Worldview leverage points
Those texts, events, or policies upon which there is a great contest over interpretation of what those things mean. In this contest it becomes immediately evident that something larger is driving various interpretations.
For example
The abortion debate
Creation
Causes of the hostilities in the nation that transpired between 1861-1865
Whether Homosexuals should be protected by civil rights legislation
These are all examples of Worldview leverage points. Your interpretation or conviction on these issues is largely decided for you before you even consider the particulars because of the worldview you’ve embraced.
Daniel 9:20-27 is a worldview leverage point in terms of
Eschatology
Christ’s Kingship manifested in this world
The success of the Gospel ministry
It becomes a flash point that can turn into intense disagreement.
Now one more thing that is true about what I am calling “Worldview leverage points” is that often proponents of varying Worldview leverage points will try to saturate a culture with their interpretation so that their interpretation becomes the cultural interpretive fallback point. In other words people seek to control the interpretation of these “Worldview leverage points” so that their interpretation becomes THE interpretation.
Example – The McCarthy Era has become a cultural touchstone that is immediately interpreted by almost everybody in such a way that McCarthy wears the evil black hat while the people he was interviewing regarding anti-patriotic activities were the downtrodden and persecuted. This interpretation is automatic because this issue at one time was a worldview leverage point and those who need the McCarthy era interpreted it a particular way and thus saturated the culture with their interpretation so that that interpretation has become the cultural fall back point.
However, “Blacklisted By History,” by M. Stanton Evans tells a different story.
Well, something like this happened in the Church when it came to Daniel 9:24-27 to the point that many people here, though perhaps having never thought a great deal on this passage already have certain assumptions about the text. In many respects that isn’t even their fault since their a-priori understanding was kind of built into the Church’s sub-culture through things like the films the Billy Graham movement made, and through things like the rise of the Bible Colleges in America, and through things like being able to print bibles that had notes in them that supported your Worldview leverage point, and through things like the songs that you were taught to sing in youth group growing up. (e.g. — “I wish we’d all been ready.”)
Because this is so, when a different understanding of the Worldview leverage point in question arises it becomes very difficult to see or understand because of the way that our hard-drives have been written upon.
So because of this understanding that all of us have largely unconsciously adopted I am going to compare and contrast the predominant interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27 that has saturated most of our Church culture but is in fact only about 150 years old with a interpretation that is much older and satisfies the text far better.
The popular interpretation comes to us from the school of Dispensationalism. And because I grew up with this understanding as my fall back point it is almost easier to articulate then the position I now hold. It makes the following observations about this passage.
1.) Vs. 24 is a presentation of the whole prophecy
2.) 6 purposes of God (v. 24) are ultimately fulfilled only at the second coming of Christ
3.) Decree to restore & rebuild Jerusalem (v. 25) was issued in 445 by Artaxerxes (Ne. 2:1f)
4.) The seven sevens and sixty two sevens, when understood as 483 years of 360 days each, terminate shortly before the death of Christ
5.) Between the end of the 69th week and the beginning of the 70th week, there is an indefinite time gap, during which the prophetic clock is stopped for Israel and the church age transpires. (This time gap is nowhere suggested in Daniel’s text.)
6.) The entire 70th week is thus future and will begin when a future political leader makes a “covenant” with the people of Israel.
7.) At the beginning of the 70th week, the rapture of all believers will occur, yet life will continue on earth absent the believers.
8.) In the middle of this 70th week, the political leader will stop the renewed sacrifices that have begun in the rebuilt Jewish temple, and a period of great tribulation will commence in Israel.
9.) The 70th week ends with the coming of Christ.
So, as this focuses for the most part on the Second Coming of Christ this is often referred to as the Second Advent view of Daniel 9. Daniel 9 was read the way it, with a Dispensational “Gap,” in order to harmonize it with the rest of their Theology. In other words they developed a Theology and crammed Daniel 9 into their Theology.
Reaching behind the past 150 years when this interpretation became popular we find another view taught during the previous 1900 years in the Church. We will call this majority opinion interpretation the 1st Advent view of Christ’s coming. In this view the emphasis is laid on the finished work of Christ and the resultant punishment upon the Jews in AD 70 in the destruction of the Temple for rejecting their Messiah.
Now, keeping in mind the current popular view that we just gave let us contrast it with the 2nd Advent view.
The seventy sevens of v. 24 are 490 years. These seventy sevens are divided into three periods: seven weeks (49) years, sixty-two weeks (434 years), and one week (7 years). These time periods were specified so Daniel might “know and discern” the length of time involved, just as he had discerned the length and time in Jeremiah’s Prophecy (9:2).
Yet, if that “knowing and discerning” is the purpose of the passage, such knowing and discerning is impossible if an indefinite gap exists between the 69th week and 70th week as the current majority report insists. This is especially true given that the gap created by the majority report is already over four times longer than the entire 70 week period itself.
2.) It is possible that the decree of Artaxerxes in Nehemiah 2 is the decree mentioned by Daniel in 9:25. If we date 49 years from Artaxerxes word we find the streets and walls around Jerusalem had been completed. Some would prefer to begin the 70 weeks with Jeremiahs prediction that Jerusalem would be re-built. If we date 49 years from that point we find Cyrus permitting the Jews to return to Palestine. Regardless, which date we want to start from the point of this statement is that a very specific amount of time will pass between the decree and the coming of the Messiah. (No gap theory allowed.)
The six things to be accomplished during the 490 years in question (vs. 24) were all fulfilled in the first century.
a.) Finish the transgression – Israel’s sinful rebellion against God climaxed with her
rejection and crucifixion of the Messiah (Mt. 21:33-45, Acts. 7:51-52).
b.) Make an end of sin (seal up sins). Israel’s sins were reserved for punishment until
the generation that rejected the Messiah (Mt. 23:29-26).
c.) Make atonement for iniquity. This was fulfilled in Christ’s atoning death. (Heb. 2:17, 9:12-14, 26; I Jn. 4:10)
d.) Bring in everlasting righteousness – This has been accomplished through the redemptive work of Jesus (Rom. 3:21-22)
e.) Seal up vision and prophecy. The eyes and ears of the Jews were “sealed” from understanding the prophecies of God (Is. 6:9-10, 29:10-11, Mt. 13:11-16, Jn. 12:37-41).
f.) Anoint the most Holy – The Most Holy (Christ – anointed one) was anointed in His ascension to the right hand of the Father. (Heb. 9:22-28)
4.) After the seven weeks and the sixty-two weeks, which would imply a time during the seventieth week the Messiah is “cut off.” That is he is cut off from His people – He suffers the death penalty.
5.) At an (unspecified) point following the cutting off of the Messiah, the city and sanctuary are destroyed. The destruction of Jerusalem (v. 26-27) in A.D. 70 was a consequence of the rejection and crucifixion of Christ. It is not said by Daniel to occur within the 70th week.
6.) The one who confirms a covenant in vs. 27 is the Messiah in vs. 26. That the antecedent “He” is not the Prince of vs. 26 is confirmed in several ways:
a.) the word “prince” is not even the subject of the sentence in vs. 26. Main subject is Messiah.
b.) The “end” in vs. 26 is the “end of destruction” not the end of the prince
c.) The Messiah is the focus of the entire passage.
7.) The Messiah did fulfill or confirms the stipulations of the old covenant, and Christ’s covenantal work was directed toward the many (faithful Jews) for almost exactly seven years or one of Daniel’s weeks. The 3.5 years of Christ’s own ministry were focused primarily on the Jews (Mt. 10:5, 15:24), and for approximately 3.5 years after his death and resurrection, the ministry of His apostles was focused almost exclusively on the Jews (Acts 1:8, 2:14, Rom. 1:16, 2:10).
8.) Christ did put an end to sacrifices by His once for all Sacrifice on the Cross (Heb. 8-10, esp. 10:2,9, 12)
9.) The text of Daniel, while providing a clear statement of the events, which mark the end of the sixty-ninth week and the middle of the seventieth week, says nothing about an event marking the end of the seventieth week. It is not necessary therefore to find such an event either in Scripture or history. (contra dispensationalists)
In Daniel 9, we find the coming of the Messiah predicted to the exact year and are told what must come to pass in order for the Kingdom promises to be fulfilled.
The above blockquote from Keith Mathison’s “Postmillennialism,” Appendix one.