Pages

Thursday, June 05, 2014

The abomination of desolation


A few points about the "abomination of desolation," and related issues:
i) On the traditional view, at the time of writing this was future to Daniel.
ii) Even conservative commentators think the Danielic references include (but are not exclusive to) Antiochus Epiphanes. For instance, they may view Antiochus as a type of the eschatological Antichrist.
iii) What about 2 Thes 2 and the Olivet Discourse? I think it likely that these are both backward-looking and forward-looking. Given the fact that Antiochus was such a notorious figure in Jewish history, I assume the Danielic oracles would by that time carry Antiochean connotations. When Jesus and Paul quote these prophecies, with the Intertestamental Period behind them, I think there'd be unavoidable associations between the Danielic oracles and the Antiochean crisis–in the minds of Paul, Jesus, and a Jewish audience.
iv) In addition, as Gordon Fee points out in his commentary, by the time Paul penned 2 Thessalonians, the Second Temple had already been desecrated on three separate occasions: by Antiochus, Pompey, and Caligula. 
v) On the other hand, Jesus and Paul obviously apply this to a future event. Typology can do justice to both a prospective and retrospective outlook. More than one person or event can exemplify the same repeatable principle.
Even if we accept the preterist identifications in 2 Thes 2 and the Olivet Discourse, that doesn't mean the prophecy is past–anymore than recognizing Antiochus or Pompey stepping into that role precludes future actors from reprising the same part.  

2 comments:

  1. So it seems like you are more in line with D. A. Caron's view that this is one of the several types you find in Revelation that are essentially recurring themes. I think he would argue (based on his series of lectures on Revelation) that they may well (and probably do) refer to a penultimate version but until then, they recur again and again.

    Is that the sort of thing you are getting at here?

    ReplyDelete