Sam Storms on the 70 Weeks of Daniel 9

“The purpose of the seventy-weeks prophecy, outlined in Daniel 9:24, was to secure that ultimate salvation, that release, redemption, and restoration of which the jubilee year [Leviticus 25:8-55] was a type or symbolic prefigurement.  When Jesus declares that in himself the jubilee of God has come he is saying, in effect, that the seventy weeks of Daniel have reached their climax.  The new age of jubilee, of which all previous jubilees were prefigurements, has now dawned in the person and ministry of Jesus.  THE GOAL OF THE SEVENTY-WEEKS PROPHECY IS THE CONSUMMATE JUBILARY SALVATION OF GOD!”  (Kingdom Come, p. 90)

In Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative, Sam Storms relates how he used to be a Premillennial Dispensationist and his eventual journey away from it.  So Storms know a thing or two about the crucial importance of Daniel 9:24-27 of Premillennial Dispensationalists: Were it to be discovered that Daniel 9 does not, in fact, teach any such thing [that is, Dispensationalists interpretation leading to Rapture, 7-year period of Great Tribulation], that would strike a severe, if not mortal, blow to the entire dispensational scenario.

Now Sam Storms reached his conclusions about Daniel 9:24-27 by relying primarily on letting Scripture interpret Scripture and the strengths of covenant theology (Daniel 9:4).

About these ads
This entry was posted in Amillennialism, Dispensationalism, Premillennialism, Rapture, Sam Storms and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Sam Storms on the 70 Weeks of Daniel 9

  1. Jon Hughes says:

    I regularly hit a brick wall with eschatology. Dispensationalism goes into great details regarding exact sequences and minutiae, but seems at odds with the redemptive flow of the New Testament; whereas Amillennialism is ‘neat’, but a little bit too flattened out and reductionist at times.

  2. TC says:

    Jon, from a covenant structural perspective, the Amillennial position makes the best sense to me. It may appear “flattened out,” which ironically, is what drew me to it. When I held to the Dispy Premil, I had to engage in too much hermeneutical gymnastics.

    But reductionistic? I don’t know. The Classic/Historic Premillennial position remains attractive to many, but it’s that millennial thing, man. ;-)

    • Jon Hughes says:

      Do you ever wonder why someone like George Ladd was Premillennial. He was big on the ‘already, but not yet’ hermeneutic, but couldn’t get past Revelation 20. Apart from that, he could easily have been Amillennial. But he wasn’t!

      For me personally, it’s hard (reductionist??) to read O.T. passages like Zechariah 14 from an Amillennial perspective. Amillennialists like Kim Riddlebarger fully recognize this.

      But honestly, TC, I just don’t know…

      • TC says:

        Yes, much respect to a Ladd. Rev 20 is not easy. For example, NT specialist Tom Schreiner of Southern Seminary shared his own struggle with the same and return to Historic Premil, after holding the Amil position.

        Yes, Zec 14 is not easy for the Amil. But neither should we try too take matters to literally (For example, Zec 14:16). I wonder how Premils handle this?

  3. Jon Hughes says:

    Agreed. But how on earth do you spiritualize it?

  4. Scott says:

    TC -

    Have you ever heard of/read any of Andrew Perriman. You can get a taster from his article here. But his larger work is in his book, The Coming of the Son of Man.

  5. Jon Hughes says:

    Hi Scott,

    Hope you don’t mind me butting in. I’ve read the book. Very well written, but a bit too ‘preterist’ for my liking. Over-realized eschatology!

    • Scott says:

      Jon -

      Thanks for the comment. Perriman would actually not prefer the usual categories such as preterism. He works from the narrative historical hermeneutic, which is even more nuanced than the typical grammatical-historical hermeneutic. Sometimes it’s hard to get my head around some things (because we are so stepped in western, reformational theology). But I like some of the challenges he brings, trying to get as best he can into the second temple, first century Jewish context.

      • Jon Hughes says:

        Scott,

        Yes, he’s very thought-provoking. I’ve also read his “Hell and Heaven in Narrative Perspective”. Very interesting!

  6. TC says:

    Jon, I don’t mean we “spiritualize” but do what the NT writers have done all along, rework and reimagine everything around Messiah’s death and resurrection and so on. The examples are too numerous to mention of how we see the NT writers doing such. This approach seems to best to me at the moment.

    Scott, thanks for the link. No, I’ve never read Perriman, except what I’ve read on his blog.

    • Jon Hughes says:

      TC,

      I’m with you 100%. What troubles me though is that the N.T. authors were writing under inspiration, whereas our reworkings and reimaginings are not. It’s fine for them (under inspiration) to do so with passages like Hosea 11:1, but do we have licence to do the same? And what would happen if we did the same with certain passages in the New – e.g. our being caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air? Scholars like Marcus Borg do exactly the same here as we do with O.T. passages like Zechariah 14.

      • TC says:

        Jon,

        If we don’t take our cue from the NT writers, who then should we take it from? You see where I’m going here. What other hermeneutic approach will do justice to the data while remaining consistent? Borg is onto something. ;-)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s