Daniel 9:20-27 is one of those passages that gets the covenantal/dispensational fires going. It seemed discussions would constantly find their way to this passage back when I was having regular discussions with dispensationalists. I happened to be reading Meredith G. Kline’s “The Covenant of the Seventieth Week” recently and thought I would pass this quotation along. Understand that Kline is arguing for a very close relationship between Gabriel’s prophecy in verses 20-27 and Daniel’s prayer in verses 1-19. Â As such, the debated verses focus directly on Messiah and his work in providing an eschatological fulfillment to Daniel’s prayer.
In the course of the climactic seventieth week, masiah nagid, the anointed priest-king, would make the covenant prevail both in renewal and in judgment. Cut off in death, Messiah would make priestly reconciliation for iniquity, so perfecting sacrifice forever and instituting the new covenant. Then exercising His royal heavenly rule over all the nations, Messiah in the midst of the seventieth week would send forces of destruction against the Jerusalem temple, so making the old ritual system cease and bringing the old covenant to its end.
–
Meredith G. Kline, “The Covenant of the Seventieth Week.” In The Law and the Prophets, John Skilton, ed. (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1974), 468.
Dude, I’m Jim Cassidy’s friend. I can’t remember if it was you who came and preached for me at Grace OPC in Pennsville or not. My brain is slipping (memory). ANYWAY…
My father (a disp. but Calvinistic Baptist minister of 35 years) cannot speak with me re: eschatology (using it in the “future” sense) without getting upset. But when we are rationally communicating, he will acknowledge that he is troubled by some of the dispensational viewpoints (millennial sacrifices, e.g.). But his biggest hangup is the 70th week, because he notes that the other numbers in Daniel (e.g. the cutting off) all find exact (literal) fulfillment right down to the very day of Messiah’s coming, and of his death. So he struggles to accept that the 70th week would not also be a literal time indicator, even while acknowledge that indefinite time period of waiting for it to arrive. Here is my impasse with him: while acknowledging that his view has issues, he still awaits a Reformed response to the Reformed view’s issues (esp. Amill.), particularly a seeming silence on the 70th week challenge. In other words, he has said that in his readings of other views, he is alarmed that Amills and Postmills flub on the 70th week, typically offering little to no comments on it, or else just accepting that it is not as literal in its fulfillment as the other time indicators. He cannot but think this is because it is a real problem for those who are not premill. It seems that perhaps Kline would address this? Where shall I look? What is your own response?
Sorry, I meant to say my dad’s biggest hangup WITH OTHER VIEWS….
David,
I linked to the entire Kline article in the post. See if that addresses the question. Your father is right, however, not many amillennialists really address the problem. Another place to look might be Riddlebarger’s A Case for Amillennialism and Hoekema’s The Bible and the Future.