Refuting Preterism (part 4 of 4)

Part 3: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/08/refuting-preterism-part-3.html

     Daniel’s Seventy ‘Weeks’

One of the most important specific prophecies of the Old Testament is that of Daniel’s seventy ‘weeks’, or more accurately, seventy “sevens”. This prophecy is the framework in which all other prophecies regarding the “tribulation” are to be understood (compare Dan. 9:24-27; 12:7 with Matt. 24:15; Rev. 12:6). Because of this, preterists believe that the second half of the 70th “seven” occurred during the Jewish-Roman War of AD 66 - 70, whereas futurists believe that the entire 70th “seven” is yet future.

    Soon after Cyrus of Persia conquered Babylon, Daniel became aware that the seventy year exile prophesied by Jeremiah was quickly approaching its end (Dan. 9:1-2). Because of this, he began to pray and make supplication to God to allow the Israelite people to return to their land and be restored to their former glory (Dan. 9:3-19). In response to this prayer, a vision was given to Daniel in which he was told that it would be yet seventy times seven years before Israel would again be restored:

“Seventy sevens are determined for your people, for your holy city, to shut up the transgression, and to seal up the sins, and to cover over iniquity, and to bring in age-during righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Holy of Holies. Now know and comprehend [that] from [the] going forth of a word to return and build Jerusalem till Prince Messiah, [there will be] seven sevens and sixty-two sevens. [It will be] built again, plaza and moat, yet in distressful times.

“And after the sixty-two sevens, Messiah will be cut off, and he has nothing. And the people of the coming prince will destroy the city and the holy [place]. And the end [is] with a flood, and until the end [is] war - desolations are decreed. And he will prevail a covenant with the many for one seven, yet halfway of the seven he will cease sacrifice and offering, and on a wing of abominations [will be] the desolating [one], even till the decreed destruction is poured on the desolating [one].” (Dan. 9:24-27)

Based on a plain reading of this passage, we get the following sequence of events:

1. A word to return and rebuild Jerusalem will go forth.
   
   
2. Sixty-nine “sevens” (i.e. 483 years) transpire from this “word” until Prince Messiah.
   
   
3. After the sixty-nine “sevens” Messiah will be killed and have nothing.
   
   
4. The people of the coming prince will destroy the city and temple.
   
   
5. He - according to the closest antecedent, referring to the “coming prince” whose “people” will destroy the city and temple - will cause a covenant with the many to prevail for one “seven” (i.e. 7 years).
   
   
6. In the middle of the last “seven” he will cease sacrifice and offering, and desolate until the end of the final “seven”, when destruction will be poured out on him.

Regardless of whether Daniel originally understood there to be a gap between the 69th “seven” and the 70th “seven”, we now know that there certainly was. This is because, between the 69th and 70th “sevens”, we are told that (1) the Messiah will be cut off, and (2) the city and temple will be destroyed. Since these did not occur all at the same time, but in AD 30 and AD 70 respectively, there must have been a gap of at least forty years between these two “sevens”.

    Furthermore, because the city and temple is said to be destroyed (which was fulfilled in AD 70) before the beginning of the 70th “seven”, according to the most natural reading of the text, the tribulation period cannot have ended at that time, as preterists believe. And because the events of the 70th “seven” have not yet occurred at any time after AD 70, we may conclude that this “seven”, including the prophecies of the tribulation found in the Olivet discourse and book of Revelation, are still future. The gap between the 69th and 70th “sevens” which began at some point prior to AD 30 must still be ongoing.

    Non-futurists often ridicule the idea that God would have stopped the ‘prophetic clock’ of the seventy sevens for over two thousand years. However, as shown above, this follows directly from a comparison of the prophecy with known historical events. But why would God have stopped this ‘prophetic clock’? The answer may be found at the beginning of the prophecy, in v. 24, where we are told that the prophecy is meant for “Daniel’s people” (i.e. Israel) and “Daniel’s holy city” (i.e. Jerusalem). We know that, at some point, God cast away the majority of Israel as His people until a future time:

The [thing] Israel seeks, this it has not attained, yet the chosen attained [it]. Now the rest were hardened, just as it has been written: “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes to not see, and ears to not hear, until this very day.” And David says: “Let their table become for a trap, and for a net, and for an offense, and for a recompense to them. Let their eyes be darkened, to not see, and their backs oppressed through all [time]”... For if their loss [is] conciliation of [the] world, what [their] reception, if not life out of [the] dead?...

For I do not will you to be ignorant, brothers, of this mystery (that you may not be wise in yourselves), that a partial hardening has come about to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles may enter. And so all Israel will be saved, just as it has been written: “The rescuing [one] will come out of Zion, he will turn back impiety from Jacob. And this is the covenant from Me to them, when I may take away their sins.” (Rom. 11:7-10, 15, 25-28)

This “hardening” and “loss” of the majority of Israel occurred near the beginning of the earthly ministry of Jesus (cf. Matt. 13:11-15). Thus, because God is currently not dealing with the vast majority of Israel as His people, the prophetic events associated with “Daniel’s people” and “Daniel’s holy city” have also been put on hold, until a future time when “the fullness of the Gentiles may enter”. This futurist understanding of the seventy “sevens” of Daniel is entirely reasonable, and the only one which is compatible with what we know from history (which is that the events associated with the 70th “seven” have not yet occurred).

    Now, we will take a look at some of the other interpretations of this prophecy and see if they fit the prophesied events as well as the futurist interpretation.

1. The 70th “seven” occurred from AD 27 to 34, the period from Jesus’ baptism to the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:54-60). During this time, Jesus, as mediator of the New Covenant, caused a covenant to prevail with the many for one “seven”. The abomination of desolation in the middle of the “seven” occurred in AD 30 when Jesus died, which caused the veil of the temple to be torn (Matt. 27:51), thus ending sacrifice and offering.

This is probably the most common non-futurist interpretation of the seventy “sevens” of Daniel, and it is the official doctrine of the Seventh-Day Adventist denomination. Although this interpretation may seem superficially plausible and appealing, as it appears to find direct fulfillment without requiring any gap at all between the 69th and 70th “seven”, it is actually fraught with problems.

    First, this interpretation simply does not agree with the timeline produced by a plain reading of the prophecy. The progression from v. 26 to v. 27 appears to show that the death of the Messiah and the destruction of the city and temple occur prior to the beginning of the 70th “seven”, and yet this interpretation places the death of Messiah in the middle of the 70th “seven”, and places the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 almost forty years after the end of the 70th “seven”. Furthermore, the one who confirms a covenant for one “seven” in v. 27 should be the “coming prince” whose people destroy the city and temple, according to the closest antecedent of “he”, whereas this interpretation equates the “he” of v. 27 with Jesus, whose people (obviously) did not destroy the city and temple in AD 70.

    Second, having the final “seven” end in AD 34 at the stoning of Stephen is entirely arbitrary and scripturally unsupported. Although the stoning of Stephen was certainly a significant event, nowhere is it said that this event marked God’s final rejection of Israel - instead, the hardening of Israel occurred near the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (Matt. 13:11-15 cf. Rom. 11:7-8). Jesus didn’t cause the New Covenant to prevail for seven years from AD 27 to 34. Rather, He became mediator of the New Covenant with Israel through His death in AD 30 (Heb. 9:16-17; 10:15-22; 12:24), and will continue to mediate until Israel receives their inheritance according to this covenant (Heb. 8:6-13; 9:15).

    Third, the “abomination of desolation” is definitely not associated with the death of Jesus in AD 30. In the Olivet discourse, Jesus associates this abomination with a future time in which Jerusalem will be surrounded by armies, after which there will be great tribulation such as has never been seen before (Matt. 24:15-21 cf. Lk. 21:20-24). Furthermore, it is said that destruction will be poured out at the end of the 70th “seven” upon the one who sets up the abomination of desolation. It should go without saying that Jesus was not destroyed at the stoning of Stephen in AD 34!

2. The first half of the 70th “seven” occurred from AD 27 to 30 and ended at the death of Jesus. The second half of the 70th “seven” occurred from AD 66 to 70 when the Roman commander and crown prince Titus (the “coming prince”), came to Jerusalem and set up the abomination of desolation, beginning the Jewish-Roman War.

This is another common preterist interpretation of Daniel’s 70th “seven”, but it suffers from many of the same problems as the previous one. This has the same issue of not agreeing with the timeline produced by a plain reading of vv. 26 - 27, as rather than placing the death of Messiah and destruction of the city and temple prior to the 70th seven, it places the death of Messiah in AD 30 in the middle of the “seven” and the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 at the end of the “seven”.

    Furthermore, this suffers from the even greater problem that it requires a gap of nearly forty years in the middle of the 70th “seven”. Although the text allows for a gap between the 69th and 70th “seven”, no such allowance is made within the final “seven”. Even if the final “seven” is a symbolic description of a longer period of time (which there is no indication of in the text), no covenant was caused to prevail between Jesus’ baptism in AD 27 and the destruction of Jerusalem AD 70, either by Titus or Jesus (since the New Covenant began in AD 30 at Jesus’ death and continues indefinitely).

    Finally, this interpretation, like the other preterist interpretation, suffers from an incorrect view of the abomination of desolation. Although the Roman armies did enter and desecrate the temple, this occurred in AD 70, at the end (not the middle) of the 70th “seven” on this view. Furthermore, although this interpretation is more grammatically plausible than the first in that it sees “the desolating one” as the “coming prince” of the previous verse, namely, the Roman commander and crown prince Titus, no “decreed destruction” was poured out upon Titus at the end of the “seven” in AD 70.

    After critically examining the preterist interpretation of Daniel’s prophecy of seventy “sevens”, it should be clear that this passage is absolute proof of futurism over against preterism. Both of the proposed preterist interpretations of this prophecy re-shuffle the order of events prophesied by Daniel, and simply ignore other aspects of the prophecy (such as destruction being poured out upon the desolator at the end of the 70th seven). The futurist interpretation is the only one which makes sense of all these factors and accounts for God’s temporary casting off of Israel (per Romans 11).

    The Early Church on Preterism

To end this series of articles on preterism, I would lastly like to make the point that none of the theologians of the early Christian church held to a belief in preterism. See this article for a survey of the eschatological beliefs of theologians from the first to eighth centuries, which shows that the church at that time was unanimously futurist. Indeed, even long after amillennialism was popularized in the fourth century, there were no early church fathers who believed that the tribulation had already occurred; they all believed that it was a yet-future period of three-and-a-half or seven years during which one man, the Antichrist, would seize power and make war against the saints.

    Although I don’t usually take the beliefs of the early church fathers as evidence for specific doctrinal positions (they were just as capable of bad theology as modern Christians are), the fact is that preterists make a testable claim about the past when they claim that the tribulation occurred in the first century, and this claim is falsified by the fact that even those Christians who lived through the supposed time of the ‘tribulation’ in AD 64 - 70 still saw the biblical tribulation as yet-future. Preterism was only first developed in the seventeenth century by a Jesuit priest, in response to the Reformers’ historicist eschatology which saw the Catholic Church as the “beast” of Revelation. Thus, this view should be abandoned as an unbiblical interpretive framework for prophecy.