|
The 70th Week of Daniel |
|
Centrality to Olivet Discourse |
|
By Elder Joe Holder |
|
The 70th Week of Daniel |
|
Centrality to Olivet Discourse |
|
By Elder Joe Holder |
|
To hear many contemporary dispensationalists talk, this
rather modern view of end times belief, of eschatology, has ever been the belief
of faithful Christians. In this study I cite extensively from just one highly
respected author, Alfred Edersheim, as he provides detailed insights and
documentation regarding the far more historical and—I believe—Biblical view of
the Olivet Discourse. Apologies for such extensive quotations from Edersheim,
but I believe this man’s highly respected reputation as a leading scholar on
Jewish history and beliefs lends significant weight to his clear renunciation of
the at-times-near- The footnotes indicate Edersheim’s subdivision of the discourse. If you look up this passage in ten commentaries, you are likely to discover ten different subdivision breakdowns. I appreciate Edersheim’s outline of the message, though I might divide it at slightly different places. The major benefit of Edersheim’s commentary appears in his observation that the disciples asked Jesus more than one question. At least one of their questions had to do specifically with Jesus’ surprising revelation that the temple would soon be destroyed. Edersheim—I believe—correctly observes that contemporary Jews believed that the temple then standing would remain till the end of time and Second Coming. Based on his commentary, Jesus addressed and corrected this errant belief, then reinforcing the fact that a long, indefinite time would separate the destruction of the temple from the Second Coming. For this reason Jesus teaches the disciples about both events and strengthens them against the errant contemporary view that the two events would be nearly simultaneous. God bless, Centrality of the Olivet Discourse to the Seventy Weeks
And he shall confirm the
covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the
sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations
he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined
shall be poured upon the desolate. (Daniel 9:27)
And Jesus went out, and
departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the
buildings of the temple. 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. And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples
came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what
shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? (Matthew
24:1-3)
Given Jesus’
reference to Gabriel’s prophecy and to similar language in other passages from
Daniel, specifically the “abomination of desolation” or similar terms, we cannot
reasonably doubt that the Olivet Discourse is integrally related to, if not a
full explanation of the seventy week prophecy.
While so many
contemporary Christians embrace the rather modern (Beginning around 1830 is
quite modern compared with the closing of Scriptural writings and authority near
the end of the first century A. D.), I will quote extensively in this study from
a leading Christian authority on Jewish history and belief, Alfred Edersheim.
Clearly from these quotes and from other points made in his writings, Edersheim
did not embrace the Darby view of secret rapture that dominates contemporary
dispensational thinking.
In the quotes that
follow Edersheim demonstrates the points I made in our last study, that Jesus’
prophetic warnings in the Olivet Discourse regarding being in the field, on the
roof, pregnant, or a young mother did not relate in any way to the hypothetical
secret rapture of dispensationalism, but rather to the Roman siege and
destruction of the city of Jerusalem and of the temple.
Clearly the
disciples asked two (Edersheim’s view), if not three questions in response to
Jesus’ description of the temple’s demise. At least one question relates to the
destruction of the temple. To this question Jesus gives the disciples multiple
signs and detailed descriptions that would provide them with certain indications
and warnings of the approaching destruction by the Romans, a warning that they
were immediately to flee the whole region near Jerusalem for safe quarters many
miles away.
With equal clarity,
Jesus answered a second question regarding the Second Coming and His final
Advent, one, not two appearings. The first event Jesus described in detail and
warned the disciples that these events would occur within their lifetime; “This
generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” (Matthew
24:34) However, He also included in His prophetic revelation His answer to
their second question regarding the Second Coming, not an event that would
immediately follow the first, but would rather occur centuries later. Regarding
this event, Jesus avoided any reference to signs of the event’s immediacy,
rather directing His followers in all future generations to remain constantly
watchful, knowing that the time of His Second Coming would be a surprise, even
to His own followers. "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the
angels of heaven, but my Father only." (Matthew 24:36) Notice the contrast.
Certain indisputable signs of one event that would occur within the disciples’
lifetime is vividly juxtaposed with another event whose timing was wholly
unknown, even to the Incarnate Son, much less the disciples. Any view of the
Olivet Discourse that either attempts to force all of it into a prophecy of the
Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A. D., or to force all of it
into a prophecy of the Second Coming, faces an insoluble contradiction in these
two verses. The date of one event is known; the date of the other is wholly
unknown.
Though not at times
simple or easy to follow, Edersheim addresses these two events as being equally
addressed in the Olivet Discourse, thus providing us an invaluable service in
our search to understand the lesson clearly and in harmony with Jesus’ teachings
in it. I thus highly encourage you to read the whole of the Olivet Discourse in
all three of the gospel books where it is recorded before you read Edersheim’s
writings below. (Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21)
In silence they pursued their way. Upon the Mount of Olives
they sat down, right over against the Temple. Whether or not the others had gone
farther, or Christ had sat apart with these four, Peter and James and John and
Andrew are namedc
as those who now asked Him further of what must have weighed so heavily on their
hearts. It was not idle curiosity, although inquiry on such a subject, even
merely for the sake of information, could scarcely have been blamed in a Jew.
But it did concern them personally, for had not the Lord conjoined the
desolateness of that ‘House’ with His own absence? He had explained the former
as meaning the ruin of the City and the utter destruction of the Temple. But to
His prediction of it had been added these words: ‘Ye shall not see Me
henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is He that cometh in the Name of the
Lord.’ In their view, this could only refer to His Second Coming, and to the End
of the world as connected with it. This explains the twofold question which the
four now addressed to Christ: ‘Tell us, when shall these things be? and what
shall be the sign of Thy Coming, and of the consummation of the age?’2 Irrespective of other sayings, in which a distinction
between these two events is made, we can scarcely believe that the disciples
could have conjoined the desolation of the Temple with the immediate Advent of
Christ and the end of the world. For, in the very saying which gave rise to
their question, Christ had placed an indefinite period between the two. Between
the desolation of the House and their new welcome to Him, would intervene a
period of indefinite length, during which they would not see Him again. The
disciples could not have overlooked this; and hence neither their question, nor
yet the Discourse of our Lord, have been intended to conjoin the two. It is
necessary to keep this in view when studying the words of Christ; and any
different impression must be due to the exceeding compression in the language of
St. Matthew, and to this, that Christ would purposely leave indefinite the
interval between ‘the desolation of the house’ and His own Return. Another point of considerable importance remains to be
noticed. When the Lord, on quitting the Temple, said: ‘Ye shall not see Me
henceforth,’ He must have referred to Israel in their national
capacity—to the Jewish polity in Church and State. If so, the promise in the
text of visible reappearance must also apply to the Jewish Commonwealth, to
Israel in their national capacity. Accordingly, it is suggested that in the
present passage Christ refers to His Advent, not from the general cosmic
viewpoint of universal, but from the Jewish standpoint of Jewish, history, in
which the destruction of Jerusalem and the appearance of false Christs are the
last events of national history, to be followed by the dreary blank and silence
of the many centuries of the ‘Gentile dispensation,’ broken at last by the
events that usher in His Coming.a[1]
As regards the answer of the Lord to the two questions of
His disciples, it may be said that the first part of His Discoursea
is intended to supply information on the two facts of the future: the
destruction of the Temple, and His Second Advent and the end of the ‘Age,’ by
setting before them the signs indicating the approach or beginning of these
events. But even here the exact period of each is not defined, and the teaching
given intended for purely practical purposes. In the second part of His
Discourseb
the Lord distinctly tells them, what they are not to know, and why; and
how all that was communicated to them was only to prepare them for that constant
watchfulness, which has been to the Church at all times the proper outcome of
Christ’s teaching on the subject. This, then, we may take as a guide in our
study: that the words of Christ contain nothing beyond what was necessary for
the warning and teaching of the disciples and of the Church.[2]
1. The purely practical character of the Discourse appears
from its opening words.e
They contain a warning, addressed to the disciples in their individual, not in
their corporate, capacity, against being ‘led astray.’ This, more particularly
in regard to Judaic seductions leading them after false Christs. Though in the
multitude of impostors, who, in the troubled times between the rule of Pilate
and the destruction of Jerusalem, promised Messianic deliverance to Israel, few
names and claims of this kind have been specially recorded, yet the hints in the
New Testament,f
and the references, however guarded, by the Jewish historian,g
imply the appearance of many such seducers.
[3]
2. From the warning to Christians as individuals,
the Lord next turns to give admonition to the Church in her corporate
capacity. Here we mark, that the events now describedc
must not be regarded as following, with strict chronological precision, those
referred to in the previous verses. Rather is it intended to indicate a general
nexus with them, so that these events begin partly before, partly during,
and partly after, those formerly predicted. They form, in fact, the continuation
of the ‘birth-woes.’ This appears even from the language used. Thus, while St.
Matthew writes: ‘Then’ (τότε, at that time) ‘shall they
deliver you up,’ St. Luke places the persecutions ‘before all these things;’a
while St. Mark, who reports this part of the Discourse most fully, omits every
note of time, and only emphasises the admonition which the fact conveys.b
As regards the admonition itself, expressed in this part of the Lord’s
Discourse,c
we notice that, as formerly to individuals, so now to the Church two sources of
danger are pointed out: internal, from heresies (‘false prophets’) and
the decay of faith,d
and external, from persecutions, whether Judaic and from their own
kindred, or from the secular powers throughout the world. But, along with these
two dangers, two consoling facts are also pointed out.[4]
3. From these general predictions, the Lord proceeds, in
the third part of this Discourse,f
to advertise the Disciples of the great historic fact immediately before them,
and of the dangers which might spring from it. In truth, we have here His answer
to their question, ‘When shall these things be?’g
not, indeed, as regards the when, but the what of them. And with
this He conjoins the present application of His general warning regarding false
Christs, given in the first part of this Discourse.h
The fact of which He now, in this third part of His Discourse, advertises them,
is the destruction of Jerusalem. Its twofold dangers would be—outwardly, the
difficulties and perils which at that time would necessarily beset men, and
especially the members of the infant-Church; and, religiously, the pretensions
and claims of false Christs or prophets at a period when all Jewish thinking and
expectancy would lead men to anticipate the near Advent of the Messiah. There
can be no question, that from both these dangers the warning of the Lord
delivered the Church. As directed by Him, the members of the Christian Church
fled at an early period of the siege1
of Jerusalem to Pella, while the words in which He had told that His Coming
would not be in secret, but with the brightness of that lightning which shot
across the sky, prevented not only their being deceived, but perhaps even the
record, if not the rise of many who otherwise would have deceived them.
[5]
4. dThe
Age of the Gentiles, ‘the end of the Age,’ and with it the new allegiance of His
now penitent people Israel; ‘the sign of the Son of Man in heaven,’ perceived by
them; the conversion of all the world, the Coming of Christ, the last Trumpet,
the Resurrection of the dead—such, in most rapid sketch, is the outline which
the Lord draws of His Coming and the End of the world. It will be remembered that this had been the second
question of the disciples.e
We again recall, that the disciples did not, indeed, could not have connected,
as immediately subsequent events, the destruction of Jerusalem and His Second
Coming, since He had expressly placed between them the period—apparently
protracted—of His Absence,f
with the many events that were to happen in it—notably, the preaching of the
Gospel over the whole inhabited earth.g
Hitherto the Lord had, in His Discourse, dwelt in detail only on those events
which would be fulfilled before this generation should pass.h
It had been for admonition and warning that He had spoken, not for the
gratification of curiosity. It had been prediction of the immediate future for
practical purposes, with such dim and general indication of the more distant
future of the Church as was absolutely necessary to mark her position in the
world as one of persecution, with promise, however, of His Presence and Help;
with indication also of her work in the world, to its
terminus ad quem—the preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom to all
nations on earth.[6]
5. From this rapid outline of the future the Lord once more
turned to make present application to the disciples; nay, application, also, to
all times. From the fig-tree, under which, on that spring-afternoon, they may
have rested on the Mount of Olives, they were to learn a ‘parable.’e
We can picture Christ taking one of its twigs, just as its softening tips were
bursting into young leaf. Surely, this meant that summer was nigh—not that it
had actually come. The distinction is important. For, it seems to prove that
‘all these things,’ which were to indicate to them that it1
was near, even at the doors, and which were to be fulfilled ere this generation
had passed away, could not have referred to the last signs connected with the
immediate Advent of Christ,f
but must apply to the previous prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem and of
the Jewish Commonwealth. At the same time we again admit, that the language of
the Synoptists seems to indicate, that they had not clearly understood the words
of the Lord which they reported, and that in their own minds they had associated
the ‘last signs’ and the Advent of Christ with the fall of the City. Thus may
they have come to expect that Blessed Advent even in their own days.[7]
It is at least a question, whether the Lord, while
distinctly indicating these facts, had intended to remove the doubt and
uncertainty of their succession from the minds of His disciples. To have done so
would have necessitated that which, in the opening sentence of the Second
Division of this Discourse,a
He had expressly declared to lie beyond their ken. The ‘when’—the day and
the hour of His Coming—was to remain hidden from men and Angels.b
Nay, even the Son Himself—as they viewed Him and as He spake to them—knew it
not.1
It formed no part of His present Messianic Mission, nor subject for His
Messianic Teaching. Had it done so, all the teaching that follows
concerning the need of constant watchfulness, and the pressing duty of working
for Christ in faith, hope, and love—with purity, self-denial, and
endurance—would have been lost. The peculiar attitude of the Church: with loins
girt for work, since the time was short, and the Lord might come at any moment;
with her hands busy; her mind faithful; her bearing self-denying and devoted;
her heart full of loving expectancy; her face upturned towards the Sun that was
so soon to rise; and her ear straining to catch the first notes of heaven’s song
of triumph—all this would have been lost![8]
What has sustained the Church during the night of sorrow these many centuries;
what has nerved her with courage for the battle, with steadfastness to bear,
with love to work, with patience and joy in disappointments—would all have been
lost! The Church would not have been that of the New Testament, had she known
the mystery of that day and hour, and not ever waited as for the immediate
Coming of her Lord and Bridegroom. And what the Church of the New Testament has been, and is,
that her Lord and Master made her, and by no agency more effectually than by
leaving undetermined the precise time of His Return. To the world this would
indeed become the occasion for utter carelessness and practical disbelief of the
coming Judgment.c
As in the days of Noah the long delay of threatened judgment had led to
absorption in the ordinary engagements of life, to the entire disbelief of what
Noah had preached, so would it be in the future. But that day would come
certainly and unexpectedly, to the sudden separation of those who were engaged
in the same daily business of life, of whom one might be taken up (παραλαμβάνεται,
‘received’), the other left to the destruction of the coming Judgment.d[9]
But this very mixture of the Church with the world in the
ordinary avocations of life indicated a great danger. As in all such, the remedy
which the Lord would set before us is not negative in the avoidance of certain
things, but positive.a
We shall best succeed, not by going out of the world, but by being watchful in
it, and keeping fresh on our hearts, as well as on our minds, the fact that He
is our Lord, and that we are, and always most lovingly, to look and long for His
Return. Otherwise twofold damage might come to us. Not expecting the arrival of
the Lord in the night-time (which is the most unlikely for His Coming), we might
go to sleep, and the Enemy, taking advantage of it, rob us of our peculiar
treasure.b
Thus the Church, not expecting her Lord, might become as poor as the world. This
would be loss. But there might be even worse. According to the Master’s
appointment, each one had, during Christ’s absence, his work for Him, and the
reward of grace, or else the punishment of neglect, were in assured prospect.
The faithful steward, to whom the Master had entrusted the care of His
household, to supply His servants with what was needful for their support and
work, would, if found faithful, be rewarded by advancement to far larger and
more responsible work. On the other hand, belief in the delay of the Lord’s
Return would lead to neglect of the Master’s work, to unfaithfulness, tyranny,
self-indulgence, and sin.c
And when the Lord suddenly came, as certainly He would come, there would be not
only loss, but damage, hurt, and the punishment awarded to the hypocrites.
Hence, let the Church be ever on her watch,d
let her ever be in readiness!e[10]
c St. Mark 13:3 2
τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος.
Godet argues that the account in the Gospel of St. Matthew contains, as
in other parts of that Gospel, the combined reports of addresses, delivered at
different times. That may be so, but the inference of Godet is certainly
incorrect,—that neither the question of the disciples, nor the discourse of our
Lord on that occasion primarily referred to the Second Advent (the
παρουσία). When that
writer remarks, that only St. Matthew, but neither St. Mark nor St. Luke refer
to such a question by the disciples, he must have overlooked that it is not only
implied in the ‘all these things’ of St. Mark, and the ‘these things’ of St.
Luke—which, surely, refer to more than one thing—but that the question of the
disciples about the Advent takes up a distinctive part of what Christ had said
on quitting the Temple, as reported in St. Matt. 23:39. a St. Luke 21:24 &c. [1]Alfred
Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (Bellingham, WA: Logos
Research Systems, Inc., 1896, 2003), 2:432-433. a St. Matt. 24:4–35, and parallels b St. Matt. 24:36 to end, and parallels [1]Alfred
Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (Bellingham, WA: Logos
Research Systems, Inc., 1896, 2003), 2:445-446. e ver. 4 f Acts 5:36; 8:9; 21:38 g War 2. 13. 4, 5; Ant. 20. 5. 1; 8. 10 [1]Alfred
Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (Bellingham, WA: Logos
Research Systems, Inc., 1896, 2003), 2:446. c St. Matt. 24:9–14, and parallels a St. Luke 21:12 b St. Mark 13:9 c St. Matt. 24:9–14, and parallels d St. Matt. 24:10–13 [1]Alfred
Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (Bellingham, WA: Logos
Research Systems, Inc., 1896, 2003), 2:447-448. f St. Matt. 24:15–28, and parallels; note
especially the language of St. Luke g St. Matt. 24:3 h vv. 4, 5 1 So Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 3. 5) relates
that the Christians of Judæa fled to Pella, on the northern boundary of Peræa,
in 68 a.d. Comp. also Jos.
War 4. 9. 1 5. 10. 1. [1]Alfred
Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (Bellingham, WA: Logos
Research Systems, Inc., 1896, 2003), 2:448-449. d vv. 29–31 e St. Matt. 24:3 f 23:38, 39 g 24:14 h ver. 34 [1]Alfred
Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (Bellingham, WA: Logos
Research Systems, Inc., 1896, 2003), 2:449-450. e vv. 32, 33 1
Not as in the R.V. ‘He.’ It can scarcely be
supposed that Christ would speak of Himself in the third person. The subject is
evidently ‘the summer’ (not as Meyer would render
θέρος = ‘harvest’). In
St. Luke 21:31 it is paraphrased ‘the Kingdom of God.’ f vv. 29–31 [1]Alfred
Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (Bellingham, WA: Logos
Research Systems, Inc., 1896, 2003), 2:450. a St. Matt. 24:36 to end b St. Matt. 24:36 1 The expression does not, of course, refer to
Christ in His Divinity, but to the Christ, such as they saw Him, in His
Messianic capacity and office
[1] Holder: I put these words in
bold type. They emphasize the beauty and ageless value of watching, waiting,
and eagerly expecting the Lord’s final and glorious return. May we never stop
straining our ears for “…the first notes of heaven’s song of triumph.” c vv. 37–40 d vv. 40, 41 [1]Alfred
Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (Bellingham, WA: Logos
Research Systems, Inc., 1896, 2003), 2:450-451. a vv. 42–51 b St. Matt. 24:43, 44 c ver. 45, end d ver. 42 e ver. 44 [1]Alfred
Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (Bellingham, WA: Logos
Research Systems, Inc., 1896, 2003), 2:451-452.
|
