Where Did Jesus Place The Seventieth Week?
"Seventy weeks are determined
upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an eend of sins, and to make
reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up
the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and
understand, that from the going forth of
the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and three score and two
weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.. And after three score and two weeks
shall Messiah be cut off, but not for
himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the
city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the
end of the war desolations are determined.
And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the
midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and
for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the
consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate" (Dan.
9:24-27).
Do the words of Christ in Matthew
24:15-30 predict a religious persecution of Jews in the modern
state of Israel within seven years after the church has been raptured from earth to heaven? Yes, say disspensationalists, pointing to the
Saviour's references to the "abomination of desolation," and
"great tribulation."
Commenting on a future fulfillment of
the seventieth week of Daniel 9, which dispensationalists dissect from the
preceding sixty-nine and transfer to the end of time, A.J. McClain states,
"Our Lord's great prophetical discourse recorded in Matthew and Mark fixes the time of Israel's final
and greatest trouble definitely within the days of the seventieth week
of Daniel's prophecy (Dan. 9:27; Matt. 24:15-22; Mark 13:14-20). According to McClaiin, Christ placed the
"abomination of desolation" (see Dan. 9:27) in the future, at the end
of time, "just before His second coming in glory" (see Matt.
24:29, 30).
J.F. Walwoord agrees that in Matthew
24:15-22 Jesus "had in mind the prediction of the climax of Israel's
seventieth week or seventy sevens of years predicted in Daniel 9:27." And a note at Matthew 24:15-20 in The New Scofield
Reference Bible speaks of "a future crisis in Jerusalem after the
manifestation of the 'abomination.' "
Do the words of
Jesus in Matthew 24 refer to a future, post-rapture tribulation for Jews? Can
such a position be sustained by careful exegesis of the passage? In my opinion,
the dispensational exegesis of Matthew 24 is an amazing example of futurism that denies the clearly recognized
complementary function of the Synoptic Gospels — Matthew, Mark, and
Luke.
Jesus' prophetic
discourse is recorded by all three Synoptic Gospels and therefore should be
studied in the light of all three records. However, dispensationalists exclude Luke from their interpretation of Christ's Olivet discourse because
Luke's account does not favor their exegesis of the "abomination of
desolation." Yet many New Testament
students consider Luke's narrative to be historically more full and complete than
either of the first two Gospels. Luke stands first in length and completeness.
The New Scofield Reference Bible even goes so far as to declare thaat Jesus' words in Luke 21:20-24 — the undeniable pparallel of Matthew 24:15-22 — predict
the very opposite of what He says in Matthew's
account! "The passage in Luke refers in express terms to a destruction of
Jerusalem which was fulfilled by Titus in A.D. 70; the passage in Matthew alludes to a future crisis in Jerusalem after the
manifestation of the 'abomination.' See
Beast (Dan. 7:8; Rev. 19:20, note). In the former case Jerusalem was destroyed:
in the latter it will be delivered by divine interpostion."
Such a
contradiction is the result of a doctrinal assurance that will not submit itself to the complementary, yet harmonious, points of view of the three
Synoptic Gospels on the "abomination of
desolation." Here the dispensationalist position can maintain
itself only at the cost of breaking up the organic unity of the Synoptic Gospels.
R.H. Gundry, himself a dispensationalist
theologian, acknowledges that it is irresponsible to impose a Jewish
application on Matthew's Gospel (rather than applying
it to the church) and thus relate chapter 24 to another, future, dispensation after
the church has been raptured from earth. His major argument: "The Olivet discourse appears in substantially the same form
in Mark and in a somewhat altered form
in Luke. Consequently, it may still relate to the church from the latter
gospels." Furthermore, Christ addressed the discourse to His
apostles who represented, of course, the
church, not the Jewish nation. 'M ••-, ;/•;.•'- r
x ,. .- /:;f All three Synoptic evangelists record Christ's
warning prediction that before the desolating
abomination would appear in Jerusalem, the Palestinian Christians must experience
the trials of false christs, of wars and rumors of wars, of famines and earthquakes (see Matt. 24:4-8; Mark 13:5-8; Luke
21:8-11). These predictions became historical reality between A.D. 35
and A.D. 55. Yet Christ had emphasized, " 'All these are the beginning of
birth pains' " (Matt. 24:8; cf. Mark 13:8).
Christ then
mentioned a second kind of trial: Jewish and Gentile persecutions in the face off which the Holy Spirit would give His
disciples an irresistible testimony; betrayals by relatives and hatred by all for the sake of His name (see
Matt. 24:9-14; Mark 13:9-13; Luke
21:12-19). Bo Reicke gives a detailed report of the fulfillment of all these trials before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and
states, "The situation presupposed by
Matthew corresponds to what is known about Christianity in Palestine between
A.D. 50 and 64." And in all these upheavals Paul affirmed that the gospel
had "been proclaimed to every creature under heaven" (Col. 1:23). These
facts allow us to conclude that
Matthew 24:1-14 and its parallels in Mark 13:1-13 and Luke 21:5-19 have found a literal fulfillment
in the years between Christ's death and the destruction of Jerusalem.
What, then, was
Christ's purpose in giving all these signs that would lead up to the
"abomination of desolation" in Jerusalem (see Matt. 24:15, K.J.V.)?
He
wanted to alert His own disciples to the truth that His second advent would not occur at tthe impending destruction of Jerusalem
as they initially had taken for granted (see verse 3; Luke 21:6, 7). When Roman
legions besieged Jerusalem, the Jewish Zealots,
inflamed by predictions of miraculous success, maintained their resistance in the false expectation that God
would supernaturally deliver the City as He had done in the time of King
Hezekiah (701 B.C.).
Against these false
prophets Christ urged His disciples not to expect His return in glory at the coming desolation of Jerusalem. When they saw the
desolating , abomination in the holy place, they were to know this was the
signal to flee immediately from the city and
Judea. They should not expect God to deliver Jerusalem as the prophets Joel (chapter 3) and Zechariah
(chapters 12 and 14) had envisioned. And the reason should be clear. These
apocalyptic prophecies presuppose a faithful remnant of Israel on Mount Zion. Buut this time the faithful remnant was
the Messianic flock that was called
out of the doomed city. Jerusalem would be destroyed according to the prophecy of Daniel 9:26, 277 because the city had rejected the
Messiah as her covenant God. In Matthew 24, Jesus points
specifically to Daniel's prophecy of doom for Jerusalem:
" 'So when you see standing in the holy place "the abomination that causes desolation," spoken of through the prophet Daniel — let the
reader understand — then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains . . . Pray
that your flight will not take place in
winter or on the sabbath. For then there will be great distress, unequaled
from the beginning of the world until now — and never to be equaled again'
" (verses 15-21).
There is no
perspective here for Jerusalem's deliverance "by divine
interposition" as the Scofield Bible claims, but
rather the opposite: the faithful remnant must flee out of Jerusalem
and Judea when they would see the abominable invader coming within the land of
Israel. Why flee away? Because the Roman desolator functions as God's decreed vengeance or punishment on the
city and the Temple for her rejection of the Messiah and His apostles
(see Dan. 9;26, 27 and Luke 21:22).
A close comparison
of the parallel context in the Synoptic Gospels confirms this conclusion beyond any doubt. Mark''s record of Jesus' warning states:
" 'When you see "the abomination that causes desolation" standing
where it does not belong — let the reader understand — then let those who are
in Judea flee to the mountains. . . . Pray
that this will not take place in winter, because those will be days of distress
unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now — and never
be equaled again' " (Mark 13:14-19).
Luke's Gospel
explains Mark's version of Christ's prophecy more elaborately for the Roman
Theophilus (see chap. 1:3): " 'When you see Jerusalem surrounded by
armies, you will know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in
Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in
the country not enter the city. For this is the time of punishment in
fulfillment of all that has been written. . . . There will be great distress in
the land and wrath against this people. They
will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations.
Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the
Gentiles are fulfilled' " (chap.
21;20-24).
It seems
impossible to interpret Luke's as referring to anything other than the destruction of Jeruusalem, which soon became historical
reality in A.D. 70. Even The New Scofield Reference Bible admits this, as
we have seen. Yet, the undeniably parallel passages in Matthew 24:15 ff. and
Mark 13:14 ff. (all three Synoptic passages begin with " 'When you see ...'") are explained as referring to a
different, future dispensation when the church is no longer on earth!
Indeed, the
Scofield Bible finds two future sieges of Jerusalem in the same words of Christ's
Olivet discourse! "Two sieges of Jerusalem are in view in the Olivet
discourse, the one fulfilled in A.D. 70, and the other yet to be fulfilled at
the end of the age. . . . The references in Matthew 24:15-28 and Mark 13:14-26
are to the final siege, when the city will
be taken by enemies but delivered by the return of the Lord to the earth
(Rev. 19:11-21; Zech. 14:2-4)."
It seems apparent that such an interpretation of Christ's words is
guided not by an exegesis that takes into account the context of the Synoptic
Gospels, but by a preconceived futurism that forces on Christ's application of
Daniel 9:26, 27 for His own generation an eschatological system of
dispensationalism for Israel. Such an
interpretation is saying that Mark and Matthew wrote nothing about the
impending desolation of Jerusalem
that took place in A.D. 70, while Luke wrote nothing about the
"final" abomination and tribulation antichrist has in store for the
"finally regathered" Jews. Why, then, does Luke, who largely follows Mark's
account, completely ignore such a horrible
tribulation for future Jews and focus exclusively on the imminent
desolation of Jerusalem by Titus and the resulting worldwide scattering of Jews
as the complete fulfillment of God's punishment for Jerusalem (see Luke 21:22; cf. Deut. 28:44-59; Dan. 9:26,
27)? Why does Christ in His Olivet discourse
give identical instructions about the desolating abomination to His apostles
for the church?
Not an idol image in the inner sanctuary but the invading armies of Rome
in
the "holy land" could be seen by all
in Judea (see Matt. 24:15, 16; Mark 13:14). Both Matthew and Mark speak not
merely of a coming "abomination" but of a desolating abomination. This horriible desolation, explains Luke to his
largely Gentile readers, would come
to Jerusalem with the destroying heathen armies (see Luke 21:20).
If the three
Synoptic Gospels describe one and the same event regarding Jerusalem — the approaching desolation of the city and the sanctuary — then Christ
placed the fulfillment of Daniel 9:26, 27
in A.D. 70, within His own generation (cf. Matt. 24:34; 23:36; Luke 21:32, 22).
Luke's emphatic declaration that the destruction of Jerusalem (by Titus
in A.D. 70) was "the time of punishment in
fulfillment of all that has been written" (Luke 21:22) is the sealing confirmationn that Daniel's "seventieth
week" has been completely fulfilled
in Christ's mission to Israel and in Jerusalem's horrible destruction by the
Romans.>
G.G. Cohen has argued that the predicted "abomination of
desolation" was
not fulfilled in A.D.
70, because "history reveals no action by the Roman general, Titus, which
can be identified as the abomination of desolation of Matthew 24:15 or 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4."
Although Christ's disciples were to
flee from the city and Judea prior to its destruction
when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by the heathen armies, F.F. Bruce reports
that "when the Temple area was taken by the Romans, and the sanctuary itself was still burning, the soldiers brought
their legionary standards into the sacred precincts, set them up opposite the
eastern gate, and offered sacrifice to them there, acclaiming Titus as imperator (victorious
commander) as they did so. ...
The offering of such sacrifice in the Temple coourt was the supreme insult to the God
of Israel."
Paul's apocalyptic outline in 2
Thessalonians 2 is based on the antichrist prophecies
of Daniel, primarily found in chapter 7, where the antichrist ("the little
horn") is explicitly located as arising among ten "horns"
after the demise of the fourth kingdom (the Roman Empire) has made room for the
ten smaller nations, that is, after A.D. 476 (see Dan. 7:23, 24).
Dispensationalism's
unwarranted projection of this apocalyptic antichrist back into Daniel's seventy-week prophecy is one reason
for the separation of the final week of that prophecy
from the former sixty-nine and its being placed at the end-time. As given in
Daniel 9, the seventy weeks reach only until the Messiah's coming to be
"cut off" and the consequent destruction of Jerusalem as God's
ordained punishment. But the antichrist of Daniel 7 is predicted to come after
the Roman Empire has expired in the fifth
century A.D. Thus, to fit antichrist into the seventh-week prophecy, a portion must be carried forward
to the end-time. All such necessities vanish when Jesus' words are
understood in their obvious context and meaning.
Understood
in this way, the Saviour substantiates the fact that Daniel's seventy weeks end, not in a post-church persecution of Jews in Israel, but with
Messiah's coming and the consequences to Jerusalem of His rejection.
Previous Article Summer 2005 Front Page