Personally I agree with what you are saying with regard to the Dispensationalist's insistence that the 70th week of Daniel did not take place at the time of Christ,
but as with them, certain assertions you make ignore biblical facts and are therefore highly debatable. For example, you state that:
Dispensationalism views the "Abomination of Desolation," mentioned in both Dan 9 and Matt 24, as a reference to the Antichrist.
That's where divergence from a correct interpretation of Matthew 24:15 starts.
Encyclopedias (including Wikipedia) will tell you that the words
"abomination of desolation" mentioned in Matthew 24:15 are a phrase from the Book of Daniel describing the pagan sacrifices with which the 2nd century BC Greek king Antiochus IV Epiphanes replaced the twice-daily offering in the Jewish temple, or alternatively the altar on which such offerings were made.
That abomination of desolation is
NOT mentioned in Daniel 9:27:
- The abomination(s) mentioned in Daniel 9:27 are linked by verse 26 to
the desolation of both Jerusalem and the temple.
- but the
abomination of desolation (mentioned in Daniel 8:11; Daniel 11:31; and Daniel 12:11)
did not cause the destruction of either the temple, or the city of Jerusalem (the temple was cleansed after Antiochus's armies had been ousted, and reconsecrated to God - something which is still today celebrated by Jews as a holiday - chanukkah)
Jesus spoke of the coming
destruction of the temple when He was on the Temple Mount - before departing for the Mount of Olives - which alludes to Daniel 9:27
Luke 21:20-24 records that later, on the Mount of Olives, Jesus also spoke of the coming destruction
of Jerusalem - again something which is mentioned in Daniel 9:26-27
in connection with the coming of the Messiah.
- but His reference to the
abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet standing in the holy place is not referring or alluding to anything written in Daniel 9:27 - but directly referring to Daniel 8:11; Daniel 11:31; and Daniel 12:11
- which has nothing to do with
the destruction of either the temple or the city.
Paul later told us what Jesus was referring to in Matthew 24:15 when he alluded to it in 2 Thessalonians 2:4.
The school of interpretation you belong to is large - and that school
conflates the abomination(s) associated with
the destruction of the temple and the city (Daniel 9:26-27) with an
abomination of desolation that
does not cause the destruction of either the temple, or the city of Jerusalem.
Your interpretation also completely ignores the fact that the only way the words "the holy place" in Matthew 24:15 and "standing where it does not belong" in Mark 13:14 can be referring to the temple that was destroyed in AD70, is if that temple was indeed
the holy place.
Not only is the above the case, but the large school of interpretation you belong to cannot even agree as to what exactly it was that constituted the
abomination of desolation in AD70.
The Book of Revelation was looked at by Dispensationalists as separated into two parts, the present Church Age and the final 7 years of Antichristian rule. The Church would be Raptured just before the rise of Antichrist, coinciding with John's Rapture to Heaven to see his visions. What followed would be 7 years of Antichristian rule prior to the Battle of Armageddon and Christ's 2nd Coming.
Aside from their insertion of Daniel 9:26-27's seven years into the Revelation, there's no problem with that. Everything that follows the messages to the seven churches in the Revelation from Chapter 4 onward is talking about the 42 months immediately preceding the return of Christ - which is why Jesus made a promise
to those who overcome seven times to the churches - once to each church.
One only needs to compare Jesus's promises to those who overcome with the common symbols and themes found in Revelation
chapters 4, 15 & 20 to spot this fact:
- Four beasts mentioned in both passages.
- Sea of glass mentioned in both passages.
- 24 elders clothed in white raiment / crowns [stephanos] of gold on their heads (Revelation 4:4).
- Those who had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, are seen standing on the sea of glass, having the harps of God (Revelation 15:2).
- The same ones are seen alive [zao] and reigning with Christ in Revelation 20:4-6, where John is told that this is the first resurrection of the body [anastasis].
The overlapping of interpretations based on ignoring of biblical facts that exists between different schools of interpretation are exactly the places where all the schools begin to reinforce one another's views - hence the overlapping of the Preterist view of the Olivet Discourse with yours (and with all Amillennialst's view) only serves to build fortresses of the mind in those who hold overlapping views.
For example, the belief by Preterists that much of the Olivet Discourse is about the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD can be held to along with Futurist beliefs.
Exactly.
So, this is where I've come out. I believe the 70th Week of Daniel was fulfilled at the death of Christ.
So do I - in the middle of the seven years.
And I believe the Abomination of Desolation was fulfilled when the Roman Army defeated Jerusalem in 70 AD.
Then that temple was the holy place - not the church - because only something sacrilegious standing in a temple where the presence of the Spirit of God is, can be called an abomination of desolation.
- and what you say above also did not fulfill the prophecy Jesus made regarding the abomination of desolation
- because the abomination of desolation that Jesus was referring to is not something that causes the destruction of Jerusalem or the Temple of God - the prophecy in Daniel that Jesus was referring to is not mentioned in Daniel 9:27
- it's mentioned only in Daniel 8:11; Daniel 11:31; and Daniel 12:11.
I'm also a Postribulationist who believes in a future 3.5 year Reign of Antichrist with the Church being Raptured at the end of this period.
So am I.
And I believe the Olivet Discourse was focused primarily on the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD
Is that why Jesus spoke about the persecution and tribulation that
the living stones of the New Covenant Temple of God would experience when He answered their question?
Jesus prophesied that
not one stone of the Old Covenant Temple would be left standing - while He was on the Temple Mount, before departing from the Temple Mount
and making His way to the Mount of Olives.
1. Where in the Olivet Discourse did Jesus speak to His disciples about
the 'tribulation and persecution' that the stones of the Old Covenant Temple would experience? Where in the Olivet Discourse did He specifically mention the Old Covenant Temple again after having once announced it was going to be destroyed?
2. Is not not remaining true to the gospel
to acknowledge the fact that
the Old Covenant ended and the New Covenant came when Jesus died and the veil in the old temple was torn in two?
It is indeed remaining true to the gospel to acknowledge the above. It's also true that the temple in Jerusalem was an integral part of, and represented
that Old Covenant.
How is it that Christians would later assert that the physical temple
was still the holy place 40 years later when Rome destroyed it? What significance did that building in Jerusalem actually have when it was destroyed? Where was
the Temple of God? Who was Jesus warning about their tribulation and persecution at the time of the end of the age, in the Olivet Discourse? The living stones of the Temple of God, or the stones of the Old Covenant Temple?
Which temple was important to God in 70 A.D - HIS Temple? Or the old temple in Jerusalem?
Which temple was important to God
when Jesus answered the disciples' question(s) on the Mount of Olives? God's Temple? Or the old temple?
Only Preterists and Part-Preterists can explain what part of the gospel they do not believe in order to have the Old Covenant continuing until 70 A.D.
Only those who have the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place assigned to the temple in Jerusalem or the city itself can explain what part of the gospel they do not believe in order to have it that way.