MATTHEW 24-25, PART 6

GOD’S BLESSING TO YOU IN 2013!  INCIDENTALLY, YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME!

BILL FITZGERREL

            In the last article, I analyzed the Preterist understanding of Matthew 24:15-22.  In this article, I shall survey the Dispensationalist understanding of the same passage.  I have introduced the Dispensationalist approach in a previous article.

DISPENSATIONALIST INTERPRETATION OF

MATTHEW 24:15-22

A New Representative

To this point I have used J. Dwight Pentecost’s Things to Come as a representative of the Dispensationalist position.  I believe his book is very scholarly and is a fair representation of Dispensationalism.  I have now available John F. Walvoord’s Every Prophecy of the Bible: Clear Explanations for Uncertain Times.  This book is written for a “popular” audience, but Walvoord has written many scholarly articles.  Both Pentecost and Walvoord have been at Dallas Theological Seminary.  I shall use both of these works (hopefully others later) to present Dispensationalist thinking. 

Matthew 24:15 as a Key

            Pentecost focuses on Matthew 24:15 as a key to understanding the Olivet Discourse, especially in establishing it as a discourse on the end times.  The reasoning goes as follows:  the 70^th Week of Daniel is predicted by Daniel to include the Abomination of Desolation.  Jesus predicted the Abomination of Desolation as a precursor to the Great Tribulation.  Therefore, the Olivet Discourse is a description of the 70^th Week. 

            The 70^th Week:  I do not want to belabor the 70^th Week of Daniel arguments, but an understanding of Daniel’s prophecy concerning the 70 Weeks is the background for the Dispensationalist approach.  Daniel 9:24-27 says the following:

24“Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin,  and to atone for iniquity,  to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.  25 Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. 26And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.  Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war.  Desolations are decreed. 27 And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering.  And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.”  (Scripture quotations from English Standard Version unless stated otherwise)

 

The following is the same passage in the New International Version:

²⁴ “Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place.  ²⁵ “Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. ²⁶ After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. ²⁷ He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.” (NIV)

 

In this difficult passage, which is a statement from the angel Gabriel to Daniel, there is a prediction of 70 Weeks (or sevens)—usually understood as 70 seven-year periods, or 490 years—for the Hebrew nation.  Although it is difficult to follow, it appears that 69 Weeks (7 + 62) are forecast until “an anointed one” comes.  This is generally interpreted as the coming of the Messiah (Anointed One).  Then, a series of events take place.  First, the anointed one is “cut off” (killed).  This is understood to be the crucifixion of Christ.  Then, the people of “the prince who is to come” will destroy the city and the sanctuary (Jerusalem and the Temple).  This is understood to be the AD 70 destruction by the Romans.  Then, there are wars and desolations.  Then, “he” will make a “covenant with many for one week…”  This “one week” is understood to be the 70^th Week.  The “he” who is the covenant maker is understood to be the “prince who is to come.”  He will end sacrifices after one-half a week.  Then, “on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate.”  This is understood to be the Abomination of Desolation.  I have produced the following table that I hope will be helpful to those who are unfamiliar with these concepts.

CONCEPT	VERSE IN DANIEL 9	EXPLANATION	COMMENT
70 Weeks	24	Total time given to complete the list of redeeming works for Israel	Usually understood to consist of three divisions:  7 + 62 + 1 = 70
7 Weeks	25	Unclear first division of the 70	Appears to be a time of building
62 Weeks	26	Second division of the 70
Anointed One	26	Comes after 7 + 62 Weeks; understood to be the Messiah (Christ)	Cut off or crucified

Prince who is to come	26	Generally understood to be the Beast/Antichrist	He is “to come” so he is not present at the destruction of Jerusalem
People of the prince	26	The nation connected to the prince to come; this nation destroys Jerusalem and the Temple (the Romans)	The Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70.
“He”	27	Antecedent appears to be the “prince who is to come”
Covenant for 1 Week	27	This prince makes a covenant with (what is understood to be) the Hebrew nation for 1 Week (7 years)
70th Week		Understood to be this 7 year period of covenant with the Hebrews	Nothing like this covenant has occurred in history.  Therefore, the 70th Week is understood to be in the last days, yet in the future.
½ Week	27	The prince is understood to betray the people and put an end to their religious rites half-way through the 70th Week
Abomination of Desolation	27	Some sort of detestable act that desecrates the Temple	It appears to be done by the prince who is to come.  It is assumed to take place at about the same time the sacrifice and offerings cease.

Two things are important in the reasoning for Dispensationalists.  First, there is the idea that the 70^th Week of Daniel is to come in the future in the last days.  Second, the Abomination of Desolation takes place in the middle of the 70^th Week.  Therefore, the mention by Jesus in Matthew 24:15 of the Abomination of Desolation is a “marker” that establishes that he is talking about events of the last days and not the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

            Use of 24:15 as a Key:  Pentecost uses the mention in verse 15 as evidence that the Olivet Discourse is all about the 70^th Week:  “There are indications that verses 9-26 describe the events of the last half of the week.  The abomination of desolation (24:15) is clearly stated by Daniel (9:27) to appear in the middle of the week…” (Pentecost, page 279)  Walvoord makes a distinction between Luke 21 and Matthew 24 because the wording of Luke 21:20-24 differs considerably from Matthew 24:15-22.  So, he understands Luke 21:20 (“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near.”) to be a prediction of the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem and Matthew 24:15 ((“So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand))) to be a prediction of a future fulfillment of the prediction in Daniel 9:27 of the Abomination of Desolation (Walvoord, pages 374, 376-377).

Pentecost’s Interpretation

            In a previous article I have stated Pentecost’s position that all of Matthew 24:4-26 refers to the 70^th Week, that is the future seven year period before the return of Christ:  “Consistency of interpretation would seem to eliminate any application of this portion of Scripture to the church or the church age, inasmuch as the Lord is dealing with the prophetic program for Israel.”  (Pentecost, page 278)  He believes that verse 4-8 refer to the first half of the 70^th Week, and that verses 9-26 refer to the second half:  “The word ‘then’ in verse 9 seems to introduce the great persecutions against Israel that were promised them…”  (Pentecost, page 279)

            In analyzing these verses, Pentecost jumps back and forth between verses 9-14 and 15-22.  Verses 9-14, he understands, are events that take place in the latter half of the 70^th Week (Pentecost, pages 279-280). However, verses 15-22 also describe that period.  Verse 15 announces the Abomination of Desolation, and verses 16-20 constitute Christ’s warning to Israel to flee because of the Great Tribulation that is to come (verses 21-22) (Pentecost, pages 249 and 279-280).  I have given a summary of Pentecost’s scheme in the following table (based mostly on Pentecost, pages 279-280):

 

CHRONO- LOGICAL ORDER	VERSES FROM 9-14		VERSES FROM 15-22
	VERSE	INTERPRETATION	VERSE	INTERPRETATION
1			15	Abomination of Des.
2			16-20	Warning to flee
3	9	Great persecutions	21-22	Great Tribulation
4	11	Unbelieving Israel deceived
5	12	Unbelieving Israel apostasizes
6	14	Believing Israel witnesses to the “kingdom”
7	27	Second Coming of Christ

 

            Incidentally, Pentecost clarifies the usage (especially among Dispensationalists of the term “tribulation.”   “[The word “tribulation”] is used in its technical or eschatological sense in reference to the whole period of the seven years of tribulation as in…Matthew 24:29.  It is also used in reference to the last half of this seven year period, as in Matthew 24:21.”  (Pentecost, page 170)

Walvoord’s Interpretation

            Generally, Walvoord and Pentecost agree, though there is some difference of emphasis.  One major difference is that Walvoord sees a twofold fulfillment of verses 4-14:

Still another point of view presented in this writing is that the entire period described in verses 4–14 are general prophecies that can find fulfillment throughout the present age, with verses 15–30 fulfilled in the great tribulation. However, these same prophecies and the events predicted in verses 4–14 are repeated in the great tribulation, when what was perhaps partially fulfilled earlier will have a very literal and devastating fulfillment.  (Walvoord, page 371)

            Walvoord clarifies a concept that Pentecost also mentions (Pentecost, page 276).  This concept is that Luke 21 records Christ’s answer to the FIRST question of the Disciples and Matthew 24 records His answers to the other questions, as follows:

Matthew did not deal, however, with the first question the disciples asked of when the destruction of Jerusalem would take place, as predicted by Christ in verse 2. This is answered, however, in Luke’s gospel.  (Walvoord, page 374)

Luke stated that the sign of Jerusalem being surrounded by armies should alert them to the fact that its destruction was imminent: “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near.”  (Walvoord, page 374)

            He compares the two periods of history—the AD 70 war and the Great Tribulation—as follows:

Jesus, having described the signs relating to the destruction of Jerusalem, which some of them would live to see, and the general signs of the progress of the present age, then revealed in detail the specific signs which would be unmistakable evidence that the second coming of Christ and the end of the age was near. It is important to note that the specific signs are entirely different from the signs for the destruction of Jerusalem, though there are some similarities. In both, Israel will be in time of trouble and tribulation. In both periods those in Judea are urged to flee to the mountains. In both cases Gentile power, at least at first, will be triumphant. But the specific signs of the end of the age and the coming of Christ do not occur in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem but await the future period leading up to the second coming of Christ, which will be the specific sign of the end.  (Walvoord, page 376)

Note in the passage above that Walvoord, along with Pentecost, understands the warnings in verses 16-20 to be to Israel and not to the church (Pentecost, page 280).

Walvoord’s comments on the Abomination of Desolation include the understanding that this act in the future will be a desecration of a Jewish Temple that will be in existence in the last days (Walvoord, pages 376-377):  For example, he says, “This is called ‘an abomination that causes desolation’ because it destroys the sacred character of the sacrificial altar and the temple that will be in existence at the time.”  (Walvoord, page 376)

 

COMMENTS

ON

PENTECOST’S AND WALVOORD’S

VIEWS

            To a great deal, I have already analyzed much of what Pentecost has to say because his understanding of verses 9-14 overlaps his view of verses 15-22.  I have synthesized his views in a table earlier in this article.  As I have analyzed Matthew 24, I have observed a definite turning point between verses 14 and 15.  There are some reasons why Pentecost and I disagree on this point.  (Most of the following references to Pentecost are from pages 279-280.)

·         Pentecost is strongly committed to the idea that the entire narrative of verses 4-26 concerns the 70^th Week.  I understand that verses 4-14 are developments in the church age.

·         Pentecost sees a major break in the narrative at verse 9, and he concludes this corresponds to the change of conditions for Israel with the change in the attitudes of the Beast/Antichrist in the middle of the 70^th Week.  I understand the narrative shifts in verse 9 from events of the world at large to developments within the church.

·         I understand “this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed” (verse 14) to mean that the gospel of salvation through faith in Jesus will be proclaimed.  Pentecost understands “gospel of the kingdom” to mean a gospel about the coming Millennial Kingdom.

·         I understand the descriptions of events in 9-13 of persecution, apostasy, false prophets, and cold love to be developments in the church, whereas Pentecost attributes these same developments to occur during the Tribulation with Israel as the subjects.

·         I understand verse 15 does take place during the 70^th Week and the warning to flee in verses 16-20 would apply to Christians who would be knowledgeable of Christ’s words (including Jewish Christians).

If I understand Walvoord correctly, he agrees with me on the break in the narrative at verse 14.  However, he sees a double fulfillment for verses 4-14—as “general signs” of the coming last days and as also having “a very literal and devastating fulfillment” during the Tribulation (Walvoord, page 371).  I am not sure why he concludes this.  One would assume he would agree with Pentecost’s analysis.

            I cannot agree with Pentecost’s analysis of verses 9-14.  Russell (see my previous article) equates the Great Tribulation of verses 21-22 to the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem.  He does that without any close analysis or reason for that idea.  I have demonstrated that analysis of 15-22 does not “fit” well at all with that historical event.  Moreover, verses 4-14 do not fit well at all with the 40 year period from AD 30 to 70, as I have demonstrated in another article.  In Russell’s case, I believe he can see a few specific markers in the narrative which he can identify with certain historical events.  For example, some of the persecutions of verse 9 fit will with the first century.  Any markers that do not fit so well, he simply ignores or “waves a hand” toward.  This would be true for the description of world upheaval of nations in verses 6-7 and for the description of apostasy in the church in verses 10 and 13. 

In the same way, Pentecost makes things fit for the narrative, yet close analysis does not bear out his conclusions.  For example, he attributes apostasy in verse 10 to “unbelieving Israel” (Pentecost, page 280).  But an unbelieving people would not go into apostasy.  He also ignores the prediction of verse 12 about the love of many growing cold.  If Israel comes to Christ in great numbers (as well as many Gentiles) in a period of seven years, it is difficult to conceive of a simultaneous growing cold of such a fervent group.  I believe that Pentecost has backed himself into a corner in his interpretation by maintaining that the whole passage is about the Tribulation (or 70^th Week) period.  This is consistent with his (and most Dispensationalists’) position that the 70^th Week is all about Israel and not the church.  And that position is because of their belief in the Pre-Tribulation Rapture.  (Although they would maintain that the cause-and-effect relationship is in the other direction.)

Walvoord and Pentecost believe that Christ’s warning to flee to the mountains in verses 16-20 is a warning to Israel.  The practicality of that view is difficult to maintain.  Two possibilities of how this warning would apply to Israel can be considered.  One is that it is to be to any Jews/Israelites in Judea at the time of the Abomination of Desolation.  Non-Christian Jews are very unlikely to be aware of Jesus’ words and would not heed them if they were aware.  Christian Jews would be aware of His words as would non-Jewish Christians to whom the warning might apply.  This subject brings up another issue, which is the presence or non-presence of the church at the time.  I shall deal with that at another time.

In neither Pentecost nor Walvoord, there is not a great deal of material about the Tribulation period itself as they respond directly to these verses.  They certainly—especially Pentecost—have a great deal to say about the Tribulation.  I shall refrain also from dealing with that subject until another time.

I believe the statement of Walvoord with regard to Luke 21:20-24 is very interesting.  I shall put off dealing with that Scripture until I deal with the parallels to Matthew 24 in Mark and Luke.

Summary:  J. Dwight Pentecost’s and John F. Walvoord’s views of Matthew 24:15-22 have been surveyed.  Their views are very similar except that Walvoord understands Matthew 24:4-14 to be fulfilled in the church age as well as having a second fulfillment in the Tribulation period.  Pentecost understands verses 9-14 to be parallel in time to verses 15-22.  Walvoord and Pentecost believe that Luke 21:20-24 addresses the signs signaling the approach of the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem whereas Matthew 24:15-20 deals with events in the last days.  Both men believe that the warning of verses 16-20 apply to Israel.

I have reiterated my objections to Pentecost’s views of verses 4-14, which I believe apply to the church age, as does Walvoord.  I also have stated my views on how verses 16-20 in practicality would apply only to believing Jews/Israelites and not all of Israel.

NEXT:  Preterist view of verses 24-31

 

REFERENCES:

Crossway Bibles (2009-04-09). ESV Study Bible (Kindle Locations 235445-235449). Good

News Publishers. Kindle Edition.

Pentecost, J. Dwight.  Things to Come.  Grand Rapids, MI:  Zondervan Publish. House, 1958.

Walvoord, John F.  Every Prophecy of the Bible: Clear Explanations for Uncertain Times.

Colorado Springs, CO:  David C Cook. Kindle Edition, 2011.

International Bible Society.  Holy Bible, New International Version.  Grand Rapids, MI:  Biblica,

Inc., 2011. (courtesy www.biblegateway.com)

MATTHEW 24-25, PART 5

MERRY CHRISTMAS!  FOR UNTO US HAS BEEN BORN A SAVIOR, WHO IS CHRIST THE LORD!

 

            In recent articles, I have described the interpretations of Matthew 24:4-14 by Preterists (represented by J. S. Russell) and Dispensationalists (represented by J. Dwight Pentecost).  I shall now do similar analyses of Matthew 24:15-22.  In this article, I shall present and respond to the views of Russell on this passage.

THE PRETERIST INTERPRETATION OF

MATTHEW 24:15-22

            Russell is critical of the interpreters of his day who tried to extract “double meaning” from the Olivet Discourse.  So, when he comments on this passage, he emphasizes there is not a transition from, but“continuity” with the previous material in verse 15 (Russell, page 62).  He also stresses that verses 15-22 have a

strict and exclusive reference to Jerusalem and Judea.  Here we can detect no trace of double meaning, of primary and ulterior fulfilments [sic]…Everything is national, local, and near:  ‘the land’ is the land of Judea,--‘this people’ is the people of Israel,--and the ‘time’ is the lifetime of the disciples,--‘When YE therefore shall see.’  [original emphasis and British usage] (Russell, page 72-73)

            These comments are typical of the Preterist position.  The whole thesis of that understanding is that Jesus’ Discourse was a prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and the end of the Jewish religion as a judgment on that nation for its rejection of Christ.

            Verse 15 includes the phrase “the abomination of desolation” (Greek:  tes bdelugma tes eremoseos, “the detestable thing which makes desolate”).  Russell’s comment on this phrase is surprisingly brief.  He concurs with others that this expression referred to the standards of the Roman Legions, which included eagles.  The soldiers worshiped these as idols.  Russell refers to a previous instance when Jewish authorities objected to Roman legions carrying their standards through Judea.  “How much greater the profanation when these idolatrous emblems were displayed in full view of the temple and the Holy City!”  (Russell, page 73)  This, he says, “was to be the signal to all Judea to escape beyond the mountains [verse 16]…for then would ensue a period of misery and horror…”  (Russell, page 73)

            Russell then interprets the “great tribulation” [his usage] of verse 21 to be the “dreadful calamities attending the siege of Jerusalem…”  (Russell, page 73)  He then focuses on the story of the mother who ate her baby as an example of those calamities.  He stresses Jesus’ words in verse 21 “no nor ever shall be” that Jesus was speaking of the historical fulfillment in the destruction of Jerusalem and not “any subsequent events at the end of time.”  That is, he would take it that “nor ever shall be” would imply a future history of humankind after the “great tribulation.” 

            I believe that I have represented Russell’s commentary on this section of Scripture (Matthew 24:15-22) fairly.  The reader might be a little surprised, because it seems so brief.  In fact, his entire commentary covers pages 72-74 in his book.  So, yes, it is surprising that such a key passage would be given so little attention.

RESPONSE TO

RUSSELL’S COMMENTARY

            Russell draws four conclusions from these verses.

1.      That the wording of verses 16-20 is good evidence that the passage refers to events in Judea in the first century.

2.      That the “abomination of desolation” is the presence of the standards of the Roman legions.  These were idols and would desecrate the city and the Temple.

3.      That the presence of these standards was the signal for the Jews to escape from Judea to the mountains “for then would ensue a period of misery and horror without parallel in the annals of time.”  (Russell, page 73)

4.      That the “great tribulation” was the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

 

 His first conclusion is a strong point, especially with regard to the local “flavor” of verses 16-20.  His focus on “you” will need to be dealt with in conjunction with discussion of verses 32-35.  I believe that I will need to return to the issues concerning the “Jewishness” of verses 16-20 at another time.  The issues include points raised by the Dispensationalists as well the subject of “double fulfillment” of  prophecy (an idea that Russell abhors).  Instead, I shall deal with the latter three conclusions.  I believe that I make a good argument that those conclusions cannot be supported.  If that is the case, the first conclusion is almost destroyed, and yet it does create problems for any other interpretation.

The Abomination of Desolation

(Russell’s First Two Conclusions)

The following is the wording of Matthew 24:15:

 

“[Quotation from Jesus] So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.”  (all Scripture quotations from English Standard Version unless stated otherwise)

 

Note that Christ is predicting that a detestable event or thing is going to make something desolate and that it is going to stand in the Holy Place.  This event was to be the signal to flee to the mountains.  We should apply these criteria to various options that would fit the Preterist hypothesis that Jesus’ predictions apply exclusively to the events of AD 70.  I shall consider two options—one is the presence of the troops of Cestius (not Russell’s idea) in the Temple area in AD 66 and the other is the presence of the troops of Titus in AD 70.

Before considering these options, I should comment on the criterion that the event in question served as a signal to flee to the mountains.  Russell states that this was be a signal “to all in Judea to escape beyond the mountains…” (Russell, page 73).  This conforms to his contention that Jesus was speaking to the disciples about Jewish events.  The problem with this reasoning is that the Discourse was spoken in private to the disciples on Mt. Olivet.  These men would live the rest of their lives in a state of alienation from their countrymen because of their devotion to Jesus, so they would not be in a position to spread this word of warning to “all in Judea.”  In fact, there is no record that Jews used this warning from Jesus to flee the Romans with one exception.

The only people who are believed to have heeded this warning is a group of Jewish Christians who took refuge in Pella, just east of Jordan in the Decapolis, at some point during the Jewish-Roman War (SEARCH).  When their flight occurred and how it corresponded to other events is not very clear.  Commentators often cite this flight to Pella as a very satisfactory confirmation that Jesus’ reference to the Abomination of Desolation had something to do with Roman legion standards.  (They also refer to Luke’s term, “Jerusalem surrounded by armies.”—see Russell, page 73)  It seems very likely that Christians were aware of Jesus’ words and took heed by fleeing to Pella.  What event triggered their flight is unknown.  Nor does their flight confirm a Preterist interpretation of the relevant Scriptures.  Four interpretations of their flight are possible. One is that they knew Jesus’ words and understood they applied to the situation at hand (Preterist view).  A second is that they knew Jesus’ words and applied them on their own to the situation.  A third is that they did not know Jesus’ words and simply fled because they recognized the danger.  A fourth is that they understood a double-meaning to Jesus’ words and applied them to the situation, but also understood them to apply to the end times.  We have no way of deciding among these possibilities.

Option 1:  The Troops of Cestius:  Whiston, the translator of Josephus, believed that a set of legion standards that were displayed earlier than the siege of Jerusalem was the signal to flee.  He gives this opinion in a footnote.  In November, 66, Cestius (a Syrian commander) brought Roman legion soldiers into the city in order to subdue the revolution that was threatening to begin.  Whiston believed this was the signal for people to flee to the mountains (Whiston, pages 631-632).  If people were alert to this sign, they may have avoided considerable danger by fleeing, since Vespasian’s legions would begin their campaign in Galilee and Judea in 67.  This “signal” of the troops of Cestius would have been about 3 ½ years before the siege of Jerusalem.  It may well have been the signal heeded by the Christians who fled to Pella.  This signal, though, does not seem to live up to the Abomination of Desolation.  In the historical record, it is a footnote.  The presence of the standards did not seem to create a Jewish reaction as an abomination (as I read Josephus).  In fact, moderate Jews had invited Cestius and his army into the city in order to quell the radicals. 

Option 2:  The Troops of Titus:  Russell focuses on the ensigns (of the legions of Titus) being “in full view of the Temple and the Holy City!”  (Russell, page 73, includes exclamation) as the Abomination of Desolation.

            I have outlined the siege/battle of Jerusalem in a previous article.  The Roman Legions, under Titus, arrived about May 1, 70.  A short time after that, Jerusalem was surrounded by these armies.  By June 4, some Romans were within the city proper and close to the Temple.  By August 29, Romans had entered the outer courts of the Temple complex, and on that same day the Temple was burned.  The city was totally subdued by September 26.  From about July onward, the Romans had cut off all escape from the city.

  Russell is vague whether he regards their presence in the armies surrounding Jerusalem or after they actually entered the city to be the Abomination.  However, he (Russell, page 73) argues that the presence of the ensigns in Judea would be bad enough and that their presence in the siege armies would be “last token which portended that the hour of doom for Jerusalem had come.”  (Russell, page 73)  He cites Luke 21:20 (Jerusalem “surrounded by armies”) as confirmation for his argument.  Note that Russell places more emphasis on the role of the event as a warning signal than he does as an abomination that makes desolate (see below).

            The first question to ask is this:  Did the legions of Titus stand with their standards in the Holy Place and make desolate something?  There are two parts of the question.  The first is:  “Did they stand…in the Holy Place?”  In fact, from a description by Josephus of events in the Temple area August 28-29,70, probably actual standards did not enter the Holy Place (Whiston, page 740).  Russell avoids this question by simply making their presence “in full view of the temple and the Holy City” “a profanation of the law.” (Russell, page 73)  This does not compare in degree to the original Abomination of Desolation.  That event was when Antiochus Epiphanes, in 168 BC, sacrificed a pig on an altar to Zeus within the Temple.  (See NIV Study Bible at Daniel 9:27 and 11:31 and ESV note at Matthew 24:15.)

Did the Roman legion standards make the Holy Place desolate?  If one reads the details of all that went on before and during the siege, one would be struck by the level of violence and betrayal in Jerusalem, including bloodshed in the Temple area that took place at the hands of Jews.   For example, Jewish radicals killed the high priest in September of 66, four years before the Romans laid siege.  Also, the sacrifices had ceased August 5, 70, weeks before the Romans broke into the Temple area.  Moreover, by the time the legion standards were in the Temple complex it was on the verge of burning down.  So, from a Jewish perspective, it is difficult to see how the presence of legion standards would be a decisive desecration of an already degenerate Jewish religious situation.  But, from a Christian viewpoint, the Jewish Holy Place was already desolate.  Jesus spoke of the nation (and not the Temple) in Matthew 23:38 when He said:  “See, your house is left to you desolate.”  (Matthew 23:38)  However, it was true enough that the desolation of the House of Israel was a religious desolation.  When Jesus was crucified, the curtain that divided the two holy places—Holy Place and the Holy of Holies—was torn in two from top to bottom (Matthew 27:51).  This signaled the end of the old system of worshiping God and the institution of a new and living way into God’s presence (Hebrews 10:19-20). 

The second question to ask is this:  Would anyone in the area of Judea have been warned by the presence of the Roman Legions?  Yes, that is possible in the early days of the siege, since some were escaping.  However, once the siege was in earnest, there would not likely be any escapees.  Moreover, once the Romans broke into the city and the standards were in the presence of the Temple as abominable idolatrous objects, no one outside Judea would have known it.

            The third question to ask is this:  would escape have been of any great consequence once the Jerusalem siege began?  After the destruction of Jerusalem, Roman operations were limited.  There was a siege of the city of Macherus by the Roman legate Bassus, who also totally destroyed the Jews hiding in the forest of Jarden.  Also, many of the Jews of the city of Antioch were killed by the Gentiles of that city as well as being harassed by a turncoat Jew, named, coincidentally, Antiochus.  (Whiston, pages 758-762)  My point is this:  Once the siege of Jerusalem was over, the Roman-Jewish War was essentially over.  The final battle would take place three years later at Masada, but this was the completion of the mopping-up of Jewish resistance.  (Josephus, page 762ff)  It does not appear to me that, for ordinary persons—Christians or Jews—that “escape” from Judea (excluding Jerusalem) during or after the siege would have been an escape from a horrible situation.  Russell himself defines the “great tribulation” of Matthew 24:21 to be the siege of Jerusalem (Russell, page 73). 

            I do not believe that there is a good case for Russell’s conclusions concerning the Abomination of Desolation.  The presence of Roman legion standards would have been an affront to the Jews in an isolated action by Roman authorities.  However, in the heat of the battle in Jerusalem, it would have been “just one more thing” to remind the Jews of their crushing defeat.  Moreover, the standards were there because the legions were there, not as a direct assault by the Romans on the spiritual values of the Jews.  Josephus claims that Titus had a certain respect for the Temple and that its destruction was contra his orders (Whiston, pages 739-740).  (Of course, Josephus’ reporting is suspect, but it is about all we have.)  Keep in mind that the implication of Jesus’ words is that He is predicting spiritual defilement and not physical destruction.  I do not believe that there is an historical record of this sort of defilement by the Romans beyond what would take place in the heat of battle. 

One other point needs to be made.  Although Russell separates the two, I believe there is a twisting together in the minds of many of an event that would signal escape, on the one hand, and the destruction of the Temple on the other.  Russell does not confuse the two, but, because they are so close in time, many do confuse them.  This leads to a discussion of what is the Great Tribulation. 

 

The Great Tribulation

            Russell’s final conclusion is that the siege of and destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple is the “great tribulation” of Matthew 24:21.  He reinforces that idea with the horror of a woman eating her baby.  Certainly, the destruction of Jerusalem was a horrible time.  I am not an expert on sieges.  I read an account of the siege of Leningrad by the Germans in World War II.  That, like all sieges, was terrible.  By their very definition, sieges are designed to starve the enemy out of a city or fortress.  Keep in mind that about 650 years before the Romans destroyed Jerusalem, the Babylonians had done the same.  Lamentations 2:20 and 4:10 tell of mothers eating their children during that siege.  So, whether the siege and destruction of Jerusalem was the worst of all sieges probably could be debated.  Moreover, Jesus’ words in verse 22 indicate that the tribulation He was speaking of would be world-wide, since “no human being” could be saved if those days not be cut short.  Therefore, to assign the Great Tribulation period to the events of AD 70 does not seem to match the Lord’s words.

            In addition, chronology is a problem when one compares Matthew 24:15-22 with the events of AD 70.  If one follows Russell’s reasoning, the following table would apply:

 

	Preterist Scenario
Verse	Prediction	Application	Timing	Alternative Scenario
15	Abomination as a signal	Legion standards around and/or in Jerusalem	AD 70 May (surrounding Jerusalem) or June (close to Temple) or Late August in Temple complex	A repugnant event that has spiritual implications occurs
16-20	Flight to the mountains and its hazards	? Unknown except Christians’ flight to Pella	Unknown	Persons are alarmed by this event and flee to the mountains
21-22	Great Tribulation	Siege and destruction of Jerusalem	Siege:  May-August Destruction:  late August- September	There follows a protracted period of terrible trouble.

 

Note that Russell’s scenario for the Abomination of Desolation overlaps the Great Tribulation so that, about the time the signal to flee occurs, the Great Tribulation is almost over.  If one posits Cestius’ entrance into the city in AD 66, the chronology problem is solved, but one is left with an obscure event.  If one reads Jesus’ words, a scenario far different from the events of AD 70 seems to be implied, as I have indicated in the table.

            One other point needs to be made.  Jesus indicates in verse 22 that those days will be “cut short,” otherwise no one would be saved.  There is no indication that the Roman siege and destruction of Jerusalem was a day shorter than it needed to be.  Some survived, but only to be sold into slavery or to be imprisoned.

            I do not believe the destruction of Jerusalem is a fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction of the Great Tribulation.

 

Summary

            Russell, a representative of the Preterist method of interpretation, believes that verse 15-22 refer exclusively to the events around AD 70 in Judea, that the presence of the standards of the Roman legions was the Abomination of Desolation, that the legion standards signaled people to flee to the mountains, and that the siege of Jerusalem and its destruction along with the destruction of the Temple was the Great Tribulation.  I believe that the legion standards were not a spiritually significant abomination that desecrated Jerusalem and the Temple.  If one posits the presence of the standards during Titus’ siege and destruction, the timing would not be adequate to warn people to flee from Jerusalem and would be of doubtful benefit to people throughout Judea.  If one posits the standards of Cestius’ troops, it is doubtful that there was any obvious affront to Jewish sensibilities.  Though the siege and destruction of Jerusalem were horrific, it is a debatable question that it would fit Jesus’ description of the horrors of the Great Tribulation.  Overall, the chronological problems and the nature of the hypothetical Abomination of Desolation make it unlikely that there is a “fit” for the events of AD 70 to Jesus’ predictions in Matthew 24:15-22.

 

NEXT:  DISPENSATIONALIST INTERPRETATION OF MATTHEW 24:15-22

 

REFERENCES

Barker, Kenneth L., gen. ed. The New International Version Study Bible.  Grand Rapids, MI: 

            Zondervan (International Bible Society), 2002.

Crossway Bibles (2009-04-09). ESV Study Bible (Kindle Locations 235445-235449). Good      

         News Publishers. Kindle Edition.

Russell, J. S.  The Parousia, A Critical Inquiry into the New Testament Doctrine of Our

            Lord’s Second Coming.  (Google Internet Book)  London:  Daldy, Isbister

            & Co., 1878.

SEARCH (the Society to Explore and Record Christian History) “Escape to

        Pella” in www.christianhistoryproject.org.

Whiston, William, trans. The Works of Josephus, by Flavius Josephus.  N. p.:  Hendrickson

            Publ., 1987.