|
It is very possible that the events that occurred in 167/8 BC involving Antiochus IV fit Daniel's prophecies. However, this does not preclude Daniel's prophecies from also referring to the same type of event occurring at a later time, which in fact Jesus clearly indicates to be the case. It maybe that Jesus intends that these literal events associated with Antiochus IV foreshadow an even greater spiritual crisis that would occur in the future. Whatever its significance, it is, at least, clear that Jesus saw the things spoken of in Daniel's prophecies as symbols of events that would occur in the future. What then remains is to discover which future events Jesus wants us to understand as the meaning of Daniel's prophecies. (66:1) Jerusalem Surrounded by Armies-- Some Christian commentators believe that the event Jesus refers to as the 'abomination of desolation' has already occurred. That is, they believe Jesus is alluding to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in AD 70 83 The most compelling reason to accept this view is largely based on Luke 21:20. In what appears to be a slightly different account of Jesus' Olivet Discourse, Luke does not mention Daniel or use the terminology 'abomination of desolation'. Instead, Luke records the following:@ (66:2) But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. (Luke 21:20) (66:3) Because Luke mentions that Jerusalem will be surrounded by armies, it is assumed to be a clear prophecy of the Jewish Wars in AD 70 and AD 135, in which Roman armies surrounded Jerusalem. In some respects, this understanding is plausible because what Jesus prophesied did occur, at least in part, during the Jewish Wars. But a strict literal interpretation is problematic since records indicate that, unlike Antiochus IV, the Romans did not attempt to force the Jews to accept the Roman religion or worship an idol. They simply destroyed the Temple. Some Christians have also argued that such an interpretation is difficult to fit into the full context of Jesus' entire discourse.
(66:4)
|