Preterist Scholar Inadvertently Supports the Pre-Mil View of Daniel’s 70 Weeks

  Here is a very interesting quote from “Modern Preterist” Samuel Lee (1783-1852), which shows that Preterists have not always historically held the view which places Christ’s crucifixion in the midst of Daniel’s 70th week.  Lee assures the reader that the “cutting off” of the Messiah occurred at the end of the sixty-ninth week.  But his interpretation places a strategic weapon in the hands of Pre-Millennialists.  Instead of acknowledging the possible futuricity of the 70th week, Lee veers off down the road of destructive Preterism.  Clearly at a loss as to the timing of Daniel’s remaining week, he writes:

“Let it be remembered, all here is indefinite.  No mathematical time, or portion of time, is therefore to be thought of.”

  As a consequence of his Preterism, Lee claimed that the 70th week of Daniel was a “mystical week” of unknown duration.  By this he enabled the interpretation of the “42 months” (last half of the week) to be juggled to fit his theory of fulfillment.  But such subjectivity stands self-condemned.  For if each of the other 69 weeks translates into a literal period of 7 years, then surely the last week, the most important and crucial of them all, cannot be “spiritualized” to mean anything other than a literal period of seven years. 

(from An Inquiry Into The Nature, Progress, and End of Prophecy, 1849)

  “After threescore and two weeks” (i.e. together with the proceeding seven already mentioned, making sixty-nine as before), “shall Messiah be cut off.”  But “after” must be taken here in the sense of “within,” as in the case, “After three days I will rise again (Matt. 27: 63), that is, within three days:and so the chief priests understood this; for their request was,  that “the sepulchre be made sure until the third day;” not until the fourth and after the third should have passed: and it was accordingly, early on the third day that our Lord arose.  Similarly to this also is the place, “When the eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, His name was called Jesus,” &c.   But this circumcision necessarily took place within the eighth day.  The cutting off of the Messiah therefore, mentioned above, must take place, acording to Daniel, within his sixty-ninth week, and before the seventieth had commenced: which will be evident enough from what follows, viz.–

   “And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary:” which, according to this context, should take place after the cutting off the Messiah, and after the sixty-ninth week of this prediction should have passed.  And of this again, the next verse affords sufficient proof in saying, “And he shall confirm” (li. magnify) “the covenant with” the “many for one week.  And,” it is added, “in the midst of the week” (i.e. as just now referred to) “he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease,” &c.   Now this cessation could, and did, take place, only upon the fall of the Temple.  The Jews persevered in their usual services of course, and they would have continued to do so, had not God caused these to cease in this way.  It was accordingly so done, and it was done by the people of the Prince, i.e., the Romans, who should so come: and, be it observed here, this takes place in the one week, which is over and above the sixty-nine just mentioned.  It was in this seventieth week of Daniel, therefore, that this was to come to pass: and this again, in the midst of the said week.  And the fact of the case sufficiently informs us, when this happened.  It shows us too at the same time, that one half of Daniel’s sevetieth week, must now have past, and that another half was still to come.

   The angel accordingly further tells is (ver. 26), that “the end thereof shall be” (as) “with a flood.”  That is, the events of the end of the once holy city and sanctuary should be thus overwhelming.  He adds, “And unto the end of the war” (i.e. still farther on) “desolations are determined.”  The next verse informs us, after speaking of the cessation sacrifice and oblation, that “for the overspreading of abominations He shall make it” (i.e. Jerusalem) “desolate.”  It is added, “Even until the consummation” (i.e. complete end), “and” (until) “that determined shall be poured upon the desolate,” rather “Desolator.”  We have now therefore, a further consummation to be effected within this seventieth week: it is a determined judgment to be executed upon the Desolator himself: that is, upon the people of the prince who should come as a Desolator, and destroy the city and the sanctuary.  We are also told, that even until this consummation, Jerusalem should be made desolate: which is the same thing with “Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled” (Luke 21: 24, &c.).  The END of this seventieth week therefore, exhibits the overthrow of this Prince, and of his power: it also places Jerusalem in a state of desolation, and brings us, of necessity, to our Lord’s prediction (Luke 21: 21), “When ye see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the the desolation thereof is nigh.”

Rev. E.W. Bullinger, D.D.– The Sieges of Jerusalem

   The first occurrence of the name “Jerusalem”, as a city, is in Judges 1:8, and confirms the fact that the first occurrence contains an epitome of its subsequent history.

   The history of the city has been a record of its sieges. No fewer than twenty-seven go to complete the list.

  This number is striking in the light of Appendix number 10; being composed of 3 x 9, the factors being those of Divine completeness (3), and judgment (9) respectively (=33).

   A cycle of ordinal completeness is marked by the 10th and 20th (2 x 10) sieges. These were the two characterized by the destruction of the Temple by fire, which is in accord with the number 10, being that of ordinal perfection. Both also were foretold: the former by Jeremiah and Ezekiel; the latter by our Lord.

   Seven is the number of spiritual perfection, and it is worthy of note that the 7th, 14th (2 x 7), and 21st (3 x 7) sieges were each the subject of Divine prophecy. Further, a 28th (4 x 7) siege, yet future, is foretold in Zechariah 14, etc.

   While 14 (2 x 7) of the sieges are recorded in Holy Scripture, 13 are recorded in profane history.

   The following is a complete list of the sieges:

1. By the tribe of Judah against the Jebusites, about 1443 B.C. This was some 700 years before Rome was founded. It was only partial, for in David’s reign we still find the Jebusites occupying the citadel (the future Zion). The solemn words in Judges 1:8, describing this first siege, vividly portray the after history of the city.
2. By David against the Jebusites (2 Samuel 5:6-10; 1 Chronicles 11:4-7), about 960 B.C.
3. By Shishak king of Egypt, against Rehoboam (1 Kings 14:25, 26. 2 Chronicles 12:2-12), about 875 B.C. To this there was only a feeble resistance; and the Temple was plundered.
4. By the Philistines, Arabians, and Ethiopians, against Jehoram (2 Chronicles 21:16, 17), about 794 B.C. In this siege the royal palace was sacked, and the Temple again plundered.
5. By Jehoash king of Israel, against Amaziah king of Judah (2 Kings 14:13, 14), about 739 B.C. The wall was partially broken down, and the city and Temple pillaged.
6. By Rezin king of Syria, and Pekah king of Israel, against Ahaz (2 Chronicles 28), about 630 B.C. The city held out, but Ahaz sought the aid of Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria, for whom he stripped the Temple.
7. By Sennacherib king of Assyria, against Hezekiah (2 Kings 24:10-16), about 603 B.C. In this case the siege was raised by a Divine interposition, as foretold by Isaiah the prophet.
8. By Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, against Jehoiakim (2 Chronicles 36:6-7), about 496 B.C., when the Temple was partly pillaged.
9. By Nebuchadnezzar again, against Jehoiachin (2 Chronicles 36:10), about 489 B.C., when the pillage of the Temple was carried further, and 10,000 people carried away.
10. By Nebuchadnezzar, against Zedekiah (2 Chronicles 36:17-20), 478-477 B.C. In this case the Temple was burnt with fire, and the city and the Temple lay desolate for fifty years.
11. By Ptolemy Soter king of Egypt, against the Jews, 320 B.C. More that 100,000 captives were taken to Egypt.
12. By Antiochus the Great, about 203 B.C.
13. By Scopus, a general of Alexander, about 199 B.C., who left a garrison.
14. By Antiochus IV, surnamed Epiphanes, 168 B.C. This was the worst siege since the 10th. The whole city was pillaged; 10,000 captives taken; the walls destroyed; the altar defiled; ancient manuscripts perished; the finest buildings were burned; and the Jews were forbidden to worship there. Foretold Daniel 11.
15. By Antiochus V, surnamed Eupator, against Judas Maccabaeus, about 162 B.C. This time honorable terms were made, and certain privileges were secured.
16. By Antiochus VII, surnamed Sidetes king of Syria, against John Hyrcanus, about 135 B.C.
17. By Hyrcanus (son of Alex. Jannaeus) and the priest Aristobulus. The siege was raised by Scaurus, one of Pompey’s lieutenants, about 65 B.C.
18. By Pompey against Aristobulus, about 63 B.C. The machines were moved on the Sabbath, when the Jews made no resistance. Only thus was it then reduced; 12,000 Jews were slain. [Antigonus, son of Aristobulus, with a Parthian army, took the city in 40 B.C.; but there was no siege, the city was taken by a sudden surprise.]
19. Herod with a Roman army besieged the city in 39 B.C. for five months.
20. By Titus, A.D. 69 (See Appendix 50. VI.). The second Temple (Herod’s) was burnt, and for fifty years the city disappeared from history, as after the 10th siege (Jeremiah 20:5).
21. The Romans had again to besiege the city in A.D. 135 against the false Messiah, Bar-Cochebas, who had acquired possession of the ruins. The city was obliterated, and renamed Ælia Capitolina, and a temple was erected to Jupiter. For 200 years the city passed out of history, no Jews being permitted to approach it. This siege was foretold in Luke 19:43, 44; 21:20-24.
22. After 400 years of so-called Christian colonization, Chosroes the Persian (about A.D. 559) swept through the country; thousands were massacred, and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was destroyed. The Emperor Heraclius afterwards defeated him, and restored the city and the church.
23. The Caliph Omar, in A.D. 636-7, besieged the city against Heraclius. It was followed by capitulation on favorable terms, and the city passed into the hands of the Turks, in whose hands it remains to the present day.
24. Afdal, the Vizier of the Caliph of Egypt, besieged the two rival factions of Moslems, and pillaged the city in 1098.
25. In 1099 it was besieged by the army of the first Crusade.
26. In 1187 it was besieged by Saladin for seven weeks.
27. The wild Kharezmian Tartar hordes, in 1244, captured and plundered the city, slaughtering the monks and priests.

There will be a 28th according to Zechariah 14, which will be raised by Messiah, even as the 7th was by Jehovah.

The Orange Mailman- Me? A Preterist? No, No, No.

Me? A Preterist? No, No, No.

After my posts on Preterism a while back, I had some mixed reactions.  My posts were aimed at proving that the Futurist position is the superior one.  In a nutshell, I was striving to show that the things that were fulfilled in 70 A.D. were a literal fulfillment of what Jesus had clearly foretold.  Many things were not fulfilled literally and remain unfulfilled at this point in time.  God intends to literally fulfill them.  But Preterists want to take those things that weren’t fulfilled and somehow say that they were fulfilled in a spiritual or symbolic way in the first century.

 

I don’t intend to rewrite all those posts as I will post links to them below.  To sum up, here are the things that were literally fulfilled in the first century. 

 

-The destruction of specific Galilean cities, Matthew 11:20-24, Luke 10:13-15.

-Jerusalem surrounded by armies, Luke 21:20

-The destruction of the temple, Matthew 24:1-2, Mark 13:1-2, Luke 21:5-6

-The destruction of Jerusalem, Matthew 23:37-39, Luke 13:32-35

-The kingdom of God taken from national Israel, Matthew 21:43

 

Now here are some prophesied events that were not fulfilled but Preterists try to say they were in a spiritual way.

 

-The resurrection of the righteous

-The new heavens and new earth

-The cosmic signs

-The abomination of desolation

-The great tribulation

-The antichrist

-The coming of the Son of Man

 

My point is that if we are to practice a consistent hermeneutic, then these fulfillments cannot be spiritualized, but will come to pass quite literally, or as the language actually reads.  After all, isn’t that how the 70 A.D. events were fulfilled?  The temple wasn’t spiritually destroyed; it was literally destroyed in the very manner Christ predicted.  The city of Jerusalem wasn’t spiritually desolated; Titus physically desolated it. 

 

I’m posting another post on this to say that there are some Preterists who are in agreement with my point of view.  This is what I meant by mixed reactions.  They call themselves True Preterists and distance themselves from a position they term HyperPreterism.  They deem HyperPreterism to be heresy and want no part of it.  But like me, they see 70 A.D. fulfillment.  But in my view, they cave on issues like the coming of the Son of Man, the abomination of desolation, and the great tribulation which they try to fit in to the destruction of Herod’s temple.  Truth be told, though, Jesus did not come with His holy angels and reward the saints, no abomination was placed in the temple for the purpose of worshiping it, and the great tribulation which was supposed to be unequaled was surpassed by the Holocaust.

 

To be gracious, I don’t want to say that these “True Preterists” are guilty of heresy since they hold to a future physical, bodily resurrection, a future new heavens and new earth, and a future coming of Jesus Christ.  I have quite a few things in common with them since I am not shying away from the fact that many things that Jesus prophesied of were fulfilled in 70 A.D.  This makes some Preterists read my materials and think I hold to their position.  Dee Dee Warren has links up to some of my articles over at The Preterist Site.  I’m not joking; you can see the links for yourself here.  She understands that I am a Futurist, but the common denominators link us together.  Here are the links to some of the posts I wrote on Preterism.

 

Jesus Prophetically Pronounced Judgement On His Own Generation

 

The “Mark Dilemma” For Futurists

 

Luke 21 does not contain the Olivet Discourse (emphasis on Jerusalem)

 

Luke 21 contains a discourse at the temple

 

Prophetic Tension and the Olivet Discourse

 

And to wrap it up…

 

What if I am a Preterist?

 

There were more, but you’ll have to do your own homework.  I wrote them all about the same time so just look in that general time span.  If you read the above articles, though, you will get the general idea of where I am coming from.

 

Have fun and stay busy – Luke 19:13

The Orange Mailman- Daniel’s Seventieth Week Is Yet Future

Daniel’s Seventieth Week Is Yet Future

My series which dealt with Preterism focused mainly on the Olivet Discourse. There are events that we must concede were fulfilled in A.D. 70 if we are to be fair about the whole debate. But there are other events which simply have not been fulfilled in the way that the epistles further revealed that they would be fulfilled.But now I’d like to go back to Daniel chapter 9 to discuss why I continue to call myself a Futurist. Every eschatology student must have a good grasp of the vision of Daniel’s Seventy Weeks. The background (before Gabriel reveals that there will be seventy weeks, or seventy “sevens”) is that Daniel has come to a revelation by reading the prophecies of Jeremiah which state that Jerusalem would lay desolate for only seventy years. These prophecies are found in Jeremiah 25:11-12, 29:10 (read in context) and are mentioned in II Chronicles 36:21 and Ezra 1:1. So Daniel finds himself smack in the middle of the intersection of fulfilled prophecy. Daniel reads the prophecy that after the 70 years have been accomplished that Babylon would be punished, then sees that it has been fulfilled as Belshazzar is slain. Daniel chapter 9 occurs during the first year of Darius the Mede. So Daniel has witnessed Babylon’s punishment for her sins against Israel signifying that the 70 years of desolation has come to an end, see also Daniel 5. What next?Daniel understood that unless His nation repented as a whole, that the kingdom would not be restored to Israel. So Daniel does what we find many of the prophets doing. He begins confessing the sins of His people on their behalf. While most of His prayer is describing the ways in which Israel has transgressed the law of Moses, there is one item of supplication toward the end of his prayer. Daniel asks that God would cause His face to shine upon His sanctuary which was presently desolate. Does Daniel believe that by His confession that perhaps the rest of the nation will repent and believe? Does Daniel think that God may restore the Shekinah glory to the temple?

Whatever the case, we should remember that it had been revealed to Daniel previous to this, that there would be a period of time in which the Medo-Persian Empire would rule. This was the empire which had just defeated Babylon. Then Daniel also knew of two other empires which would follow this one. Then during the fourth empire, ten kings would appear. So it is safe to say that if Daniel would think back on what had already been revealed to him, he would know that there was much more to be fulfilled before the kingdom was given into the hands of the saints. Whether or not Daniel equated the temple worship being restored with the establishment of the reign of the Son of Man remains to be seen.

With that in mind, the angel Gabriel expresses a love for Daniel and a personal interest that he be able to understand with great detail the events which would follow in the immediate future. Gabriel outlines seventy “sevens” during which time God would “wrap it all up”, so to speak. My study is not going to be exhaustive, but to focus on the reasons why the Preterist view is in error is saying that Daniel’s seventieth week has been completely fulfilled, or partially fulfilled. Before going any further, please read Daniel 9:24-27.

The first segment is seven “sevens” and sixty two “sevens”. Gabriel links these two together and so do I. Why didn’t Gabriel just say sixty nine “sevens”? Some believe in a gap. I point toward the reestablishment of the Sabbath year calendar as outlined in the law of Moses. Whatever the case, at the beginning of the sixty nine “sevens” we have a decree to rebuild Jerusalem. At the end of the sixty nine “sevens” we have Messiah. I’m not going to debate decrees or a possible gap. Let’s just keep it simple for the sake of refuting Preterism. There was a decree to rebuild Jerusalem, then over the course of a period of time which included 483 years on this prophetic timetable, Messiah did appear. The sixty nine “sevens” are sevens of years as the background of the seventy years prophesied by Jeremiah makes perfect sense.

Here’s the refutation of the Preterist view.

Daniel’s seventy weeks concerns the city of Jerusalem. The city would be rebuilt during the sixty nine “sevens”. Messiah would be cut off after that time and the city of Jerusalem would be destroyed along with the sanctuary. The agent responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem and the sanctuary is known as the people of the prince that shall come. So immediately after the sixty nine “sevens”, we have a period of time where there will be a Jerusalem which is once again desolate. But didn’t God promise that these seventy weeks were for the purpose of bringing all of this to an end? True. But we still have one seven year period to go. Conclusion: After the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D., the seventy weeks could not have been fulfilled since God had not brought the desolation of Jerusalem to an end.

The sixty nine “sevens” do not mention that the temple will be rebuilt, which is odd since that was one of the main points in Daniel’s prayer. However, it is assumed that the sanctuary will be standing at the time of Messiah since just after Messiah’s death, the sanctuary is destroyed once again. So we can safely assume that during the sixty nine “sevens” that the sanctuary will be rebuilt even if it doesn’t specify. After the sanctuary and city of Jerusalem are destroyed, there is another seven year period during which the sanctuary must be intact once again. There is no mention of the sanctuary being rebuilt after it is destroyed shortly after Messiah’s death, but there was no mention of it being rebuilt during the sixty nine “sevens” either. Yet we know it would happen since the prophecy assumes it will be there, and fulfilled prophecy tells us that it was rebuilt.

So without knowing the end of the story, we can safely conclude just by studying this passage, that during the sixty nine “sevens”, the sanctuary will be rebuilt, then destroyed after Messiah’s death, then when the last seven year period begins, it must have been rebuilt by that time again in order for the events of Daniel 9:27 to occur. During that seven year period, the sacrifices are put to a stop and we have the mention of the term abomination making desolate. This would remind us of Daniel 8:11-13 which requires that the sanctuary be involved. This terminology will be further explained in Daniel 11:31 but that hasn’t been given yet at this point in the prophecy. Note: Those who want to spiritualize the abomination of desolation are missing one of the original points of the vision of Daniel’s seventy weeks. The subject matter is the sanctuary in Jerusalem.

Who is the prince in the phrase “the people of the prince that shall come”? There is Messiah the Prince which is mentioned, but the prophecy states that Messiah will be cut off. So in the context of Gabriel’s prophecy, Messiah would be no more. Plus, how could Messiah, whose destiny is to rule from Jerusalem, be responsible for bringing devastation and destruction upon Jerusalem and the sanctuary? Instead, let us remember that Daniel has already had a vision which would lay out a sequence of 4 empires, ten kings during the final empire, then a little horn or king would appear among the ten kings. This king of fierce countenance would be responsible for persecuting the saints. While not acknowledging the presence of this “prince” in verse 26, the people of this prince are present to destroy Jerusalem and the sanctuary. Let me safely conclude that the people of the fourth empire would be the ones responsible for the destruction shortly after Messiah’s death. Then if we take the wording at face value which states, “the people of the prince that shall come”, we can conclude that the prince would come shortly after the destruction of the sanctuary and holy city. At the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, he is still the prince who shall come. You follow?

So the sixty nine weeks, or 483 years, is a time period which is clearly defined. It begins with a decree and ends with Messiah’s death. After Messiah’s death, there are events of destruction and the mention of an ongoing war which will have continuous desolation throughout. But when we come to that final seven year period, the sanctuary must have been rebuilt.

Who makes the covenant in verse 27? It has been supposed by many Preterists that it is Messiah making an everlasting covenant at the beginning of this seven year period. This would allow Daniel’s seventieth week (or at least the first three and one half years of it) to have been fulfilled in the first century A.D. But this covenant that is made is only confirmed for one “seven”. Messiah’s covenant is eternal. The same “he” who makes the covenant, also causes the sacrifice to cease, and commits a desolation because of an abomination. The language used here is congruous with descriptions of the little horn of Daniel 7:8, 20, 24, the little horn of Daniel 8:9-14, the king of fierce countenance of Daniel 8:23-25, and later we shall see similarities with the king of the time of the end in Daniel 11:36-45. The little horn of Daniel 8:9-14 takes away the daily sacrifice. During his time, the sanctuary is trodden underfoot. He also commits the transgression of desolation. We have to remember that we cannot separate Daniel’s vision of seventy weeks from the other prophecies in the book of Daniel. They are all interrelated. There is one ominous end times figure who is an evil king overshadowing all of these prophecies, including this bogus covenant in Daniel 9:27.

Let us also remember that in the context of Gabriel’s prophecy, Messiah is now dead. There is no resurrection prophesied here. Messiah dies, destruction comes upon Jerusalem, then later someone makes a covenant. The covenant is not connected in any way with Messiah’s death according to the structure of the prophecy.

The main point of this study is to prove that the original language of the prophecy assumed a gap in between the sixty nine weeks and the seventieth week. Nowhere does the prophecy state or even assume that they are contiguous. There must be a time following Messiah’s death for the destruction of Jerusalem and the sanctuary. At that time only the people of the evil prince to come are present, and not the evil prince himself. There is an ongoing war which will be characterized by desolations. Then the little horn, the king of fierce countenance, however you want to term him, he confirms a covenant with many for that final seven year period. But in the midst of this time, he causes the sacrifices to be stopped, and initiates the abomination of desolation.

I grow weary of Dispensationalists who just assume this point in prophecy and never get around to proving their case. They play the “hidden church age” card, insisting that the prophetic time clock has officially stopped. I also wanted to address this issue since some may think that I hold to Preterism just because I point to 70 A.D. fulfillment for certain events in the Olivet Discourse. I will mention that the destruction of Jerusalem and the sanctuary that we just read about occurred in 70 A.D. So a portion of Daniel’s prophecy of Daniel’s seventy weeks is Preterist in the sense that it is in the past. But Daniel’s seventieth week, that final seven year period, remains entirely future. I welcome rebuttals to this post.

Have fun and stay busy – Luke 19:13

-The Orange Mailman