Historicism or Classical Futurism?

Genesis: Tanner, “Is Daniel’s Seventy-Weeks Prophecy Messianic? Part 1, Bibliotheca Sacra 166 (April–June 2009): 181–200.

“This tendency in Jewish circles to see the 70 weeks fulfilled in Jerusalem’s destruction in A.D. 70 is even more strongly affirmed in the Jewish chronological work, Seder Olam Rabbah [c. A.D. 160] the chronology espoused therein became commonly accepted in subsequent Jewish writings, including the Talmud & the consensus of Jewish rabbinical scholars.”

What Did Jesus Say: Young, The Prophecy of Daniel: A Commentary, p 215.

“It is assumed that when Christ spoke of the abomination of desolation, he had in mind [Dan. 9:24-27]. Since therefore he regarded the abomination as future, the 70th seven in which the abomination is to occur, must also be future [Matt. 24:15-16; Luke 21:20-21].”

Why Antiochus Doesn’t Fit: ESV Study Bible, Dan. 11.44-45:

“One striking difference between Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Antichrist lies in the events surrounding the king’s death, which do not fit what is known of the death of Antiochus IV. He met his end during a relatively minor campaign against Persia in 164 b.c., not between the sea and Jerusalem after a grand and successful assault on Egypt. When compared to the precision of fulfillment of the previous verses of ch. 11, these verses may be looking for a greater fulfillment that is yet to come at the time of the end. the glorious holy mountain. This is the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, which perhaps here should be connected to the fall of the Antichrist in the battle of Armageddon (cf. Rev. 16:13–16).”

The Abomination: a thing or a person? A. B. Mickelson, Interpreting the Bible, 1972, p. 293.

“Hence person and thing are intermingled in the imagery….In Matthew the abomination is described as a thing which stands in a holy place (24.15). But in Mark a neuter noun (‘abomination’) is modified by a masculine participle. This strange grammatical shift shows that for Mark the abomination is a person who stands where he ought not to stand (Mark 13.14). The man of lawlessness in 2Thess 2 is clearly an individual, [the] product of the mystery of lawlessness which is continually operating.”

Antiochus or Titus? Archer, “Daniel”, Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol. 7.

“It is important to observe that [Mat 24.15] conclusively proves that Jesus himself regarded the fulfillment of the prophecy in Daniel as yet future…This means that a genuine theological or doctrinal issue is at stake here; for if the hypothesis of complete fulfillment by Antiochus is correct, as many liberals insist, it raises a real question as to whether [Jesus] was mistaken in his understanding of prophecy and the theological interpretations of the OT.”

Keil, The Book of Daniel, pp 354-85.

“The reference of this prophecy to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans [is] not thereby proved, because in his discourse Christ spoke not only of this destruction of the ancient Jerusalem, but generally of his parousia & the end of the age (Matt. 24:3), & referred the words of Daniel of the Kingdom to the parousia of the son of man.”

Addendum: “the wing of abominations.” Archer, “Daniel”, Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol 7

The phrase “that causes desolation” [lit. “a desolator of abominations”] bears an interesting resemblance to [“the abomination that causes desolation”, Dan 11.31; & “the abomination that causes desolation”, Dan 12.11; cf. Matt. 24.15] Significantly the evangelist inserted the parenthetical exhortation “Let the reader understand.” It is important to observe that this reference…conclusively proves that Jesus himself regarded the fulfillment of the prophecy in Daniel as yet future rather than as having been completely realized in the time of Antiochus Ephipanes, as the Maccabean date hypothesis supposes.

“At that time…” Dan. 12.1: Anderson, Signs & Wonders: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel:

“The artificial chapter division at this point should not be allowed to obscure the very real nexus between 11.45 [death of Anti-Christ] & 12.1….The immediate context of vv.1-3 [i.e., resurrection] is clear beyond question & is integral to a proper understanding of their significance.”

WBC, Daniel, Goldingay:

“The phrase [At that time, Dan 12.1] again indicates continuity with what precedes…”

Nothing wrong with types: D.J. Moo, The Case for the Posttribulation Rapture Position:

“[Jesus probably] ‘telescopes’ A.D. 70 & the end of the age in a manner reminiscent of the prophets, who frequently looked at the end of the age through more immediate historical events.”

Miller, New American Commentary, “Daniel”, p. 206-211:

“Denying religious liberty is characteristic of dictators (e.g. Antiochus IV, Nero, Domitian, Stalin, Hitler, and others), but antichrist will go beyond what anyone has done before in his attempt to create a thoroughly secular world.”

Ezekiel, Daniel, Thompson, Comfort, Carpenter, pp 427-29:

“While this commentary maintains that Antiochus…foreshadowed the little horn spoken of in chapter 7 as well as the mysterious figures in 9.27 and 11.36-39, 40-45; 12.1-7, 8-13, it also asserts that this book of Daniel does not find its ultimate culmination in this historical figure.  The figure portrayed in these latter passages far surpasses the diabolical deeds of Antiochus.”

Last Word: International Critical Commentary, Matthew 19-28:

“In the background [to Matt. 24.14] is the Old Testament motif of the nations’ end-time conversion to Yahweh. Here that conversion heralds the end.” Cp. Isa 2.2-4; 45.14-15, 20-25; Micah 4.1-5.

Further Reading

Primary Sources:

·       1 & 2 Maccabees, c. 2nd cen. BC.

·       Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus, c. 90s AD.

·       Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls, J. J. Collins.

Secondary Sources:

·       The Book of the Prophet Daniel, Keil & Delitzsch.

·       Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 7, ‘Daniel ’ by Archer.

·       New American Commentary, “Daniel” by Miller.

·       Daniel, The Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks, Walvoord.

·       The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew & English Lexicon.