Part 1"And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple" (Matthew 24:1). Why did the disciples feel that they needed to show Jesus the temple? Hadn’t Jesus already seen the temple? Wasn’t it the house of His heavenly Father? Yet somehow the disciples were impressed with the grandeur of the temple, and they thought Jesus would be impressed with its appearance. But Jesus was not impressed. "And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? Verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down" (Matthew 24:2). Jesus had a different perspective about the temple than the disciples did. They saw the grandeur. He saw the destruction.
MATTHEW TWENTY-FOURThe disciples then asked, "Tell us, when shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" (Matthew 24:3) Why did the disciples cluster these questions together? Did they think that His coming coincided with the destruction of the temple? Did they think the end of the temple meant the end of the age? That may have been their perspective. But they’ve been wrong before. Were they right this time? At least one of the disciples thought Jesus should not, and would not, be killed. But that idea was wrong (Matthew 16:21–23). After Jesus died, the disciples did not expect Jesus to rise from the dead. But they were wrong (Mark 16:13–14). After Jesus rose from the dead, the disciples expected the kingdom to be restored to Israel at that time. But they were wrong (Acts 1:6–7). At each major juncture they were wrong. But as each event passed, and as the Lord enlightened them, they gained a new perspective. Preterists, like the disciples when they asked these questions, believe that the coming of Jesus coincides with the destruction of the temple that happened in 70 AD. But unlike the disciples, the event is past to us. So we might benefit from another perspective. If the disciples, who thought Jesus would bring a literal earthly kingdom, were alive today, I wonder if they would agree with the Preterists that Jesus really came in 70 AD and if the destruction of the temple really brought the kingdom that they were expecting. Of course, it’s true that Christ has translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son (Colossians 1:13), and in that sense the kingdom exists now. But remember, this aspect of the kingdom came at the cross, not at the destruction of the temple. So says the context in Colossians. The cluster of questions shows something about the perspective of the disciples at the time. Yet the Holy Spirit inspired these questions to be recorded in Scripture. And Jesus used these questions as a starting point for teaching about His coming. So there must be some connection between the destruction of the temple and the coming of Christ. If they’re not one and the same, as some believe, then what is the connection? I believe that Scripture puts the two events side by side so that we can learn more about one from the other. Prophecy is full of parallel patterns like this. Jesus compared the days of Noah to the coming of the son of man. Joel likened the plague of locusts to the day of the Lord. The points of comparison serve to prove the reality of the ultimate event rather than to negate the ultimate event. It strengthens our faith. When we observe that the first event happened in such and such a way, we know that the second event will also surely come to pass in an even greater way. In the case of Joel, in some places it’s not obvious whether he’s talking about the locusts or the day of the Lord. But in other places it is obvious. In the case of Jesus’ discourse, what is obvious to some is not obvious to others, and that’s why I’m writing this chapter. So how does Jesus use the destruction of the temple to teach us about His coming? As we compare Scriptures in Luke, Daniel, Zechariah, and Revelation we see that it’s not just the destruction of the temple, but it’s the destruction of the entire city of Jerusalem that receives emphasis. So the destruction of the temple stands for the destruction of Jerusalem. With this in mind, we can learn about the coming of Christ from the destruction of Jerusalem. What do we learn? First, the fleeing when the armies surround Jerusalem foreshadows the sudden fleeing at the future abomination of desolation.
Preterists notice the similarities in these two passages and think that the passages refer to the same past event. But futurists notice the differences in these passages and think that the past event foreshadows the future event. Just as it was real the first time, so will it be real the next time. Just as fleeing brought safety the first time, so will it bring safety the next time. Second, the distress following the first fleeing foreshadows the tribulation following the future fleeing.
Preterists notice the similarities and think that the past distress is the last tribulation. But futurists notice the differences and think that the past distress foreshadows the future tribulation. Just as it was bad the first time, so will it be worse the next time. The disciples asked for a sign. The sign of the armies surrounding Jerusalem led to the distress that followed, and it led to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. Similarly, the sign of the abomination of desolation will lead to the tribulation that follows, and it will lead to the coming of Christ. So Jesus provided the signs the disciples asked for, and in doing so He taught us how the near event foreshadows the far event. Preterists, on the other hand, see it all as one event. They say, "If the events of 70 AD fulfilled the prophecy, then why look any further?" Now there are different degrees of Preterism. Some believe that Christ is still coming in the future. But basically all Preterists believe that Matthew 24:30 already has been fulfilled in 70 AD:
The word "see" in Greek mainly means to see with our own eyes. Our English word "optometrist" comes from this Greek word. It’s a physical, literal seeing. Did anyone see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven in 70 AD? In order to maintain a literal interpretation of Scripture, Preterists answer, "Yes." Did I say "literal interpretation"? Yes, I said literal interpretation, but not of this passage. It’s another passage that rules. You see, the passage that comes up more often than any other in Preterist writings is Matthew 24:34:
If these words are literally true, the argument goes, then all these events had to be fulfilled by 70 AD. And if they were not fulfilled within a generation, then skeptics would have good reason to discount the Bible. So we have to provide an answer to skeptics, and we have to show how Jesus’ words are true after all.
Answer to Skeptics. I wonder if this is the best approach to answer the skeptics. Will it really make them believe the Bible if we tell them that people in 70 AD saw the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven? I have trouble believing that myself, and I’m already a believer. So how will that convince an unbeliever? The Biblical answer to skeptics is found in 2 Peter 3:3–8:
Notice that Peter doesn’t use the "this generation" argument to refute the scoffers. To the contrary, he says, "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." If Peter has this perspective, and if God views time in this way, then maybe we should re-think our time limits.
This Generation, Soon, Quickly. In addition to the "this generation" verse, Preterists use verses that say Christ is coming "soon" or "quickly," reasoning that coming within 40 years would be soon, but coming in 2000 years would not be soon. But who’s to say how soon is soon? Ask a child how soon is soon. Then ask an adult that same question. Then ask God that same question. If it were up to me I might define "soon" in one way, but with the Lord a thousand years is as one day. Although the "soon" and "quickly" verses fall into the same category as the "this generation" passage, they don’t carry the same weight of argument. "This generation" attempts to define a specific number of years, and so Preterists keep coming back to this passage over and over again. It’s their key passage. The Preterist view of "this generation" governs their view of many other Scripture passages. I read statements like, "Whatever this passage means, we know it has to be fulfilled in the first generation, not a later generation." Because of this, many prophetic passages, which on their own, and according to their own context, we would naturally place in the future, they find a way to fit into the past. On the face of it, when we read, "they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory," we think of it as future, because that hasn’t yet literally happened. But they explain this verse, and many other verses, as past, because of the "this generation" constraint. "This generation" becomes the focal point and governing principle of prophetic interpretation. I picture the Preterist position as a pyramid, an upside down pyramid. Rather than having a wide base of Scripture passages to support one point, they have one pivotal passage to rule their view of many other passages. Yet they perceive their position to be strong, because "this generation" must mean the generation then living when the words were spoken. The alternative, that it refers to some future generation 2000 years later, they rigorously argue against. And I agree. To their evidence I would add evidence I shared many years ago in my chapter on the Olivet Discourse. We agree that "this generation" does not refer to a future generation. But they usually fail to mention a third alternative. That’s rarely spoken of.
Points of Agreement. I agree with Preterists on other points too. I agree with their objection to wild end-times speculation. This speculation goes along with the idea that "this generation" is the final generation. At its best, that results in looking for events that mark the final generation. At its worst, that results in date setting, trying to guess the time of Christ’s return. When one scheme doesn’t pan out, the speculators change their scheme, showing that it’s all speculation. I also agree with the Preterists’ evidence about the date of Revelation. Most futurists date the book at about 95 AD, after the destruction of Jerusalem. All Preterists date the book at about 65 AD, before the destruction of Jerusalem. I really don’t know for sure when the book of Revelation was written, because I wasn’t there. But the evidence for the earlier date makes sense. For example, while browsing a Preterist web site, I came across an article offering evidence for the early date of Revelation. After giving some strong arguments, it offered what to the author’s mind was a weaker argument, namely that Peter borrowed phraseology from Revelation, showing that Revelation was written before the book of 2 Peter. For example, Peter says, "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Peter 3:8). That reminds us of the 1000 years mentioned six times in Revelation 20. That’s all one day of the Lord. Before this I had wondered how Peter anticipated Revelation before John had his visions and before the angel revealed the information to John. But could it be the other way around? Could it be that Revelation preceded Peter? That seems to make sense to me personally because of the way Peter writes—he reminds his readers of things already known. But you may wonder, doesn’t 2 Peter 3:8, in the King James version, tell the readers not to be "ignorant" of the fact that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years? So how can it be already known? The word used in the Greek means "escape notice" or "be hidden." The same word is used in 2 Peter 3:5 as well as in Mark 7:14, Luke 8:47, Acts 26:26, and Hebrews 13:2. According to the New Englishman’s Greek Concordance of the New Testament, the literal translation is "let not this one thing escape you." This implies that the information can be known if we’ll just pay attention to it. That’s quite different than 1 Thessalonians 4:13, where a different Greek word is used, the word which closely resembles our English word "ignorant" in sound and spelling. Because the present tense in Greek implies a continuing state, the Thessalonians passage can be translated, "But I do not want you to remain in ignorance." So there are two different kinds of ignorance. Peter reminds his readers of facts that can be known for the most part. On the other hand, I don’t know how Peter knew that the heavens and the earth would be destroyed by fire, because it’s not mentioned that way in Revelation. Maybe that’s new information. But however you view the relationship of Peter and Revelation, and however you view the date of Revelation, just know that the futurist position, unlike the Preterist position, does not depend on the date of Revelation. Many of the arguments for the date of Revelation, as good as they are, are arguments outside the Bible. We have sufficient arguments inside the Bible to prove our futurist case. So I agree with the Preterists’ objections to end-time speculation, I agree with their evidence about the date of Revelation, and I agree with them on another point. Colossians 1:13 says that God has "delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son." That puts us, as believers, squarely in the kingdom right now. On that we agree.
Aspects of the Kingdom. But Colossians has more to say. Reading the next verse, notice how and when the present aspect of the kingdom began.
Does it say the kingdom came with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD when the blood of the Jews was spilled? No, the transformation came through the blood of God’s Son. The cross is the focus in Colossians. And the cross is the pivotal point of history. But Preterists argue that 70 AD was also a pivotal point of history, and that is the point at which the kingdom came. To support this view, they would point to Luke 21:31–32:
What does this prove? I don’t know if Preterists would say this, but at the very least, it proves that the kingdom has more than one aspect. The passage talks about a future aspect of the kingdom, future to the time of the prophetic signs mentioned in the passage. In contrast, Colossians, as we have seen, points to the present aspect of the kingdom, because Christ conquered at the cross. This should be obvious also because Colossians was written before 70 AD, and it speaks of the kingdom as already present. So the kingdom in Colossians has to be an aspect distinct from the kingdom yet to come that Luke talks about. On that we should agree. I think we can agree that the kingdom of God has more than one aspect. Where we disagree is when the future aspect appears. Does it appear in 70 AD or after 2000 AD? Because "this generation" connects to kingdom in the passage above, Preterists answer 70 AD.
This Generation. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all record the statement of Jesus, "this generation shall not pass." Preterists point out that in Matthew, as well as in the other gospels, "generation" consistently refers to a period of time representing a life span. For example, in Matthew 23:36 Jesus says, "Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation." Matthew 1:17 provides another example:
Therefore, if "generation" in Matthew 24:34 has a different meaning, then it would be the only place in Matthew where it does. The Greek lexicon of Arndt and Gingrich gives three meanings for "generation." First, those descended from a common ancestor, a clan, a race. Second, the sum total of those born at the same time, expanded to include all those living at a given time. Third, age, the time of a generation. Meanings two and three are closely related. Meaning two focuses on the people of a given time period, and meaning three focuses on the time period of a given people. Either meaning would produce the same result when interpreting Matthew 24:34. But the first meaning in the lexicon is different, because it spans many time periods. The first meaning is also closer to the root meaning, which according to the lexicon is "family, descent." That root meaning is apparent also from the related words. Genealogy, for example, is a related word, both in English and in Greek. The Greek words for "birth" and "beget" are related in meaning and in spelling. I think we get our English words "gene" and "generate" from these related Greek words that all start with "g-e-n." For Matthew 24:34 I am going to offer evidence in favor of the first meaning, people belonging to the same descent, as opposed to people belonging to the same time period. As we said, when interpreting "generation" in Matthew 24, Preterists look at the context. That’s good. They go back to the previous chapter to see how "generation" is used there. That’s good. They go through all 13 uses in Matthew, including going all the way back to the first chapter to see how "generation" is used there. That’s good, as far as it goes. I would just go a little farther back. If the primary rule of interpretation is context, context, context, then let’s get the complete context. Let’s not overlook Isaiah. In another chapter we talked about the Matthew–Isaiah connection and listed 16 parallel passages between them. Instead of repeating the entire list here, we’ll focus on Matthew 24 and the words that Jesus spoke in this Olivet Discourse. When Jesus said, "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken" (verse 29) what context do you suppose that came from? Do you suppose He had Isaiah in mind?
When Jesus said, "And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other" (verse 31), what context do you suppose that came from? Do you suppose He had these passages in mind?
There seems to be a pattern here. Could we say that Jesus was thinking in the context of Isaiah? Finally, Jesus said, "This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (verses 34–35) This sounds similar to:
Now if Jesus had Isaiah in mind when He spoke the first two passages, did He not also have Isaiah in mind when He spoke the third? And if Jesus had Isaiah in mind when He spoke these words, should not we also have Isaiah in mind when we interpret these words? If we want context to rule our interpretation, shouldn’t we use the same context that Jesus used on this particular day? The context of Isaiah has the strongest relevance here. So let’s look closely at the words of Jesus in light of Isaiah.
Notice the references to heaven and earth in both passages. One passage speaks of the old heaven and earth. The other passage speaks of the new heaven and earth. One passage speaks of what will pass away and won't pass way. The other passage speaks of what will remain. Both speak the same truth. It's as if I described a door before entering, and then described the same door from the other side. Same truth, parallel wording, parallel passages. Now notice what lays parallel to "this generation." It’s "your seed and your name." So if we let Isaiah define "generation" for us, as it’s used in Matthew 24:34, we arrive at meaning number one in the lexicon. If you were to search the entire Bible for a closer parallel to Matthew 24:34, including all the Matthew passages that mention "generation," you would find no better match. Yet, it seems that Preterists have arrived at their interpretation of Matthew 24:34 without taking into consideration Isaiah. So the pyramid topples. But let’s be fair. Futurists also have overlooked Isaiah. Of course, they're aware of meaning number one in the lexicon. But not knowing that Isaiah illuminates it and confirms it, some get caught up in speculating about the last generation and guessing dates. In another chapter we have argued against the idea that "this generation" refers to a future generation. Now that Preterists have a bigger chunk of context to grab a hold of (and they do like context, don’t they), and now that this new context corroborates their own view that they’ve held all along, namely that "this generation" is not some future generation 2000 years off, will they welcome the Isaiah context? Well, it’s not that simple. You see, to accept Isaiah 66:22 when it says, "so shall your seed and your name remain," is to accept the idea that the seed of Israel and the name of Israel will remain. But their theology says that Israel is kaput. The end of Israel, they say, was 70 AD. Will Preterists how accept Isaiah as is? I’m eager for the answer because then we’ll discover the driving force of Preterism, whether it truly be the context or not.
Some Standing Here. Rather than answer Isaiah, Preterists may turn to their second favorite passage to support their view of "this generation." Matthew, Mark, and Luke record these words of Jesus:
If context is the primary rule of interpretation, then observe what immediately follows in each of the three gospels. In each case these words are followed by the account of the transfiguration of Jesus that happened six days later. Is that coincidence? Or is that significant? When Jesus was transfigured three disciples saw Him in His kingdom glory. We see the promise and the fulfillment right next to each other. Preterism bypasses the three contexts and goes to 70 AD to find the fulfillment of the promise. The promise does not mention Jerusalem or its destruction. Yet they say that’s what it means. The promise does not say that some will die before the fulfillment. Yet they say that it says so. What the promise does say explicitly is, "some standing here." So the promise is directed to some of the disciples standing there rather than to an entire city, an entire nation, or an entire generation. To find the fulfillment in the transfiguration fits the words of the promise as well as the context of the promise. The coincidence of context is not all. More significant is the eyewitness account of Peter himself. He says:
Peter calls this mount-of-transfiguration event a "coming" of the Lord Jesus Christ. "Coming" here is a synonym of "coming" in the Matthew and Mark passages. The Greek New Testament has lots of words for "coming." Specifically, what kind of coming is Peter writing about? Is it a coming as a lamb in meekness and humility? No, this is a coming in power and glory, the kind of coming Jesus promised they would see. Peter’s word for "power" is the same Greek word for "power" in Mark 9:1. Peter’s word for "glory" is the same Greek word for "glory" in Matthew 16:27, Mark 8:38, and Luke 9:26. In context, Peter is reassuring his readers about the truth and certainty of the "everlasting kingdom" whose grand entrance awaits them because Peter already got a glimpse of it (2 Peter 1:11). By the way, for Matthew 16:28 some Greek manuscripts have alternate readings in place of "His kingdom." Some read "His glory" and some read "the glory of His Father." Similarly, for Luke 9:27 some Greek manuscripts have an alternate reading for "the kingdom of God." Some read "the Son of man coming in His glory." I’m not arguing in favor of these alternate readings. All I’m saying is that this is an interesting commentary on how some Greek copyists understood the kingdom and the glory. If "glory" could be substituted for "kingdom," or vice versa, then they must be closely related. When Peter saw the Lord in glory on that mountain, he saw Him as He will come in His kingdom one day yet future, when not just "some" will see Him, but all will see Him. We have no eyewitness account of anyone seeing the Lord in that kind of glory in 70 AD. Although Josephus records sightings of chariots and armies in the sky before Jerusalem fell, it's still not a sighting of Christ Himself at His coming. But we do have Peter’s eyewitness account. On that basis it’s perfectly reasonable to find the fulfillment of Jesus’ promise at the mount of transfiguration. Yet the Preterist interpretation seems to have ruled out this possibility without taking into consideration the interpretation of Peter. The Preterist case rests on time texts. Now we have examined their top two time texts. For one text, they have arrived at their interpretation without taking into consideration Isaiah. For the other text, they have arrived at their interpretation without taking into consideration Peter. Do you notice a pattern here? In answering Preterism, I’m not so much disagreeing with them as I am pointing out some things they have overlooked. It’s as if I had a cleaning person in my home who missed some spots. I’m not getting face-to-face saying, "You used the wrong cleaning solution." Or "You should have scrubbed counterclockwise instead of clockwise." No, I’m just following behind, saying, "You did fine, as far as it goes, but you missed a spot here, and you missed a spot there." Now let’s notice the next spot.
An Overlooked Time Text. Preterists love time texts. Time texts are good. Let’s notice a time text that Preterists have overlooked.
This is the last verse of Matthew 23. That places it immediately before chapter 24 and the Olivet Discourse. These words of Jesus may have prompted the question of the disciples three verses later, "What shall be the sign of thy coming?" In close proximity Jesus speaks of the destruction of the temple. In the verse preceding Jesus says, "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate" (Matthew 23:38). Just two verses after Jesus says, "There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down" (Matthew 24:2). Sandwiched in the middle of the two temple statements is our time text. The other time text (Matthew 24:34 and "this generation") comes 32 verses after the mention of the temple’s destruction. But this time text has the closest proximity of all the time texts. Yet Preterists seem not to talk about this one. So let’s talk about it now. First, the verse specifies a time when Jerusalem will not see the Lord, and this time will last until they repent. These words are addressed to Jerusalem, particularly unbelieving Jerusalem, rather than to a select few believers as He does later in Matthew 24. I point this out because Jerusalem as a whole did not repent in 70 AD. If they did, then why did God destroy them? When they do, God will deliver them. Their not seeing Him and their house being left desolate coincide. In other words, He’s not saying, "You won’t see me until the moment your house becomes desolate." No, He’s saying, "I’m leaving you and leaving your house, and so nothing can stop your house from becoming desolate." The phrase "Ye shall not see me" uses the strong emphatic negative (literally dual negative) in the Greek. The Darby translation catches this nuance: "ye shall in no wise see me." Second, the verse specifies a time when Jerusalem will see Him again, and it will happen when they say, "Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord." That’s a refrain of what they recently said a few days prior when they spread their garments and tree branches before Jesus as He triumphantly rode into Jerusalem (Matthew 21:8–9). That’s also a quotation from Psalm 118:26. Psalm 118 is a psalm of victory, as you can see from these citations: "All nations compassed me about: but in the name of the LORD will I destroy them" (verse 10). "Save now, I beseech thee, O LORD: O LORD, I beseech thee, send now prosperity" (verse 25). Repentance and salvation go together. Non-repentance and destruction go together. One of those happened in 70 AD. The other one is yet to come. Third, if a day is yet coming when Jerusalem will say, "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord," then that implies that Jerusalem, even though overrun in 70 AD, will yet be a Jewish city in the future. Sure enough, Jerusalem belongs to the Jews once again. Futurists are not surprised. Jerusalem hasn’t repented yet, and therefore Christ hasn’t returned to earth yet, but we can confidently say that the world stage is now being set for prophecy to be fulfilled without making wild claims and setting dates. On the other hand, Preterists see no prophetic significance in Jerusalem today, because they do not believe there is a day yet coming when Jerusalem will say, "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." And maybe that’s why this time text, even though placed strategically in the narrative, seems to be overlooked.
The Abomination of Desolation. Let’s notice the next spot. When trying to understand Matthew 24 and the Olivet Discourse, where do we start? Some theologians start with one passage, and other theologians start with another passage, and different theologians arrive at different interpretations. If the theologians disagree, then how can you and I understand? One point, however, remains clear. Out of all the statements Jesus made in the Olivet Discourse, this statement stands out:
So if we understand nothing else, we can at least understand the one thing Jesus told us to understand, namely the abomination of desolation. Let’s start here and see where that leads. Jesus points us back to Daniel.
Here we agree with Preterists that "week" means a week of years; in other words, seven years. Notice the two events that happen in the middle of that time. First, "he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease." Second, "for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate." Futurists see both events happening on the same day and both events perpetrated by the same person. Preterists, however, split these events in time, saying that Christ is the one who caused the sacrifice to cease by His own sacrifice on the cross. Then later in time came the abomination of desolation, perpetrated by Nero or somebody like that near 70 AD. In other words, they see a gap between the two events. Furthermore, according to some Preterists, the second event falls outside of the week instead of in the middle of the week. Other Preterists keep the second event in the middle of the week by moving the week to around 70 AD. That chronology has one feature in common with futurists, namely, a gap before the week. But that would leave the first event outside the week. In other words, one event or the other falls outside the week because of the alleged gap between the two events. Still other Preterists stretch the 70th week to 40 years in order to include both events within the week even though separated in time. I understand how they got here. It is true that Christ’s perfect one-and-for-all sacrifice put an end to imperfect repetitive animal sacrifices (Hebrews 10:10–18). And so when Daniel 9:27 mentions the taking away of the daily sacrifices, I follow the logic, and I see why Preterists think it’s Christ who takes away those daily sacrifices. If this were the only verse in Daniel that referred to the taking away of the daily sacrifices, then this logic might make sense. But there’s more. In fact, four places in all mention the taking away of the daily sacrifice.
From these passages we learn two things. First, the taking away of the daily sacrifice is done by the bad guy, not by Christ. Second, the two events, the taking away of the daily sacrifice and the abomination of desolation happen together on the same day, with no gap. Note particularly the last passage above. It counts 1290 days starting from when? Starting from the taking away of the daily sacrifice and the abomination of desolation. The twin events happen together on the same day, perpetrated by the same person. Of course, some of the passages above were fulfilled in 167 BC when Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the altar. But just the same, it was the bad guy who did it. Jesus spoke of an abomination yet future to His time. The final fulfillment follows the pattern of the first fulfillment. In both fulfillments the bad buy takes away the daily sacrifice and sets up the abomination of desolation, doing both on the same day. The glue that binds together these twin events is stronger than the glue between the 70 weeks themselves. The glue won’t allow a gap between the twin events of the 70th week. The week is a solid unit. And so if there’s a gap, the gap more naturally falls before the week. Do futurists invent such a gap by reading into Daniel something that’s not there? No, not at all. Remember, we didn’t start with Daniel. We started with Jesus, and He’s the one who put the events of the 70th week future to His time. Of all His statements in the Olivet Discourse, this is the one thing He told us to understand. So at His direction we have read Daniel in context, and now we understand that the events of Daniel’s 70th week fall future to the time of Jesus. What does this prove? Does this prove that Daniel’s 70th week is yet future to us? No, this merely proves that Daniel’s 70th week is future to the time of Jesus, and therefore, it doesn’t disprove Preterism. So why do Preterists hang on to the interpretation that it was not the bad guy who takes away the daily sacrifice? If simple timing doesn’t require it, then maybe there’s a deeper issue.
See the Son of Man Coming in the Clouds. Let’s notice the next spot. Matthew 24:30 says:
"See," as used in the New Testament, mainly means to see with our eyes. For example, Revelation 1:7 says, "Behold He cometh with clouds, and every eye shall see Him." From this Greek word "see" we derive "optometry." Preterists, who don’t believe any eyes literally saw Jesus return in 70 AD, overlook the word "see" here, and they spend most of their time talking about "clouds." Are the clouds literal or figurative? Rather than letting "see with your eyes" tell us that the clouds are literal in this context, they argue that the clouds are figurative, and having done that, they either overlook "see" altogether or maybe they’ll argue that "see" also is figurative, contrary to its primary and most common meaning. So let’s talk about the clouds. Preterists use Isaiah 19 to argue that the clouds are figurative. Drawing upon Isaiah is good. As we noted before, Matthew 24 refers back to Isaiah several times. The phrase "this generation" finds its explanation in Isaiah. So interpreting Matthew in light of Isaiah is good. Let’s check it out.
From this Preterists reason that if the cloud coming in Isaiah 19 is the judgment coming upon Egypt, so also is the cloud coming in Matthew 24 a judgment coming upon Jerusalem. Let’s compare. In Isaiah 19, the same verse that mentions "rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt" also mentions "Egypt" three times. The next verse mentions "Egyptians" two times. The entire chapter mentions "Egypt" or "Egyptian" 25 times. So it’s obvious that the passage talks about Egypt and the judgment upon the Egyptians. In Matthew 24 the same verse that mentions "coming in the clouds" also mentions Jerusalem zero times. The closest mention of Jerusalem is in the previous chapter, 32 verses earlier, where "Jerusalem" is mentioned twice. "Judea" is mentioned once in the chapter, 14 verses earlier. "Temple" is mentioned once, 29 verses earlier, and "your house" is mentioned in the previous chapter. So, if in Matthew 24, the cloud coming means a judgment upon one city or one country, then it’s not quite as obvious as it is in Isaiah. Let’s compare further. The surrounding chapters in Isaiah speak of judgment upon localities, namely, Babylon (chapters 13–14), Moab (chapters 15–16), Damascus (chapter 17), Ethiopia (chapter 18), and Tyre (chapter 23). Therefore, the judgment upon Egypt (chapter 19) falls into that context. In Matthew 24 the surrounding verses speak of a personal coming with worldwide effects. Verse 7 speaks of nations in general, and not just one famine but many, and not just one pestilence, but many, and not just one earthquake, but many, and not just in one location, but in diverse places. Verse 14 mentions "all the world." Granted, those are just the signs leading up to the coming, but when we read about the coming itself, verse 31 mentions the four winds, from one end of the heaven to the other. In verse 38 Jesus compares His coming to the flood of Noah’s day. Verse 39 says the flood took them "all" away, not just one city. By the way, the flood was a direct judgment of God, not an indirect judgment through the hand of man. These worldwide effects follow a personal coming. Verse 37 mentions "the coming of the Son of man." Verse 39 also mentions "the coming of the Son of man." Verse 42 says, "your Lord doth come." Verse 44 says, "the Son of man cometh." The next chapter has similar statements. So the surrounding context in Matthew 24 differs from the surrounding context of Isaiah 19. It’s more worldwide and less local. It’s more personal and less mediated by man. Therefore, I’m not compelled to believe that when "they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory" that the meaning is limited by Isaiah’s cloud coming. Rather I find it easier to believe that Isaiah’s cloud coming is a small foretaste of the final glorious coming at which the "clouds" are no longer just a figure of speech, but now reveal the reality upon which the figure of speech is based. In addition to Isaiah 19, Preterists also point to another cloud coming in Daniel 7:13.
Preterists reason this way: since the direction of this cloud coming is not earthward, likewise the cloud coming in Matthew 24:30 is not necessarily earthward. But I think the question to ask here, is not "Where is the Son of man going?"—because that’s clearly stated in Daniel 7:13—but rather "Where is the Son of man coming from?" Could it be that He’s going heavenward at this moment because He went earthward previously? Although Preterists talk about the direction of His coming in Daniel 7:13, they don’t talk about the fact that this is a personal coming. If they wanted to make a complete comparison, they could reason that since Daniel 7:13 is a personal coming, then also Matthew 24:30 is a personal coming, as opposed to revealing Himself indirectly through the Roman armies. I was under the impression that when He comes, He will come with His own armies (Revelation 19:14). And He will come in front of those armies, not hidden in heaven. Many other passages do the Preterists use to argue that the cloud coming is figurative, not literal. But one passage they don’t use in this way is Acts 1:9–11. So let’s look at it now:
Of all the cloud coming passages, this one explicitly explains the manner of His coming again. With the other passages we have to ask, "Is this like that?" "Is this parallel?" "Is this similar?" But here there’s no question, and so this should be the first passage we come to, not the last. The comparison is reinforced threefold. First, "this same Jesus" tells us that it’s the same Jesus whom they saw go into haven, not a different Jesus. The angels could have just said "Jesus." Why make a special point of saying "this same Jesus"? But, you may object, although it’s the same Jesus, He comes in a different way. Not so, because secondly, He "shall so come." The word "so" in Greek is a word of comparison, meaning "in this way" or "likewise." And, lest we miss the point, thirdly, "in like manner" tells us what manner. The word "manner" in Greek means "mode" or "style." Is His manner of coming like it was in Isaiah 19:1? Or like it was in Daniel 7:13? Preterists say that’s the manner. But the angels here tell us the manner. The visibility is reinforced fivefold. First, "while they beheld" tells us they were seeing Him with their eyes. Second, "out of their sight" tells us that He was in their sight before the clouds received Him. Third, "they looked steadfastly" tells us they were intently looking with their eyes in the direction of His ascension. Fourth, "gazing" tells us they were using their eyes. Fifth, "seen Him go" tells us they actually saw Him with their eyes. So considering the threefold comparison and the fivefold seeing, how could the passage have stated it more clearly? If Preterists talk about this passage at all, they emphasize, not the oft-repeated seeing, but the once-mentioned "received him out of their sight." Well, of course, He’s hidden now. Going, there’s a time when He’s seen and a time when He’s hidden. Coming, there’s a time when He’s hidden and a time when He’s seen. He makes the transition from one to the other, but He’s not hidden the entire time. In this passage, is the seeing literal? Are they looking at a literal Jesus in His literal body? Is it a literal cloud that received Him? If all these are literal, and if He is coming in the same manner, then where do Preterists get the idea that "same manner" means figurative on all counts? That idea certainly doesn’t derive from this passage. It’s deduced from elsewhere.
LUKE TWENTY-ONENow that we have noticed some spots related to Matthew 24 that Preterists tend to overlook, let’s move to a parallel passage, Luke 21. Here we’ll notice some similarities and differences. Luke specifically mentions the armies surrounding Jerusalem. Matthew does not. What do we make of that? Preterists believe that both passages talk about the destruction of Jerusalem, saying that the coming of Christ happened in the past at the destruction of Jerusalem. Futurists believe that Luke includes the past destruction of Jerusalem and the future coming of Christ; while Matthew includes only the future return of Christ. In this way, the past distress in Luke 21 foreshadows the future great tribulation in Matthew 24, assuring us that it will really happen in a similar manner. I wondered if the discourse in Luke and the discourse in Matthew were spoken on two different occasions. Matthew tells us that Jesus spoke these words on the mount of Olives. That’s why we call it the Olivet Discourse. Luke tells us that Jesus spoke in the day time in the temple, and in the night time on the Mount of Olives. But he doesn’t explicitly say which of the two places He spoke these words. So if Luke didn’t say, then I can’t say either. If the discourses are different, or if the writers included different parts of the same discourse, I don’t know. If the two writers recorded prophecies about two different events, we can know this only by relying on the recorded words as the Holy Spirit inspired Luke and Matthew to write them. I also wondered about the disciples’ questions. In Matthew the disciples ask about his coming:
But in Luke they don’t explicitly ask about His coming:
Is this difference in questions evidence of different answers? No, because we have to factor in Mark, the third parallel passage. Mark parallels Luke’s questions, but he parallels Matthew’s answers. So I don’t want to read too much into the questions. I think we need to concentrate on the answers that Jesus gives to those questions. I used to think that Luke’s phrase, "But before all these," placed the destruction of Jerusalem before the future great tribulation. But following closely Luke’s words, I now see that "before" means before the great signs from heaven rather than before the great tribulation. So I won’t try to prove timing from that phrase, except to point out that "before all these" introduces a digression in thought of some sort. The digression consists of verses 12–24. If you were to put parenthesis around that portion, you would find that the passages before and after are connected. Observe:
Notice how verse 25 continues the thought of verse 11. Luke, the careful historian, likes to set things in order (Luke 1:3), and so he lets us know the parenthetical portion by using the phrase "But before all these." Does this parenthetical portion parallel Matthew and Mark? Preterists say "yes" because of the similarities. Futurists say "no" because of the differences. What similarities and differences do you see here:
Prophecy commonly has foreshadowings and double fulfillments. In the case of the abomination spoken of in Matthew, both Preterists and futurists agree that there has already been a prior fulfillment. Daniel 8:13 and 11:31 prophesy an abomination of desolation that was fulfilled in 167 BC when Antiochus Epiphanes offered a sow upon the altar in the temple. Therefore, when Jesus prophesied another abomination future to His time, we surmise that the first one foreshadowed the second one. Obviously, God arranges this for a reason. What does He teach us through prophetic foreshadowing? First, the prior fulfillment teaches us what the final fulfillment will be like. As one, so the other. In fact, if there’s any difference between the two, we can expect the final fulfillment to be more complete, because that is what prophecy is leading up to. Second, the prior fulfillment inspires faith that the final fulfillment will surely come to fruition. In the case of the abomination of desolation, futurists see two foreshadowings, and one fulfillment. First, Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the altar in 167 BC in fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy. How does that foreshadow? The final abomination also will happen in the temple (Matthew 24:15, 2 Thessalonians 2:4). Second, the Roman armies destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD. How does that foreshadow? The command to flee when the armies surrounded the city is like the command to flee at the final abomination (Matthew 24:15, Revelation 12:14). The two foreshadowings are dissimilar to one another, because one concerns the temple and one concerns the city, but both together provide a fuller picture of the final fulfillment. Preterists look at it differently. To them the similarities between Luke and Matthew prove sameness. That logic is sound as far as it goes. In the case of the four Daniel passages that talk about the abomination of desolation, we would assume the event to be the same, until Jesus came along and told us otherwise. In the case of the desolation in Matthew and Luke, we should also assume them to be the same unless we have proof otherwise. I think it’s fair to say that the burden of proof falls on the futurists to prove that these are different events. So let’s read it again, and as we do, we’ll notice one big difference.
What is the signal to flee? If you were living in Jerusalem at the time of the desolation, that’s the one thing you’d want to know. When do you flee? The above verses provide two answers. Two different answers. The different answers evidence different events. Matthew says to flee when you see something inside. Luke says when you see something outside. Inside or outside? Which is it? They’re opposite. By the way, this is not crucial to the argument here, but I might just point out that the holy place in the Bible refers to the holy place in the temple. Preterists may argue that the holy place here refers to Jerusalem. And they show us verses where Jerusalem is called the "holy city." But they haven’t showed us verses where Jerusalem is called the "holy place." In context, Matthew’s "holy place" refers to Daniel, and Daniel’s location is temple related rather than city related. The Daniel passages about the abomination of desolation mention "sanctuary," "daily sacrifice," and "oblation." Although Daniel 9:26 mentions the "desolation" of the city and the sanctuary, the "abomination" passages are temple related (8:13, 9:27, 11:31, 12:11). So in context, "holy place" means the holy place in the temple. Besides Daniel, to which Matthew directly refers, see also Acts 6:13, Hebrews chapter 9, and 2 Thessalonians 2:4. Mark 13 says the abomination of desolation will stand where it "ought not." And certainly the holy place, a restricted area, is an "ought not" kind of place. With this in mind, the contrast between Matthew and Luke sharpens. Now the contrast is not just outside the city versus inside the city. That’s opposite enough. But now, more than just inside the city, it’s also inside the temple. And not only that, but it’s also inside the holy place inside the temple. So if outside the city and inside the city are opposite, then outside the city and inside the holy place are totally opposite. On that basis we conclude that Matthew and Luke record different events, because the signal to flee is opposite. From this flow other observations consistent with that conclusion. First, the timing of fleeing is different. In Matthew the time to flee comes after the abomination of desolation. In Luke the time to flee comes before the desolation. Second, the suddenness of fleeing is different. In Matthew if you’re on the housetop, you don’t have time to go down into your house to grab anything. It’s a sudden specific one-day event. Luke is not so specific about the suddenness. Third, the signal to flee is different in number. In Matthew it’s the abomination of desolation (singular) standing in the holy place. In Luke it’s the armies (plural) surrounding Jerusalem. Fourth, the description of the desolation is different. Matthew calls it the "abomination" of desolation spoken of by Daniel. In Luke it’s just "desolation," and it’s not identified by Daniel. Fifth, the description of the distress is different. Luke calls it "great distress." Matthew calls it "great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no nor ever shall be." Preterists object that Matthew’s description of the uniqueness of this time is not to be taken literally. To support their objection they provide a list of verses including Exodus 11:6 and Ezekiel 5:9 which use similar uniqueness language. However, Luke 21 is not on that list of verses. Luke’s record makes no claim to uniqueness as does Matthew. That’s the difference. Sixth, the scope of people in distress is different. Luke says there shall be "wrath upon this people" and "Jerusalem shall be trodden down." But Matthew says "And except those days shall be shortened, there shall no flesh be saved." Preterists take "no flesh," not literally, but limited in scope to Jerusalem or to Israel. I understand their explanation. But all I’m pointing out here is that Luke’s language differs from Matthew’s wording. Let me point out also that after Luke finishes talking about the distress in the parenthetical portion, and after he starts talking about the second coming, then his language, like Matthew, becomes worldwide in scope, saying "it shall come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth." Seventh, the "days" receive a different emphasis. Matthew says "And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved." But instead of shortening and saving, Luke says, "For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." Eighth, the chronology of the desolation is different. Matthew has the abomination before the great tribulation. Although Luke has the signal to flee before the distress, the actual desolation occurs at the end of the distress. If timing verses are important to Preterists, I would expect chronology to be critical. Ninth, the description of the false Christs is different. Luke mentions false Christs once, and that before the distress. Matthew mentions false Christs twice, the second mention after the great tribulation begins, and the second set of false Christs show great signs and wonders. That’s consistent with the futurist view of what will happen in the great tribulation. And if Luke is not talking about the future great tribulation, but a past distress, then it’s consistent that he omit these miracles. Tenth, the people go in opposite directions. Luke says they "shall be led away captive into all nations." Matthew says, "they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." One is the scattering, the other is the gathering. What a pattern of differences we find! Each time I look another one jumps out at me. Now it’s your turn. Tell me—did I miss a spot? Though not proof in and of itself, this pattern is consistent with the view that Luke and Matthew speak of different times. Luke speaks of the time of distress leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Matthew speaks of the great tribulation leading up to the return of Christ in the future. Actually, I did miss a spot. Here’s number eleven. To put this in context, let’s observe three sets of signs that Luke gives. He gives "not yet" signs, a "flee now" sign, and "celestial" signs. The first set of signs includes wars, earthquakes, famines, and pestilences. Commenting on these, Luke says, "the end is not by and by." Matthew says, "the end is not yet." Matthew and Mark also call these signs "the beginning of sorrows." These signs have occurred over an extended time, perhaps increasing throughout history. Second, a more compressed period of time is precipitated by the signal to flee. Those days are "shortened" according to Matthew and those years number only three and one-half years according to Revelation 12 and 13. The foreshadowing distress, the siege of Jerusalem, also lasted about three and one-half years. Third, the signs in the sky close the period. Because the third set of signs is so compressed, it’s possible for someone in the last generation to see all three sets of signs. Even someone who starts out seeing the "not yet" signs (wars, earthquakes, famines, pestilences) may yet live to see the rest of the signs. Herein lies another difference between Luke and Matthew. Matthew writes as though the reader may live in the final generation and see the end. That assumption is missing in Luke. For example, Matthew, while still describing "not yet" signs, before mentioning the "flee now" sign, mentions "he that shall endure unto the end . . . ." This is missing from Luke. Just after that, Matthew writes, "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." Preterists argue that the gospel was preached in all the known world by 70 AD, and therefore it was possible for the end of the age to occur in 70 AD. I understand their reasoning, but all I’m pointing out here, is that it’s missing from Luke. While Matthew transitions from the "flee now" signs to the celestial signs, he writes, "Immediately after the tribulation of those days . . . ." The words "immediately after" are missing from Luke. Luke does not even use the words, as Mark does, "after that tribulation." Luke simply says, "And there shall be signs in the sun . . ." without specifying when, as Matthew and Mark do. If Luke does not explicitly place the time of distress adjacent to the time of the end, then where does he place it? He places it at the beginning of the times of the Gentiles. "And Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." When is the time of the Gentiles fulfilled? Some Preterists say it was fulfilled at the fall of the city in 70 AD, and they say it started at the surrounding of the city. But in Luke the surrounding of the city means its desolation is "near," not here. The trodding down of the city happens last in Luke’s narrative, not first. The year 70 AD only started the trodding down, not ended it. Furthermore, Preterists say that 70 AD ended the Jewish age. So are they saying that 70 AD ended both the Jewish age and the Gentile age? How can that be? No, Luke leaves us with an extended time of Gentile domination over Jerusalem that, in hindsight, has lasted at least until 1967 when Israel regained Jerusalem, and perhaps even beyond that, because Zechariah 14:2 and Revelation 11:2 says that Jerusalem will be overrun yet again (more on Zechariah and Revelation later), and if so, that would put the end of the time of the Gentiles at the end of the age, at the return of Christ. Therefore, Luke and Matthew portray periods on opposite poles of the timeline. Luke, the beginning. Matthew, the end. That’s difference number eleven. Luke didn’t have the benefit of hindsight, as we do, and yet his choice of words and phrases make more sense in hindsight than they do in foresight. Luke was not one of the twelve, and neither Luke nor Matthew were one of the four who heard the Olivet Discourse (Mark 13:3), yet their written accounts consistently point to two different times of distress and tribulation. Luke could have followed Matthew’s description, as Mark did, but he consistently followed a different pattern. As we try to sort out the differences and similarities, we may get mixed up, and we may argue about what Luke meant; yet Luke did not get mixed up. Luke kept the pattern. Now that we have enumerated the ways in which Luke 21:20–24 diverges from Matthew 24, let’s comment on a couple verses following that converge once again with Matthew. Verse 28 says, "And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." When does redemption happen? In context, redemption is nigh when the kingdom of God is nigh (verse 31). Other passages reveal two aspects of redemption, one at the first coming of Christ, and the other at the second coming of Christ. The Greek word, redemption, is used 10 times in the New Testament (Luke 21:28, Romans 3:24; 8:23, 1 Corinthians 1:30, Ephesians 1:7; 1:14; 4:30, Colossians 1:14; Hebrews 9:15; 11:35). The last reference translates it as "deliverance," and it refers to neither the first coming nor the second coming, but to personal deliverance from death. But the destruction of Jerusalem – is that redemption? That is not redemption in any of those senses of the word. I know Preterists will say that the kingdom of God came in 70 AD, and some even say the resurrection came in 70 AD. But to say it and to prove it are two different things. Reading all the "redemption" passages listed above reveals quite a different picture. Another passage converging with Matthew is Luke 21:32–33:
We saw earlier how Isaiah illuminates "this generation" to mean the race of Israel. Now let’s think about the context here. The previous verse says:
When you see these things, how long is it until the end? If by "these things" Jesus includes the "flee now" signs, then the time is only three and one-half years. If by "these things" Jesus includes the celestial signs, then the time is too short to count. In any case, it’s for less than a 40-year generation. So how does "this generation" fit in the context? May I suggest, and if you have better ideas let me know, that the continuing race of Israel supports the certainty, rather than the timing, of Christ’s every word. Finally, the summary verse, verse 36 says:
I’ve seen this verse used to support a pre-tribulation rapture. But I hesitate to use it this way. As we have seen, "these things" in context refers to the distress of Jerusalem past rather than to the great tribulation future. I think we pre-tribulationists have been inconsistent in claiming that verse 36 refers to the great tribulation while verses 20–24 do not.
THE SEVENTY WEEKS OF DANIELFuturists and Preterists generally agree that the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24–27 refer to weeks of years. In other words, the time is 490 years. Our disagreement centers around the 70th week. Does the 70th week follow consecutively after the 69th or is there a gap? Daniel 9:24–27 reads:
The primary point according to Preterists, if I understand their view correctly, is that the passage should flow naturally, and we should not read something into the passage that’s not there. And they ask, "Where do you get a gap?" My answer is twofold. First, as you recall, the gap comes from Jesus’ interpretation, not mine. In Matthew 24:15 Jesus places the central event of the 70th week future to His time. The first 69 weeks, we agree, end at the time of Jesus. So if the events of the 70th week fall future to that time, whether it be 40 years future or 2000 years future, then we end up with a gap. I think our disagreement should not be, "Is there a gap?" but rather, "How long is the gap?" Does this force something foreign into Daniel 9:24–27 so that it no longer flows naturally? Not at all. With Jesus’ interpretation in mind, we’ll find that it flows more naturally then ever before. Second, I answer with a question. Does verse 26 come between verse 25 and verse 27? If it does, then there’s your gap. If we follow the natural flow, and if we think chronologically and consecutively here, then it flows like this. Verse 25 tells what happens in the first 69 weeks. Verse 27 tells what happens in the 70th week. And in between? Well, verse 26 tells what happens in between. So the verses follow consecutively even though the weeks may not follow consecutively. After all, is it not more desirable to follow the context than a calendar? Some Preterists do admit a gap, because they place the 70th week around 70 AD. I don’t know why they all don’t. Other Preterists who deny a gap still place the central event of the 70th week, the abomination of desolation, around 70 AD. So in effect, they have a gap, even though they don’t call it that. Yet other Preterists stretch the 70th week to include the 40 years from 30 AD to 70 AD. Now tell me, if our goal is to interpret according to the most natural consecutive flow, isn’t it more natural to leave the week intact rather than to slice it or stretch it? What clue in the context tells us that this week is longer than the other weeks? An orange divides most naturally between the sections, and if you try to slice or stretch a section itself, then juice might squirt out at you. Now it’s my turn to ask, "Where do you get a gap?" What gap? The gap between the twin events of the 70th week. What twin events? These twin events:
Notice that the taking away of the daily sacrifice and the abomination of desolation occur in close connection, not once, not twice, not thrice, but four times in the book of Daniel. Notice also that the twin events happen on the same day, because days are counted from that day. Certainly they don’t happen 30 years apart; yet some Preterists, not all, put a 30-year gap between the two events in Daniel 9:27. To them I say, "Where do you get the gap?" Does it come from an entire verse in between that describes intervening events? No, just an "and" joins the same-day events in Daniel 9:27. What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. Yet some Preterists divorce the events. I think our disagreement should not be, "Is there a gap?" but rather "Where is the most natural place for the gap?" Or, to put it another way, "Where does the text itself break? Before the week or during the week?" Our objective, remember, is to refrain from forcing foreign ideas into the text. We want the text to do the talking. On that we agree. So let’s continue. The text says, "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off." It doesn’t say, "In the middle of the 70th week." Yet the timeline of some Preterists reads that way. The text clearly places the middle-of-the-week events in the middle of the week. So it could have said the same for the cutting off of the Messiah if that were the intent. To place that event alongside the middle-of-the-week events is an interpretation, or worse yet, an interpolation. The text tells of the destruction of the city and the sanctuary before it mentions the events of week 70. Yet the timeline of Preterists reverses this order. Preterists protest loudly about the gap in our chronology. Methinks they doth protest too much, because their own timeline looks liquid.
The Abomination of Desolation. According to the Preterist timeline, where does the abomination of desolation fall? The text says "in the midst of the week." But some Preterists put it at the end of the week. Some put it after the week. Some put it during Nero’s reign. If Nero were the beast of Revelation 13, he wouldn’t fit the timeline because he committed suicide in 68 AD, and according to Revelation 19, Christ destroys the beast at His coming. The beast in Revelation 13 must match the beast in Revelation 19. If Rome were the beast of Revelation 13, it also wouldn't fit the timeline, because Rome was not destroyed by Christ in 70 AD. None of these explanations fits the timeline. It’s really hard to pin down either the perpetrator of the abomination or the exact date of the abomination of desolation. Preterists disagree with each other, and some are even vague on purpose, and spread it out over time. In contrast, Christ’s account is clear (Matthew 24:15–18). It’s a sudden event, easily recognizable. If looking back over the Preterist timeline for the abomination of desolation, we have trouble agreeing on when it happened or who did it, then it makes you wonder if it really happened yet.
The Anointing of the Most Holy. According to the Preterist timeline, when does the anointing of the most Holy happen? On the face of it, we would expect it to happen at the end of the 70 weeks, because that is the final goal of the 70 weeks. The goals and weeks should be coterminous. Otherwise, why 70 weeks? Why not 69? Why not 71? But the Preterist timeline is not coterminous. For them, the anointing of the most Holy happened when the Holy Spirit descended upon Messiah at the baptism of John. That’s after week 69, by their own timeline, not week 70. So the final goal gets fulfilled a week early. I know that Preterists try to keep to the context here, and they reason that since "Messiah" is mentioned twice, and since "Messiah" means "the anointed one," they conclude that the anointing connects to the Messiah. But, reasoning similarly, do they try to connect "most Holy" to the context? The word "holy" in verse 24 is the same Hebrew word as "sanctuary" in verse 26. If we want to keep to the context, then let’s go under the assumption that the text says "Messiah" when it means "Messiah," and that it says "sanctuary" when it means "sanctuary." Who or what will be anointed? No denying that other passages say Jesus was anointed, but this text specifically says "sanctuary," as we could translate "holy" into English. Still sticking to the context, compare "sanctuary" in this chapter to "sanctuary" the previous chapter. This chapter foretells the destruction of the sanctuary (after week 69), the abomination of desolation (in mid week 70) and its continuation (until the end of week 70). The previous chapter foretells similar events, although some details are different, especially, the duration of the desolation, because these are different events at different times:
Despite the differences, notice the similar ending. Just as the desolation in chapter 8 ends with the cleansing of the sanctuary, so also the desolation in chapter 9 ends with the anointing of the sanctuary ("most Holy"). That’s the ultimate goal of the 70 weeks, not the annihilation of the sanctuary, as says the Preterist timeline, but rather the anointing of the sanctuary, if goals and weeks be coterminous. The context grows wider. Not only does the word "Holy" mean "sanctuary," not only is "sanctuary" used in the immediate context two verses later, not only does the previous chapter express a similar idea, but also the entire Old Testament uses the expression "most Holy" to refer to the sanctuary or to sanctuary related things. In the expression "most Holy" what does "most" mean? Actually, it’s the same word as "Holy," except it’s plural. It’s a plural of superlative, and "most Holy" can also be translated "holy of holies." This expression appears 46 times in the Old Testament, and it is never used of the Messiah, never used of a person. See the entire list of passages in the appendix to this chapter, and observe that the expression always refers to the temple, the holy of holies within the temple or tabernacle, furniture within the tabernacle, or articles used in temple or tabernacle worship. The expression "most Holy" is used in connection with Moses’ tabernacle (Exodus 26:33), Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 6:16), Zerubbabel’s rebuilt temple (Ezra 2:63), and Ezekiel’s temple (Ezekiel 45:3). When Preterists tell us that "most Holy" refers to the Messiah, why don’t they also tell us how "most Holy" is used throughout the Old Testament? Thankfully, some do. Knowing that "most Holy" never refers to Messiah, or to a person, in the Old Testament, some Preterists believe that it refers to a future temple. By future temple they don’t mean a physical temple. Instead the apply it either to the church (as the body of believers) or to a heavenly temple. Do these views better fit the usage of "most Holy" in the Old Testament? No, the Old Testament provides no precedent for these meanings either. So they go the New Testament for support. Remember now, Preterists teach us to let the interpretation of Daniel 9 arise naturally out of the text and not to find foreign ideas to inject into the text. Going by that guideline, what can we say about New Testament passages? In the case of Matthew 24:15, when Jesus mentions the abomination of desolation, He explicitly refers to Daniel. So the connection is clear, and we know Matthew 24 can help to interpret Daniel 9. Does the same hold true for other New Testament passages, those passages where Preterists define the anointing of the most Holy? For example, 1 Corinthians 3:16, 2 Corinthians 1:21–22, and 2 Corinthians 6:16 say that the church as the body of Christ is the temple of God and anointed by God. But is the church ever called the most Holy? Is this the same temple and the same anointing spoken of by Daniel? No, the temple in Daniel is a physical temple. "Most Holy" as used in the Old Testament always refers to a physical something. So the connection claimed is not that clear. Lacking an explicit connection, does the timing somehow connect to the fulfillment of Daniel’s 70 weeks. When exactly was the church anointed? If we say at Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit came, that does not coincide with the end of the 70th week by any of the timelines, whether Preterist or futurist. Some Preterists attempt to solve the timeline issue by saying that a heavenly temple was anointed in 70 AD upon the destruction of the earthly temple. In this way, they make the goals and the weeks coterminous. Aside from the fact that they stretch the 70th week (making it last about 40 years) in order to make this happen, how do we know that the heavenly temple was anointed in 70 AD? Hebrews 9:12 says:
Notice that His entering into the holy place in heaven happened in the past, prior to the writing of Hebrews. Notice further, this happens just once. Notice finally, He entered by His own blood. That puts the focus back on His death, burial, resurrection, and ascension. To shift the focus away from that is not right. If any anointing happened in heaven in 70 AD, how would we know it? We know that Christ entered the holy place in heaven once already, because Hebrews clearly says so. We know that the Spirit descended upon Christ at His baptism, when some Preterists place the anointing of the most Holy, because John the Baptist saw the Spirit descend like a dove. The Spirit came upon the church at Pentecost, when other Preterists place the anointing of the most Holy, because people saw the cloven tongues of fire and because people heard the gospel in many languages, and so we know that it really happened. But if in 70 AD some anointing happened in heaven, it’s less provable. None of the anointing theories of the Preterists can answer "yes" to all these questions: 1. Does it flow
naturally out of Daniel itself? Is that why we have several Preterist theories? Is it not clear, even to them, when and what is the anointing of the most Holy? The only way we can agree with each other is to agree with the text. The text in Daniel speaks of a physical temple. As the desecration, so the anointing. Both reference a physical temple. What temple was standing when Daniel wrote? None. Solomon’s temple had been burned down by the Babylonians almost 70 years earlier. Then what temple did Daniel prophecy about? One yet to be built. You and I have read about the temple being rebuilt more than once. But Daniel had never heard of the temple being rebuilt even once. Yet he prophesied of temples far into the future. The prophecy of Daniel 8:11 finds fulfillment in Zerubbabel’s rebuilt temple. The prophecy of Daniel 9:26 applies to Herod’s reconstructed temple (John 2:20). On those two passages we agree. By futurist interpretation, Daniel 9:27 will happen in the tribulation temple. Observe two things about the way Daniel writes. First Daniel writes as though a temple exists, even though it does not. That’s natural, because it’s prophecy. Second, Daniel seamlessly writes of multiple temples as though they are one. We see the same pattern throughout Scripture. Some examples follow. First came the tabernacle of Moses.
Did you notice? The writer of Hebrews seamlessly integrates the tabernacle of Moses with the temple then standing. Why? Because both are patterned after the heavenly. After the tabernacle of Moses came the temple of Solomon. At the dedication Solomon prayed:
Now what if people prayed "toward this place" after the Babylonians burned it? Would God still hear? God heard Daniel (Daniel 6:10; 9:3; 9:17). Daniel’s phrase, "thy sanctuary that is desolate," shows a continuity, not just a broken continuity that jumps from temple to temple, but a continuous continuity that endures through desolati |