be fulfilled, you must place a break in Daniel 9:26, between the end of the 69th week in 33 AD (when Jesus Christ was cut off) and the beginning of the 70th.
If you do not accept a break, where do you place the beginning and end of Daniel's 70 weeks?
"He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him."
We have three parts to this prophecy:
Beginning of the seven: Confirms a covenant with many for one seven
Middle of the seven: Stops the sacrifice and offerings and sets up the abomination in the temple
End of the seven: The decree that is poured out on him
Now, for those who would try to make the claim that Jesus is the one who makes the covenant, then he would also have to be the one who is causing the sacrifice and offerings to cease. At this point they might get away with that claim. But, that claim comes to a screeching halt when we get to the setting up of the abomination and that because the abomination (Bdelugma) is defined as a detestable stench that goes up before God. Since there is only one person in view within the scripture, that would mean that along with the making of the covenant and causing the sacrifice and offerings to cease, Jesus would also have to be the one setting up the abomination, which would mean that he would blaspheming God the Father, as well as himself. In order to get around this, expositors have tried to claim that there are two persons mentioned in the scripture, which is obviously false. For throughout the verse, the same "He" who makes the covenant, is the same "He" who causes the sacrifice and offering to cease and is the same "He" who sets up the abomination. Therefore, that removes the possibility that Jesus is the One who is in view in the scripture. There is an element to this scripture that demonstrates that there is a break in it, which is the last part of the scripture:
"until the end that is The decree that is poured out on him"
Since Dan.9:27 is referring to the last seven year period, at the end of it, what has been decreed for the "He" is poured out on him at the end of the seven. Paul mentions this decree:
"For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. And then
the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and
destroy by the splendor of his coming." (2 Thes.2:7-8)
In the scripture above, the one who is being overthrown is the one Paul refers to as "the lawlessness one" and this happens by the splendor of the coming of the Lord Jesus, which would take place at the end of the age. In Daniel 9:26 the "He" of Dan.9:27 is referred to as "the ruler of the people." Here in 2 Thes.2 his referred to as "the lawlessness one". In John's letters he is referred to as "the antichrist" and in the book of Revelation, this man is controlled by that angel that comes up out of the Abyss, also known as the beast. The decree that is to be poured out on that ruler, the man of lawlessness, that antichrist, the beast, is as follows:
"But the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who had performed the signs on his behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped his image.
The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur.
Now, taking all of the above into consideration, if the seventy 'sevens' were to all take place without a break between the sixty ninth seven and the seventieth seven, then the ruler would have already made that seven year covenant and the abomination would have already been set up in the temple causing the desolation of Jerusalem and the surrounding area. But what about the decree that is poured out on him? This happens at Christ's return to end the end of the age. Therefore, in order for this last seven to have already have taken place without a break, the decree that is poured out on that ruler would have had to have taken place at the end of the seven years, which again takes place when Jesus returns to end the age and establish his millennial kingdom. Amillennialists aside, if the last seven had already taken place, then we would have had to have seen the return of Jesus and we would currently be living in the millennial period, which we are obviously not.
At the end of sixty-nine 'sevens' the Anointed One was cut of (Christ crucified) and at that time God paused that last seven year period and began to build his church, which is still in progress. Once the church has been completed, then God will remove the church from the earth and pick up where he left off with that last seven, with that ruler making his covenant. The last seven fulfills the decree of the seventy 'sevens' for Israel and Jerusalem stated in Dan.9:24, with the return of the Lord bringing that last seven and the end of the age to a close, at which point that ruler controlled by the beast is thrown into the lake of fire alive.
Conclusion: Since that last seven years concludes with the Lord's return to end the age and the destruction of that ruler, and it is obvious that we have not yet seen the Lord's return, then neither could the ruler have made that seven year covenant and neither could the abomination have been set up and that because all of these events are tied together to take place within that last seven year period, ergo, that last seven year period, with all of its elements, is still a future event.
