The typical starting point for when the “gap” theory between the 69th and 70th week was introduced sources to John Darby, a founder of the Plymouth Brethren. He wrote in the 1830’s. Aside from the historic view, there were others near that time, but still before him, who disagreed with Darby; they were men like Matthew Henry (c1700), John Calvin (c1550), and Sir Isaac Newton (c1700), and bibles like the Geneva Bible. They maintained the “fulfilled historic” view, rather than the “future view”.
From Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Daniel Chapter IX, section III, to wit,
Cyrus I. Scofield picked up the new teaching and published it. Since the Scofield Reference Bible of 1917, this theory has gained in popularity. Another person who picked up the new tradition was Sir Robert Anderson who published The Coming Prince.
From Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Daniel Chapter IX, section III, to wit,
And then there is this from John Calvin.
Sir Isaac Newton also believed the 490 years were fulfilled.
The key verse that was changed to allow the change from “fulfilled” to “future” was to whom the “he” referenced. Again, prior to Darby, no one thought the “he” referenced anyone but Messiah.
Prior to Darby, all of the writers referred the “he” to Messiah. But Darby believed it referred to the prince who destroyed the city in 70 CE or Titus or more generally the Romans. Thus he looked for some sort of revived Roman Empire consisting of 10 states (toes).
Cyrus I. Scofield picked up the new teaching and published it. Since the Scofield Reference Bible of 1917, this theory has gained in popularity. Another person who picked up the new tradition was Sir Robert Anderson who published The Coming Prince.
