Historicism vs. Futurism (Daniel 9:24-27)

 by Anthony F. Buzzard

Does Daniel 9:24-27 lead us to expect at the end of the 70 “sevens”:

1. Jewish rejection of the Messiah in AD 32/33  (historicism)  OR
2. The restoration of all things at Christ’s coming (futurism)

Historicists are reading the 70 sevens prophecy of Daniel 9:26-27 as if it said: Jesus will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven’ (AD 27-34). About AD 30, in the middle of the ‘seven,’  he will be cut off and cause the sacrifices to cease, and 40 years after the end of the 70^th ‘seven’ in AD 34, Titus will destroy Jerusalem in AD 70 (and himself be destroyed as in a flood??).

Here are the reasons for futurism:

1. “If the cutting off of the Messiah occurred in the middle of the 70^th seven, it is very strange that the cutting off is said to be ‘after’  the 69 sevens (adding the 7 and the 62 sevens). Much more naturally the text would have read ‘during’ or ‘in the midst of’ the 70^th seven, as it does in v. 27 concerning the stoppage of the sacrifices. The only adequate explanation for this unusual turn of expression is that the 70^th week did not follow on the heels of the 69^th, but that an interval separates the two. The crucifixion then comes shortly ‘after’ the 69^th but not within the 70^th because of an intervening gap. The possibility of a gap between the 69^th and the 70^th weeks is established by the well-accepted OT phenomenon of prophetic perspective, in which gaps such as that between the first and second advents were not perceived” (Robert Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation, p. 190).
2. “Christ did not make or confirm a covenant for one week. He established the new covenant forever” (Gundry, p. 190).
3. Historicism makes the 70 sevens expire in AD 32/33, 3 ½ years after Jesus’ death. Futurism makes the 70 sevens expire at the return of the Messiah.
4. Historicism makes the attack by the wicked prince (Dan. 9:26) the attack on Jerusalem by Titus in AD 70. But if AD 32 is the proper end of 70 sevens, this attack happened 40 years beyond the end of the 70 sevens. Futurism makes the attack of the wicked prince an event of the 70^th seven just before the Second Coming.
5. Daniel 9:26 says “to the end” there will be war. This will not fit a 70^th seven ending in AD 32/33 or AD 70.
6. The end of the 70^th seven is marked by the destruction of the desolator.  Daniel 9:26 says the evil prince will come to “his end” (CJB, NAB, NET). Titus did not come to his end in AD 70.
7. The 70 sevens are modeled on the 70 years prophecy of Daniel 9:2, which ends  in the restoration of Jerusalem. It is therefore incorrect to place the end of the 70 sevens prophecy in AD 32/33 or 70, which ended in destruction.
8. Each prophetic chapter in Daniel (7, 8, 9, 11-12) concentrates on the end of the age, making a leap from historical times to the distant (to Daniel) future. The 70 sevens prophecy is no exception.
9. The divided (3 ½ + 3 ½ years) final seven years is further developed in Revelation 11:2; 13:5; 12:6, 14. These verses link the prophecies of the divided 70^th seven with a period far beyond the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
10. Historicism severs the obvious link between Matthew 24:21 which quotes Daniel 12:1, the unique Great Tribulation.
11. Gabriel had promised that at the end of the 70 sevens Israel’s rebellion would be finished, her iniquity purged, and everlasting righteousness would be restored to the holy city. Yet AD 70 was the destruction of Jerusalem! Daniel was to be comforted by the hope that all the troubles for his people would cease at the end of the 70^th seven. And Paul says these things are still in the future for Israel (Rom. 11:25-27).
12. Early church fathers who wrote extensively on eschatology — Irenaeus, Hippolytus and Appolinarius of Laodicea —were futurists, placing the 70^th seven close to the second coming. (No church father however believed in a pre-tribulation rapture.)

Reasons for a future Abomination of Desolation

 by Anthony F. Buzzard

1. There will be “nation rising against nation” before the end (Matt. 24:7). This did not occur before AD 70.
2. The preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom precedes the end, and the end is then associated with the abomination: “and then the end will come. Therefore when you see the Abomination…” (Matt. 24:14-15).
3. The “immediately after” of Matt. 24:29 links the Abomination with the arrival of the Messiah. It is impossible to extend the Great Tribulation over 2000 years, or to extend the heavenly signs over that period. The Great Tribulation “immediately after” which Jesus returns is evidently a short period of awful trouble.
4. This time frame is more than confirmed by the passage in Daniel from which Jesus says he is quoting. In Matt. 24:15 he refers the reader to Daniel’s Abomination which is found in Daniel 11:31 (the exact phrase that Jesus used). Daniel’s Abomination is set up, however, 1290 days (3½ years) before the end: “From the time of the Abomination of Desolation is set up …there will be 1290 days” (Dan. 12:11). This reference in Daniel 12:11 points back to 11:31 which is part of the one vision described in chapters 11-12 (and introduced in chapter 10).
5. The fact that Jesus is looking at the first-century Temple and referring to the destruction of a Temple yet future is not a problem when note is taken of Hebrew “corporate” thinking. Any Temple on that site may be called “this Temple.”  Proof of this is found in Haggai 2:3, 7, 9. In these verses the Temple which is no longer there is called “this” house, and the Temple of the future is likewise “this” house. Jesus may therefore easily refer to the buildings in front of him and describe the destruction of a Temple on the same site not yet built.
6. The references to an interference with the Temple in Revelation 11:1-2 point to a future Temple. The disturbance, “trampling” is to last for the same 3 ½ year period  (42 months) described by Daniel 11:31; 12:7, 11.
7. Paul refers to Daniel 11:36 (and 8:11) in 1 Thessalonians 2:4, speaking of the Antichrist. This is an event just preceding the Parousia.
8. The King of the North of Daniel 11:31 following is not the Pope, but an individual Antichrist arising in Assyria or Babylon (Iraq, Iran, Syria).
9. Jesus places the time of unprecedented Tribulation just before his Second Coming (Matt. 24:21). This is a quotation of Daniel 12:1 which belongs to the time of the resurrection (12:2), and it also occurs within the time frame provided by Daniel 11:31; 12:7, 11, just after the final King of the North (“at that time,” Dan. 12:1).
10. “Finally, the view that the seventieth week will be fulfilled immediately before Jesus’ return was held by the early Church, which received its doctrine from the apostles themselves. See the eschatological sections in Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Lactantius, and others” (Robert Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation, p. 193).