What is the argument supporting that there is a break between the 69th and 70th week in the book of Daniel? In the book of Daniel it mentions the 70 weeks.


  “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks;
  The street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublesome times. (Daniel 9:25 NKJV)


It is been said that an interval between the 69th and 70th week is described here:


  “And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, and till the end of the war desolations are determined. (Daniel 9:26 NKJV)


Can someone explain why we should not consider the 70 weeks of years to be completed already?

Gathered Calculations :: Start
The Jewish (and Babylonian) calendars used a 360-day year. 69 weeks of 360-day years totals 173,880 days.

The commandment to restore and build Jerusalem was given by Artaxerxes Longimanus on March 14, 445 B.C.5 (The emphasis in the verse on "the street" and "the wall" was to avoid confusion with other earlier mandates confined to rebuilding the Temple.)

During the ministry of Jesus Christ there were several occasions in which the people attempted to promote Him as king, but He carefully avoided it: "Mine hour is not yet come".

This is the only occasion that Jesus presented Himself as King. It occurred on April 6, 32 A.D.9

When we examine the period between March 14, 445 B.C. and April 6, 32 A.D., and correct for leap years, we discover that it is 173,880 days exactly, to the very day!

Ref: http://www.khouse.org/articles/2004/552/
Gathered Calculations :: End

Since events truly did take place after the sixty-two weeks and also before the seventieth week. I see those as fulfilled. But I do not see it specifically mention a gap between the 69th week and the 70th. So why should we not conclude that the fulfillment of the 70th week has already occurred Ending around March 1, 39 A.D.?
Background

The premise of the "gap" of Daniel's 70 weeks is both structural and doctrinal.

There is no immediate indication in the text that it is required, except for the initial breakdown of the 70 weeks into three groups.  7 weeks, 62 weeks, and the final week.

Depending on many variables, various dates for both the decree and the crucifixion, as well as different terminal points for the 69th week have been suggested.  Added to this, the text itself (Daniel 9:24-27) is difficult to accurately translate and then to understand, or at least to convince others of your translation/interpretation.

The Argument

The premise for the "gap" is, then, based on the structure.  The final week is separated from the 7 and 62 weeks.  While the 7 and 62 were without breaks, the argument holds that the there holds the possibility that there could be a break there.  

More specifically, the doctrinal portion comes into play, claiming that the fulfillment of the "six things" of Daniel 9:24 has not yet occurred by Israel as a whole, and so that, due to the Jews rejecting Jesus as their Messiah, "the clock stopped", and the plan of God was put on hold.  This is reflected in the larger system of "dispensationalism", which holds that the Kingdom was offered but rejected in Jesus' time, and it will be re-offered in the future.

Additionally, it is pointed out that even many opponents of a 2,000 (or so) year gap often adopt a "shorter gap", namely, the 33 or so years until 66 AD, or 3 1/2 years before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.  This is because, for many, the 3 1/2 years mentioned in Revelation are often interpolated in the light of Daniel 9's 70th week, as in the "midst", or middle, of the 70th week, Messiah was "cut off" (karath).

Daniel 9:26 then becomes of importance, because it mentions the destruction of the temple and the city, by some interpretations.  This is pointed out by defenders of the 2,000 year gap, because this event certainly did not happen until approximately 33 years after the crucifixion (again, depending upon the specific dates used).  Because Daniel 9 references events that would have to be OUTSIDE of the 490 years themselves, it is argued that there is already a purported 33 year gap at least, and, then, on the basis of that, extending that to 2,000 years is "relatively easy".

The Summary

Thus, as the argument goes, the Jews will be offered yet another chance at the Kingdom.  This time, they will fulfill the six things of Daniel 9, including putting away sin, sealing up vision and prophecy, etc.

These are viewed as the "final seven years of history", as after this, the "Kingdom Age", the proposed Millennium (Revelation 20:1-6), would come.  This is supported by similar time periods in the book of Revelation, presented as varying forms of roughly 3 1/2 years (figuring a 360 day year, in general).

Simply by correlating the various 3 1/2 and 7 year portions in Daniel and Revelation, it is then argued that these periods of time are the same, and that, because much of Revelation is thought to be future, and the first 69 weeks have already occurred, there remains the possibility, now a necessity, that this seventieth week is yet future.

Since the text does not explicitly claim a contiguous 70 weeks, they enter in on the possibility of it, as I understand, on the necessity of the remainder of their position.

Rebuttal

Having presented the case as fairly as I am able, I will point out briefly a few weaker points of it.


The 7 and 62 weeks are contiguous, why shouldn't the 70th week be as well.
The system relies upon the city of Jerusalem to be built, destroyed, rebuilt, and destroyed again, as the 70th week entails is destruction.  Since the prophecy itself contains its rebuilding, and does not contain its destruction and re-re-building, it adds weight that this may not be.
The prophecy records a "moat" and "plaza", as interpreted by some.  As these are very specific details of a particular city, it would appear that only the historical Jerusalem, with those historical features, would suffice.
The argument hinges upon the idea that the 6 things had to be fulfilled.  It states that since they were not, they prophecy was put on hold.  This argument fails on two accounts.  First, it can be conjectured that the six things WERE fulfilled fully, particularly by those who believed.  Simply because only some believed and others did not does not invalidate the belief of those who did believe.  Second, the prophecy is about the period of time to fulfill the 6 conditions, and not the actual fulfillment of them.  That is, God promised the time period, not that they actually would.  Compare this to, "You have until April 15th to file your taxes".  You are promised the time period, not your compliance.  Failure to meet the condition simply results in greater consequences, but does not invalidate the original decree, which was only for the time period.
The argument generally stems from a dispensationalist viewpoint, or the 'Kingdom' aspect of it.  The general line of thought behind it usually holds some form that the church is a 'parenthesis' in the plan of God, and that the 'Kingdom' is coming as a physical rule in the 'Millennium'.  However, this does not hold, despite anyones view of what the Millennium may or may not be, because in the last 2 verses of the book of Acts (Acts 28:30-31), Paul is right there proclaiming the Kingdom of God.  In fact, all through the epistles, it is the Kingdom that he is preaching, right there and then.  The notion that God has 'put the Kingdom on hold' does not find support in the New Testament, despite Dispensationalist claims to the contrary (in my appraisal of the text).
Taking into account that the Jewish calendar was built upon a 7-year cycle (and, additionally, a 7*7+1 cycle of the Jubilee), the similarity of 7-year, and 3 1/2 year periods becomes less of an identificational marker.  Simply because there are multiple mentions of a 3 1/2 year period does not, in the light of a 7-year cycle very familiar to the Jewish people, does not constitute sufficient proof in itself that these all refer to the same time period.  It could just as easily be an issue of the calendar.


In short, the failure of the majority Jewish people accept Christ as their Messiah does not invalidate the fulfillment of the 6 things of Daniel 9:24.  Further, while the argument that Christ is cut off "after the 69th week", before the 70th week is mentioned, does not explicitly indicate a period of time elapsed between them.

Further, while some Preterists yet insert a "gap" of roughly 33 years, from the crucifixion to 3 1/2 years before the 70 AD time-period, this, also is not necessary unless you equate specific time periods on the basis of them both being of the same duration (3 1/2 years, as already stated, should not be sufficient proof).

The argument against any gap, for a contiguous 70 7's, points out that there is no claim that all of the last few events of Daniel 9:26-27 must happen within the 70 weeks, but are the mere outcome of those events situated within them.  The differentiation comes in where v26 says Messiah will be cut off "after" the 69 weeks (hence, is that directly after, or is 3 1/2 years later still "after", but within the 70th week), while v27 says that in the middle of the last seven (or, week), "he" would put an end to sacrifice.

Personal Opinion

While "After" affords a sufficient grounds for flexibility, some would say, there remains debate on whether the 69th week ends with His baptism or His triumphal entry.

If it is His baptism, karath, or "cut off" (in my opinion), could refer to His baptism (karath, in its third use in the Scripture, is used for circumcision, of which baptism is a type), leaving him with "nothing" (John 2:24).  Then, in the middle of the week, 3 1/2 years later, he was cut off.  For the duration of this 3 1/2 years of ministry, plus 3 1/2 years afterwards, the invitation was still to the Jewish people, and Christ confirmed His Word, before and after (before is clear, after is Mark 16:20, Christ confirmed His Word by the signs that accompanied it).

This would have been terminated, then, roughly 3 1/2 years after the cross, possibly corresponding to the timeframe of the stoning of Stephen, and the subsequent salvation of Paul, wherein, the Jews demonstrated their adamant desire to reject the plan of God, and God chose a man, Saul of Tarsus, that the Gospel for the Jew would then go over to the Gentiles, to provoke them to jealousy.

Thus, in this understanding, the 70th week would follow continguously on the 69, but the necessary conclusion of this interpretation would be that the 3 1/2 year time frames of Revelation must then refer to a separate time frame than that of Daniel's 70th week, which is, indeed, what I would claim, seeing as there is nothing special about such a timeframe, as stated, when one considers the typical Jewish 7-year cycle, being the outline of God's calendar.