I ended the last article at Matthew
24:15 because of the how difficult Christians have made this topic.
Naturally, many interpretations have resulted. There are even a few
different interpretations among Preterists. Therefore, I found it
best to dedicate this article to this very topic, and to do it in the
simplest way I possibly can. In the end, I only hope sharing my
thoughts will aid you in your own studies, and perhaps offer
something—anything—that you may not have considered.
There is no doubt that the abomination
of desolation (Matthew 24:15) is something Dispensationalists are
anxious about. To them, a fourth temple will be constructed just
prior to Christ's return (cf. Revelation 11:1-2). When the Antichrist
makes a peace treaty with Israel (the beginning of the seven-year
tribulation), he will break it at the halfway point (cf. Daniel
9:27). To make most (perhaps all?) of this future to us living today,
a gap of nearly two thousand years (and counting) has been placed
into the text. They claim that the things pertaining to Christ were
fulfilled at his first coming (though I believe most maintain the yet
future fulfillment of these things), and the rest, which they claim
is about the Antichrist, is reserved for future fulfillment at the
end of time.
Personally, I believe the
Dispensational interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27 should bring shame to
any who believe it. The entire interpretation is eisegetical, and the
more extreme Dispensational view of the text makes everything
Christ did on the cross vain.
With
that said, I believe there are two interpretations worth observing.
Originally, I decided to explain both of these views before moving
on, but I now realize such a thing is best suited for a separate
article in the future. I will only briefly mention them as to make a
point. These two views are what I call the “Calvary Perspective”
(or, “A.D. 30 Perspective,” alternatively) and the “A.D. 70
Perspective.” Per the former view, every “goal,” if you will,
of Daniel 9:24 was fulfilled at the cross. In the latter view, the 70
weeks are taken figuratively, and were completed at Christ's parousia
in A.D. 70. Personally, I subscribe to the Calvary Perspective,
though I do consider the other position often. Advocates of the A.D.
70 Perspective understand that the events of the cross occurred
during the 70th
week, but believe the 70th
week to have spanned from Christ's ministry to the parousia. At this
point, I do not believe this is an accurate way to interpret the
text.
There
is, of course, yet another alternative, which maintains that Daniel 9
was fulfilled by the time of Antiochus Epiphanes IV. I do not believe
this is accurate, either.
However,
the Calvary and A.D. 70 Perspectives don't require invisible gaps to
accommodate what the Dispensationalists believe to be an unplanned
“Church age,” so regardless of which position one takes, both
perspectives maintain a first century fulfillment, which is obviously
more compatible with the text.
This is a problem for
Dispensationalists, obviously.
According to the Dispensational view,
this Antichrist figure becomes the primary target of God's wrath
instead of Israel. As I've proven in previous two articles, this is
simply incorrect! Israel was to be judged for rejecting their
Messiah, and the abomination of desolation, and the tribulation, were
proof of that! This was all part of the covenantal cursings that
would fall upon Israel when they would not be faithful. To understand
the Mosaic law of blessings and cursings, one need only read
Deuteronomy 28-32. It's all there.
Yet, Dispensationalists claim the law
was nullified at the cross. I am curious how this can be possible if
covenantal cursings were still to befall Israel for the rejection of
Jesus Christ. Jesus said:
17Think not that I am come to destroy
the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or
one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
(Matthew 5:17-18)
His words are pretty clear: he came not
to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. If a single jot or tittle of
the law passed away at the cross, so too did heaven and earth pass.
This is a predicament for those who maintain the yet future
fulfillment of Revelation 21, let alone the literal
passing of a literal
heaven and earth! Prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in
A.D. 70, the law was only ready
to vanish away, meaning it had not yet done so (Hebrews 8:13). In
other words, there were still things left unfulfilled. Notice that
“heaven and earth” pass away after
the destruction of the harlot (Jerusalem), which signified the
fulfillment of the terms of the old covenant.
Therefore,
if the old covenant has been done away with, as Dispensationalists
claim, then the abomination of desolation and tribulation can't still
be future to us. Logically, we must deduce that the fulfillment of
Matthew 24:15 had to be at a time in which the Mosaic law, the old
covenant, was still in effect. This, of course, provides further
evidence of the contemporary relevance of the Olivet Discourse to
Jesus' first century audience—his own generation (cf. Matthew
24:34).
Now,
how does this all tie in to Daniel 9? I'd like to observe verses 26
and 27, and share my thoughts:
26And
after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed, and
there is no judgment in him: and he shall destroy the city and the
sanctuary with the prince that is coming: they shall be cut off with
a flood, and to the end of the war which is rapidly completed he
shall appoint the city to desolations. 27And one week shall establish
the covenant with many: and in the midst of the week my sacrifice and
drink-offering shall be taken away: and on the temple shall be the
abomination of desolations; and at the end of time an end shall be
put to the desolation. (Daniel 9:26-27)
According
to the Dispensationalists, the 70th
week of this prophecy is what remains to be fulfilled (the seven-year
tribulation). But notice that the “anointed one” (Christ) would
be destroyed after the
sixty-two weeks. Recall that seven weeks preceded the sixty-two
(9:25). This means, if Christ is destroyed after
the sixty-two weeks, and the seven weeks preceding this point bring a
total of sixty-nine weeks, then the only thing after
this is the 70th
week! In other words, the text can more easily read: “And after the
sixty-ninth week, the anointed one shall be destroyed...,” or, “And
in the seventieth week...”
Therefore,
Christ's work on the cross occurred during the 70th
week. There's no way around this if one maintains any form of honesty
when observing the text. However, people seem to think that the
destruction of the city (Jerusalem) and the “prince that is coming”
(Antichrist, as he is called by most) fall within that week. This is
not necessarily the case. In fact, I don't believe the text says this
at all!
Notice
that verse 27 tells us that “one week” would establish the
covenant with many. Dispensationalists believe this is the 70th
week, and that it pertains to the Antichrist, not Jesus Christ. But
the 70th
week was mentioned in verse 26, which means that if this is another
week in verse 27, we have a 71 weeks prophecy, not 70. Thus, these
two verses are explaining the same week, the 70th
week! We must understand that these verses are written in an A-B-A-B
pattern. Allow me to explain:
26A)
And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed,
and there is no judgment in him:
26B)
and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that
is coming: they shall be cut off with a flood, and to the end of the
war which is rapidly completed he shall appoint the city to
desolations.
Notice
A is about Christ, and B is about the desolation. This continues:
27A)
And one week shall establish the covenant with many: and in the midst
of the week my sacrifice and drink-offering shall be taken away:
27B)
and on the temple shall be the abomination of desolations; and at the
end of time an end shall be put to the desolation.
Therefore,
since these two verses are referring to the same week, I currently
understand this to be the most logical way to view the text. Notice
that the text doesn't tell us the desolation has
to occur in the 70th
week, only that the anointed one shall
destroy the city, and that during the 70th
week its destruction would be appointed (and
it was, for Jesus cursed them constantly, and warned of this
destruction). Also, since the city would be destroyed with a prince
that was still to come (i.e., still future to the time of the 70th
week), it stands to reason that we don't need to maintain the
desolation of Jerusalem as part of the 70th
week.
To tie
this all together, we must realize, per what was discussed in my
previous articles, that Matthew 24 has an inescapable first century
context. Therefore, when Jesus referenced Daniel 9 in the Olivet
Discourse, he gave Daniel's prophecy a first century context, as
well. The destruction of Jerusalem was covenantal judgment, which
means the covenant by which they were being judged would have to have
been in effect. It was, until A.D. 70 (cf. Hebrews 8:13).
Continuing
from Matthew 24:15, we read Jesus tell his disciples that those
living in Judaea at this time should flee to the mountains (24:16).
We can note the relevance to Daniel 9 once again when we consider
that Daniel 9:24-27 was a prophecy for Daniel's people (Daniel 9:24),
and that Jerusalem would be appointed to desolation (9:26-27).
When
we read the parallel passage in Luke's account, we can obtain a
greater insight into what would occur at the time of the abomination:
20And
when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the
desolation thereof is nigh. (Luke 21:20)
Note
that Jerusalem would
be surrounded with armies, which would bring desolation.
We clearly have a direct reference to Daniel 9:26-27.
21Then
let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them
which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in
the countries enter thereinto. 22For these be the days of vengeance,
that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23But woe to them
that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for
there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this
people. 24And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be
led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden
down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
(Luke 21:21-24)
So,
Jerusalem would be surrounded by armies, and tribulation, or
distress, would be
upon them. It's at this time that the city would be trodden down of
the Gentiles. We yet again have another parallel to consider:
1And
there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood,
saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them
that worship therein. 2But the court which is without the temple
leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and
the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.
(Revelation 11:1-2)
Dispensationalists
make this out to be a nearly two thousand-year event! The text,
however, tells us it would only last forty-two months!
At the same time, the “fullness of the Gentiles” Paul wrote of
(Romans 11:25) would be completed, because there would be no need to
invoke Jewish jealousy anymore, for God would have his spotless bride
(cf. Revelation 21), and all Israel, the righteous remnant, would be
part of that.
*Note:
I will have much more to say on Romans 11:25 in the future. It is
abused by Futurists and Full Preterists alike, and I believe neither
are understanding it correctly.
So, we
can conclude at this point that the appointed time of desolation
would be the forty-two months when the Gentiles tread Jerusalem
underfoot. According to Luke's account, it is after these forty-two
months (the tribulation of Matthew 24:21) that the Son of man would
appear (Christ's parousia). Likewise, Matthew's account tells us that
this would occur “immediately” after the tribulation (Matthew
24:29; cf. 24:21). Therefore, if this tribulation was a first century
event, and Christ's parousia (“coming”) was to be immediately
after that, then his parousia was also a first century event! (More
on this in the next article.)
To
conclude, I'd like to make one last point. Daniel 12 records a time
of tribulation such as had never been seen before, nor seen since
(12:1). This would last for a time, times, and half a time (three and
one half years, or forty-two months; cf. Revelation 11:1-2). At this
time, Jerusalem would be destroyed. This is the scattering, or
shattering, of the power of the holy people, at which time all these
things would be finished (12:7). This has no other fulfillment than
A.D. 70!
There
are many gaps inserted into the text, and in various places. However,
nothing in the text suggests this, and all the parallels we have
observed between the previous articles and this one prove, beyond a
doubt, that Matthew 24 can only pertain to the first century. Given
its immediate relationship to the book of Revelation (John's Olivet
Discourse, as I call it), we must also tie Revelation (all
of Revelation) to the first century, as well.
In the
next article, I will be picking up at Matthew 24:29, explaining the
imagery, as well as drawing a few more parallels.
Blessings,
Jason
Watt
No comments:
Post a Comment