Understanding the Olivet Discourse

[dad]

So let's just stop talking about 2 halves of a 7 year Tribulation period? There is nothing to base this on in the book of Revelation, or in the NT Scriptures at all! It may be a popular theory, but there is zero biblical substantiation, and thus, we're safe to let it go. God isn't going to be mad if we don't refer to something that doesn't explicitly exist!

The Great Tribulation is not the seven years. The abomination of desolation in the midst of that seven years is when the Tribulation starts. 'THEN shall be great tribulation..'

Secondly, there is no evidence that the eschatological Day of God's Wrath is to be conflated with a "Tribulation Period," whether 3.5 years of 7 years. God's Day of Wrath is to be equated, biblically, with Christ's Coming to bring about a change upon the earth, determining the eternal fate of those involved in the Antichristian Conspiracy.

His wrath is actually dispensed in several phases.

Rev 15:7
And I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth.
Re 16:1 - And I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth.
That is not the battle of Armageddon, or His return, it is a series of judgments called the wrath of God.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The Great Tribulation is not the seven years. The abomination of desolation in the midst of that seven years is when the Tribulation starts. 'THEN shall be great tribulation..'

You're right that the Great Tribulation starts right after the AoD. The trouble is, most Christians, tainted by modern eschatology, misidentify what these things are!

In my opinion, the AoD is the Roman Army standing around the walls of Jerusalem, in a siege to destroy the temple. It was the end of Jewish religious practice under the Law.

Immediately after Rome destroyed Jerusalem and its temple in 70 AD a time of Jewish Diaspora was started, which Jesus called in Luke 21 the "Great Tribulation." And Jesus said it would last until his 2nd Coming. In fact it would mark the very character of this age, as one in which God's People would often fail, be judged, and then bringing judgment to their enemies.

His wrath is actually dispensed in several phases.

Rev 15:7
And I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth.
Re 16:1 - And I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth.
That is not the battle of Armageddon, or His return, it is a series of judgments called the wrath of God.

I don't agree. These vials of wrath are called God's final wrath, and they actually include the Battle of Armageddon!

Rev 15.1 Then I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvelous: seven angels having the seven last plagues, for in them the wrath of God is complete.

And the Seals, Trumpets, and Bowls are separate visions laying out this crescendo of judgment leading to Christ's Coming. They do not indicate that God's eschatological judgment takes place *throughout* the period of Antichrist's rule!

I agree with that. Judgments from God take place against wicked nations throughout history. It's just that final sentencing for individuals, with respect to their eternal destination, takes place after death. And for the Antichristian Empire, this judgment will be revealed in their destruction at Christ's Coming.

 

[Randy Kluth]

No. The Great Tribulation was a period of time in the very end and was of a fixed time. You conflate tribulations with the Great Tribulation, that will be unlike any other time.

Actually no. You are basing this on popular eschatology in modern times. The Early Church recognized that Jesus identified the Great Tribulation as the Jewish Diaspora, which included the suffering of Jewish Christians, as well. How can you *not* see the Great Tribulation as the Jewish Diaspora in this passage?

Luke 21.20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

Don't follow modern eschatology. Follow the Scriptures. If you need confirmation, go back to the writings of the Early Church. They were closer in time to Jesus, and better understood what he was saying.

 

[Randy Kluth]

There does not have to be a "Satan's last stand." It will be the churches fault though, since they are looking for Satan's last stand, instead of repentance and salvation.

We should be praying for God's will to be done, not Satan's will. Your choice though.

Don't be foolish. If you're going to avoid a trap, you have to know what trap is being set up for you. It is not a matter of excitedly looking to see what a trap looks like. It's a matter of avoiding the trap to survive.

Jesus told us to watch out for False Christs and False Prophets. And you would counsel Christians to ignore Jesus on this? No way!

2 Cor 2.11 we are not ignorant of his devices.

 

[Timtofly]

Don't be foolish. If you're going to avoid a trap, you have to know what trap is being set up for you. It is not a matter of excitedly looking to see what a trap looks like. It's a matter of avoiding the trap to survive.

Jesus told us to watch out for False Christs and False Prophets. And you would counsel Christians to ignore Jesus on this? No way!

2 Cor 2.11 we are not ignorant of his devices.

According to you, the church has already obeyed Jesus Christ by looking for false Christ for 2000 years. That part is over. Now Jesus Himself is coming. Look for Him.

 

[dad]

You're right that the Great Tribulation starts right after the AoD. The trouble is, most Christians, tainted by modern eschatology, misidentify what these things are!

In my opinion, the AoD is the Roman Army standing around the walls of Jerusalem, in a siege to destroy the temple. It was the end of Jewish religious practice under the Law.

No, we have had a lot more than three and a half years since then.

Immediately after Rome destroyed Jerusalem and its temple in 70 AD a time of Jewish Diaspora was started, which Jesus called in Luke 21 the "Great Tribulation." And Jesus said it would last until his 2nd Coming. In fact it would mark the very character of this age, as one in which God's People would often fail, be judged, and then bringing judgment to their enemies.

No. The Great Tribulation could not have started yet. Certainly not thousands of years ago.

I don't agree. These vials of wrath are called God's final wrath, and they actually include the Battle of Armageddon!

That's fine. It finishes with His return.

 

[dad]

Actually no. You are basing this on popular eschatology in modern times. The Early Church recognized that Jesus identified the Great Tribulation as the Jewish Diaspora, which included the suffering of Jewish Christians, as well. How can you *not* see the Great Tribulation as the Jewish Diaspora in this passage?

No they did not. Paul told us that time would not come until that man of sin was revealed.

Luke 21.20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

Right, even though it was trampled in the past also, in the future, in that end time it will get trampled again.

Don't follow modern eschatology. Follow the Scriptures. If you need confirmation, go back to the writings of the Early Church. They were closer in time to Jesus, and better understood what he was saying.

The word of God
is enough, and I doubt the early church disagreed.

 

[Randy Kluth]

No, we have had a lot more than three and a half years since then.

I never said anything about 3.5 years!

No. The Great Tribulation could not have started yet. Certainly not thousands of years ago.

And yet that's what Luke 21 says. I've quoted it.

That's fine. It finishes with His return.

Yes, we agree on that.

 

[dad]

I never said anything about 3.5 years!

When referring to a time of Great Tribulation 42 months long you better have!

And yet that's what Luke 21 says. I've quoted it.

Don't blame me if you do not understand what you quote.

 

[Davy]

No. The Great Tribulation was a period of time in the very end and was of a fixed time. You conflate tribulations with the Great Tribulation, that will be unlike any other time.

And that point is confirmed in Daniel 12:1 also, even linked with Revelation 12:7-9.

 

[Davy]

And yet that's what Luke 21 says. I've quoted it.

You're still not understanding the Luke 21 timing about the end of this world.

Jesus linked the Seals of His Revelation to the Signs He gave in His Olivet discourse. John was prisoner on the Isle of Patmos after 70 A.D. in the time of emperor Domitian. So how could our Lord Jesus link His Olivet discourse Signs to those Seals in Rev.6 then?

The reason is simple, it's because the Signs He was giving in His Olivet discourse are about the very end of this world, not past history, the major proof being that the last Sign He gave in His Olivet discourse was that of His 2nd coming, just as His disciples there asked Him about.

Does Luke 21 have 'some' parameters to point to the 70 A.D. destruction of Jerusalem and the Diaspora? Yes, just as Daniel 11 contains some prophetic parameters that were fulfilled by Antiochus IV in 170 B.C., yet our Lord about 200 years later forewarned of those events for the future. But those serve only as 'blueprints', types, so we might have a fuller understanding of the kind of things to expect for the very end of this world when Jesus returns.

It's bad enough that Pre-tribulationalists just scrap the whole Olivet discourse altogether, and tell their congregations all that is meant only for the Jews. But Preterism/Historicism throwing all that in the past is just as bad.

 

[dad]

The Early Church recognized that Jesus identified the Great Tribulation as the Jewish Diaspora.

Source?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Source?

The Early Church recognized that Jesus identified the Great Tribulation as the Jewish Diaspora.

It's generally known that the Early Church interpreted the Olivet Discourse as focusing on the desolation of the temple in 70 AD, and on the Jewish Dispersion to follow. The following link, written by a pretribulationist in Tacoma, WA, is, I think, a pathetic attempt to circumvent this reality by applying a false standard of proof.

He seeks to show that the Early Church Fathers rarely represented an historical interpretation of Dan 9 and Luke 21 by simply proving they were not Preterists in the full sense of that term. Simply by proving the Church Fathers generally held to a future belief in the coming of Antichrist and in the coming of Christ he thought he disproved any substantial connection between the Abomination of Desolation with the 66-70 AD war, and any connection between the Great Tribulation and the Jewish Dispersion.

But if you look carefully at how he presents the teachings of Tertullian, you will see quite a different picture. "Tertullian says of Jesus’ response to His disciples that He was referring to the order of Jewish events that would occur until the destruction of Jerusalem, but then the Gentiles would tread down Jerusalem until the Gentile period should end."

https://www.pre-trib.org/pretribfiles/pdfs/House-TheUnderstandingofth.pdf

This link shows the confusion over precisely how the Church Fathers viewed Dan 9 and the Olivet Discourse, and the associated terms. He focuses on what he perceived to be "mass confusion" on the subject. But I don't personally see the problem as anything more than a general consensus that the Olivet Discourse was an historical fulfillment to be best interpreted at the time of the fulfillment. Adding future elements to the prophecy does not create confusion, but is precisely what the Olivet Discourse was meant to do, namely to compare the future Coming of Christ with judgments against the Jews to precede that time.

Abomination of Desolation & the Early Church Fathers

The Church Fathers did address the Abomination of Desolation, as well as the Great Tribulation, both referenced in the Olivet Discourse. But I would have to look up previous studies I've done on the subject. If you don't know what they believed, I will try to spend the time to recover these sources? In the meantime, if you have evidence to the contrary please present it! I'm open to all info on the subject.

The only problem I see is as I showed you above. Authors with an agenda tend to disqualify such generalizations by creating a false comparison. We are not comparing the view of the Church Fathers with the entirety of Preterist theology! We are not disqualifying the Church Fathers as historical interpreters by proving that the Church Fathers were futurists! They obviously were both!

Rather, we are narrowing our search down to how the Church Fathers generally interpreted the Abomination of Desolation, the Great Tribulation, and the Olivet Discourse, particularly Luke 21. Did they see this as an historical fulfillment, leading up to a future Antichrist and to a future Coming of Christ? I believe so. Please provided evidence to the contrary. If you need my own studies on the subject, just ask. But the abundance of positions disinterested in this make it a little difficult to find quickly.

It might help you to look up the Bible Hub commentaries on Luke 21.23? They seem to suggest that this passage on the "Great Tribulation" is commonly associated with the Jewish tribulation that began in 70 AD and continues throughout the age.

Luke 21:23 Commentaries: "Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people;

Yes, in my documents I do have Church Fathers quotes on the AoD. But it is lengthy and somewhat difficult to read. There is a general understanding of the historicity of Dan 9 and of the Olivet Discourse. But there is also some confusion of the use of the associated terms, Abomination of Desolation and Great Tribulation, whether to be applied as historical or future.

My point is not that some of these terms were applied, by the Church Fathers, as futurist. Rather, my point is that generally, the Olivet Discourse was interpreted in an historical Jewish context, referring to the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem and to the ensuing Jewish Diaspora.

 

[dad]

The Early Church recognized that Jesus identified the Great Tribulation as the Jewish Diaspora.

It's generally known that the Early Church interpreted the Olivet Discourse as focusing on the desolation of the temple in 70 AD, and on the Jewish Dispersion to follow. The following link, written by a pretribulationist in Tacoma, WA, is, I think, a pathetic attempt to circumvent this reality by applying a false standard of proof.

He seeks to show that the Early Church Fathers rarely represented an historical interpretation of Dan 9 and Luke 21 by simply proving they were not Preterists in the full sense of that term. Simply by proving the Church Fathers generally held to a future belief in the coming of Antichrist and in the coming of Christ he thought he disproved any substantial connection between the Abomination of Desolation with the 66-70 AD war, and any connection between the Great Tribulation and the Jewish Dispersion.

But if you look carefully at how he presents the teachings of Tertullian, you will see quite a different picture. "Tertullian says of Jesus’ response to His disciples that He was referring to the order of Jewish events that would occur until the destruction of Jerusalem, but then the Gentiles would tread down Jerusalem until the Gentile period should end."

https://www.pre-trib.org/pretribfiles/pdfs/House-TheUnderstandingofth.pdf

This link shows the confusion over precisely how the Church Fathers viewed Dan 9 and the Olivet Discourse, and the associated terms. He focuses on what he perceived to be "mass confusion" on the subject. But I don't personally see the problem as anything more than a general consensus that the Olivet Discourse was an historical fulfillment to be best interpreted at the time of the fulfillment. Adding future elements to the prophecy does not create confusion, but is precisely what the Olivet Discourse was meant to do, namely to compare the future Coming of Christ with judgments against the Jews to precede that time.

Abomination of Desolation & the Early Church Fathers

The Church Fathers did address the Abomination of Desolation, as well as the Great Tribulation, both referenced in the Olivet Discourse. But I would have to look up previous studies I've done on the subject. If you don't know what they believed, I will try to spend the time to recover these sources? In the meantime, if you have evidence to the contrary please present it! I'm open to all info on the subject.

The only problem I see is as I showed you above. Authors with an agenda tend to disqualify such generalizations by creating a false comparison. We are not comparing the view of the Church Fathers with the entirety of Preterist theology! We are not disqualifying the Church Fathers as historical interpreters by proving that the Church Fathers were futurists! They obviously were both!

Rather, we are narrowing our search down to how the Church Fathers generally interpreted the Abomination of Desolation, the Great Tribulation, and the Olivet Discourse, particularly Luke 21. Did they see this as an historical fulfillment, leading up to a future Antichrist and to a future Coming of Christ? I believe so. Please provided evidence to the contrary. If you need my own studies on the subject, just ask. But the abundance of positions disinterested in this make it a little difficult to find quickly.

It might help you to look up the Bible Hub commentaries on Luke 21.23? They seem to suggest that this passage on the "Great Tribulation" is commonly associated with the Jewish tribulation that began in 70 AD and continues throughout the age.

Luke 21:23 Commentaries: "Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people;

Yes, in my documents I do have Church Fathers quotes on the AoD. But it is lengthy and somewhat difficult to read. There is a general understanding of the historicity of Dan 9 and of the Olivet Discourse. But there is also some confusion of the use of the associated terms, Abomination of Desolation and Great Tribulation, whether to be applied as historical or future.

My point is not that some of these terms were applied, by the Church Fathers, as futurist. Rather, my point is that generally, the Olivet Discourse was interpreted in an historical Jewish context, referring to the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem and to the ensuing Jewish Diaspora.

No one that knew what they were talking about was confused about the issue. The so called church fathers is a vague term. The apostles never uttered any such confused notions. Looking at your links I see that the people you cite were after the fact and less than clear.

 

[Davy]

The Early Church recognized that Jesus identified the Great Tribulation as the Jewish Diaspora.

It's generally known that the Early Church interpreted the Olivet Discourse as focusing on the desolation of the temple in 70 AD, and on the Jewish Dispersion to follow. The following link, written by a pretribulationist in Tacoma, WA, is, I think, a pathetic attempt to circumvent this reality by applying a false standard of proof.

He seeks to show that the Early Church Fathers rarely represented an historical interpretation of Dan 9 and Luke 21 by simply proving they were not Preterists in the full sense of that term. Simply by proving the Church Fathers generally held to a future belief in the coming of Antichrist and in the coming of Christ he thought he disproved any substantial connection between the Abomination of Desolation with the 66-70 AD war, and any connection between the Great Tribulation and the Jewish Dispersion.

But if you look carefully at how he presents the teachings of Tertullian, you will see quite a different picture. "Tertullian says of Jesus’ response to His disciples that He was referring to the order of Jewish events that would occur until the destruction of Jerusalem, but then the Gentiles would tread down Jerusalem until the Gentile period should end."

https://www.pre-trib.org/pretribfiles/pdfs/House-TheUnderstandingofth.pdf

This link shows the confusion over precisely how the Church Fathers viewed Dan 9 and the Olivet Discourse, and the associated terms. He focuses on what he perceived to be "mass confusion" on the subject. But I don't personally see the problem as anything more than a general consensus that the Olivet Discourse was an historical fulfillment to be best interpreted at the time of the fulfillment. Adding future elements to the prophecy does not create confusion, but is precisely what the Olivet Discourse was meant to do, namely to compare the future Coming of Christ with judgments against the Jews to precede that time.

Abomination of Desolation & the Early Church Fathers

The Church Fathers did address the Abomination of Desolation, as well as the Great Tribulation, both referenced in the Olivet Discourse. But I would have to look up previous studies I've done on the subject. If you don't know what they believed, I will try to spend the time to recover these sources? In the meantime, if you have evidence to the contrary please present it! I'm open to all info on the subject.

The only problem I see is as I showed you above. Authors with an agenda tend to disqualify such generalizations by creating a false comparison. We are not comparing the view of the Church Fathers with the entirety of Preterist theology! We are not disqualifying the Church Fathers as historical interpreters by proving that the Church Fathers were futurists! They obviously were both!

Rather, we are narrowing our search down to how the Church Fathers generally interpreted the Abomination of Desolation, the Great Tribulation, and the Olivet Discourse, particularly Luke 21. Did they see this as an historical fulfillment, leading up to a future Antichrist and to a future Coming of Christ? I believe so. Please provided evidence to the contrary. If you need my own studies on the subject, just ask. But the abundance of positions disinterested in this make it a little difficult to find quickly.

It might help you to look up the Bible Hub commentaries on Luke 21.23? They seem to suggest that this passage on the "Great Tribulation" is commonly associated with the Jewish tribulation that began in 70 AD and continues throughout the age.

Luke 21:23 Commentaries: "Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people;

Yes, in my documents I do have Church Fathers quotes on the AoD. But it is lengthy and somewhat difficult to read. There is a general understanding of the historicity of Dan 9 and of the Olivet Discourse. But there is also some confusion of the use of the associated terms, Abomination of Desolation and Great Tribulation, whether to be applied as historical or future.

My point is not that some of these terms were applied, by the Church Fathers, as futurist. Rather, my point is that generally, the Olivet Discourse was interpreted in an historical Jewish context, referring to the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem and to the ensuing Jewish Diaspora.

You'd have to present sources from the actual 1st century Church fathers that give that idea. Those links don't do that, and Pre-tribulationalists in our times have been caught doing Revisionism of the Church fathers, so they definitely don't present a believable source.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You'd have to present sources from the actual 1st century Church fathers that give that idea. Those links don't do that, and Pre-tribulationalists in our times have been caught doing Revisionism of the Church fathers, so they definitely don't present a believable source.

I never intended to refer only to "1st century Church fathers!" My point is that the Church Fathers, generally, saw the 70th Week of Daniel and the Great Tribulation of the Olivet Discourse as fulfilled in the 66-70 AD war, in the destruction of Jerusalem at that time, and in the ensuing Jewish Dispersion, which lasts throughout the age.

 

[Randy Kluth]

No one that knew what they were talking about was confused about the issue. The so called church fathers is a vague term. The apostles never uttered any such confused notions. Looking at your links I see that the people you cite were after the fact and less than clear.

I was speaking of the Church Fathers as a whole in what I'm referring to as the "Early Church." I'm not talking about the earliest of the Early Church Fathers. The confusion I refer to is on the part of the Pretribulationist I quoted from Tacoma who saw in the multiplicity of views a contradiction between what seemed to him as a blend of Preterism and Futurism. He banked on this so-called "confusion" in order to discount the fact the Church Fathers were clearly interpreting the Olivet Discourse and the 70th Week of Dan 9 as historical.

Yes, the Church Fathers were not straight forward Preterists, but rather, historical interpreters of these sections of Scriptures, while at the same time being futurists, with respect to Antichrist and the 2nd Coming.

If I quote to you from the various views by the Church Fathers there are some distinct differences, and these can be confusing. I've parsed them out personally, as much as I can. The conclusion I've come up with, however, is that there is *not* all this confusion, but rather, a general historical view of Dan 9 and the 70 Weeks, linked together with the Olivet Discourse of Jesus.

The Abomination of Desolation was, for the most part, the Roman siege of Jerusalem, while there may have been one or two who felt this was the Antichrist. The Great Tribulation was, for the most part, the Distress experienced by the Jews during and immediately after the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem, lasting throughout the entire age. Hence, I call this Great Tribulation the "Jewish Diaspora."

 

[Randy Kluth]

Tertullian sees the 70 Weeks Prophecy of Dan 9 as fulfilled in the time of Christ. In this he refers to Christ as the "Unction," or "Anointed One." He also sees the rejection of Christ by the Jews as the cause of Jewish suffering and tribulation. That is likely how Tertullian interpreted the Olivet Discourse, as the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD as a consequence of the Jews rejecting Christ.

Tertullian (c. 160-225) An Answer to the Jews: Chap. XIII.--Argument from the Destruction of Jerusalem and Desolation of Judea.
Therefore, since the sons of Israel affirm that we err in receiving the Christ, who is already come, let us put in a demurrer against them out of the Scriptures themselves, to the effect that the Christ who was the theme of prediction is come; albeit by the times of Daniel’s prediction we have proved that the Christ is come already who was the theme of announcement... Now, if (according to the Jews) He is hitherto not come, when He begins to come whence will He be anointed? For the Law enjoined that, in captivity, it was not lawful for the unction of the royal chrism to be compounded. But, if there is no longer “unction” there as Daniel prophesied (for he says, “Unction shall be exterminated”), it follows that they no longer have it, because neither have they a temple where was the “horn” from which kings were wont to be anointed. If, then, there is no unction, whence shall be anointed the “leader” who shall be born in Bethlehem? or how shall he proceed “from Bethlehem,” seeing that of the seed of Israel none at all exists in Bethlehem... A second time, in fact, let us show that Christ is already come, (as foretold) through the prophets, and has suffered, and is already received back in the heavens, and thence is to come accordingly as the predictions prophesied. For, after His advent, we read, according to Daniel, that the city itself had to be exterminated; and we recognize that so it has befallen. For the Scripture says thus, that “the city and the holy place are simultaneously exterminated together with the leader,” —undoubtedly (that Leader) who was to proceed “from Bethlehem,” and from the tribe of “Judah.” Whence, again, it is manifest that “the city must simultaneously be exterminated” at the time when its “Leader” had to suffer in it, (as foretold) through the Scriptures of the prophets... Since, therefore, the Jews were predicted as destined to suffer these calamities on Christ’s account, and we find that they have suffered them, and see them sent into dispersion and abiding in it, manifest it is that it is on Christ’s account that these things have befallen the Jews, the sense of the Scriptures harmonizing with the issue of events and of the order of the times.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Clement of Alexandria (150 - c. 215 ) saw that the 70 Weeks of Dan 9 were fulfilled in the time of Christ, with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in his generation. Jesus is here identified as the "Holy of Holies," just as Tertullian described him as the "Unction," or "Anointed."

In connecting the Abomination of Desolation of Dan 9 with the Olivet Discourse of Jesus, Clement sees the AoD of the Olivet Discourse to be the same as the AoD of Dan 9, which is the destruction of the temple in the time of the Romans.

Clement does take an unusual turn from other positions on the 7 weeks and the 1 week of Dan 9. He seems to view Christ ruling, in a pre-incarnate sense, during the rebuilding of Jerusalem in the days of Nehemiah. And he views the 70th week as fulfilled in the Nero in the 1st half of the 70th Week, and Vespasian in the last half of the 70th Week. This alters the view of other Fathers, who viewed Christ as the one who fulfills the 70th Week.

Clement of Alexandria The Stromata, Book 1, Chap. XXI (c. A.D. 190)
From the captivity at Babylon, which took place in the time of Jeremiah the prophet, was fulfilled what was spoken by Daniel the prophet as follows: "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to seal sins, and to wipe out and make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal the vision and the prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies. Know therefore, and understand, that from the going forth of the word commanding an answer to be given, and Jerusalem to be built, to Christ the Prince, are seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; and the street shall be again built, and the wall; and the times shall be expended. And after the sixty-two weeks the anointing shall be overthrown, and judgment shall not be in him; and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary along with the coming Prince. And they shall be destroyed in a flood, and to the end of the war shall be cut off by: desolations. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week; and in the middle of the week the sacrifice and oblation shall be taken away; and in the holy place shall be the abomination of desolations, and until the consummation of time shall the consummation be assigned for desolation. And in the midst of the week shall he make the incense of sacrifice cease, and of the wing of destruction, even till the consummation, like the destruction of the oblation." That the temple accordingly was built in seven weeks, is evident; for it is written in Esdras. And thus Christ became King of the Jews, reigning in Jerusalem in the fulfilment of the seven weeks. And in the sixty and two weeks the whole of Judaea was quiet, and without wars. And Christ our Lord, "the Holy of Holies," having come and fulfilled the vision and the prophecy, was anointed in His flesh by the Holy Spirit of His Father.
In those "sixty and two weeks," as the prophet said, and "in the one week," was He Lord. The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away, and Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius. And Vespasian rose to the supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place. And that such are the facts of the case, is clear to him that is able to understand, as the prophet said.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Origen shared the belief that the 70 Weeks of Dan 9 was fulfilled in the time of Christ. That would suggest that the Abomination of Desolation, which follows, the 70 Weeks, was fulfilled in the same time frame.

Origen, De Principiis, Book IV: Chap. 1, Sec. 5 (c. A.D. 225)
The weeks of years, also, which the prophet Daniel had predicted, extending to the leadership of Christ, have been fulfilled.