The phrase, “Achilles’ heel,” refers to a weakness or crucial vulnerability. When applied to a set of beliefs, it denotes a flaw that undermines the credibility of the whole.
Is there such a weak spot in amillennialism that undermines all its other precepts?
The basic assumption of amillennialism is that God is finished with Israel. They reach this conclusion in at least a couple of ways. Some claim that God rejected Israel after Jesus’ crucifixion and replaced the nation with the church (Replacement Theology). Others insist that the Lord always intended for Israel to become the church as part of a continuing covenant of grace.
The four basic tenets of amillennialism, listed below, rest entirely on its core assumption that God’s purpose for the nation of Israel has ended:
The church is the new Israel.
There will be no future restoration of a kingdom to Israel.
There will be no literal seven-year Tribulation.
There will be no literal thousand-year reign of Jesus in-between the Tribulation and eternal state.
What if God is not done with Israel? Is there one passage in particular that refutes the basic assumption of all amillennial beliefs? I believe there is.
Jesus’ words in Matthew 24:15–18 is the text that I regard as the Achilles’ heel of all the teachings that dismiss Israel as irrelevant to Bible prophecy. If these verses await a future fulfillment, it demonstrates that God’s purposes for the Jewish people remain intact to this very day.
Amillennialists, on the other hand, must place the temple defilement, the event Jesus mentioned in Matthew 24:15–18, in AD 70 when the Roman general Titus ransacked Jerusalem and destroyed the second temple. If His words refer to a still future time, then amillennialism and all its offshoots cannot be true.
What makes these verses in Matthew 24 so vital? It’s their link to a critical prophecy found in the book of Daniel.
It’s the Seventieth Week of Daniel
One must interpret Jesus’ prophetic words in Matthew 24:15–18 in light of their context in Matthew 24 as well as that of Daniel 9:24-27.
The Matthew 24:1–2 conversation between Jesus and His disciples regarding the temple began with Jesus’ lament over Jerusalem when He said “your house is left to you desolate” (Matthew 23:39). Trying to make sense of His words, the twelve pointed out the grand buildings that comprised the temple as they left it courtyards. Can you imagine their shock when the Lord responded by predicting its total destruction?
When they reached the Mount of Olives, the disciples asked Jesus about the signs of the end of the age and His “coming” (Matthew 24:3). After listing several signs of the last days, the Lord spoke these words as recorded in Matthew 24:15–18:
So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let the one who is on the housetop not go down to take what is in his house, and let the one who is in the field not turn back to take his cloak.
The words, “the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel,” tie Jesus’ words to the seventy weeks’ prophecy recorded in Daniel 9:24–27. There God specified seventy weeks of years for the fulfillment of His purposes for the Jewish people and Jerusalem. Jesus’ prophecy in the above passage predicts the defilement of a temple, which Daniel 9:27 says will happen at the midpoint of the seventieth week.
God said the last week will begin with a seven-year covenant between a future “prince” and “the many” (a group that certainly includes Israel). He also stated that three and a half years later, the midpoint of the week, this ruler will break the covenant by desecrating the temple. That’s the event Jesus refers to in Matthew 24:15.
Is it possible that Titus’ destruction of the temple in AD 70 fulfilled what Jesus predicted in Matthew 24? No, it is not. I say that for the following reasons:
There is no record of any seven-year covenant or agreement between the Roman general and Israel such as the Lord told Daniel would initiate the seventieth week.
Paul wrote that the Lord Himself would destroy the temple defiler at His coming (2 Thessalonians 2:3–8). However, Titus died of natural consequences eleven years after destroying the temple; the Lord didn’t directly kill him at the end of the seventieth week.
Paul also wrote that this “man of lawlessness” would proclaim himself to be God while sitting in the temple (2 Thessalonians 2:4). Why would he destroy the very place he needs to maintain his ruse of deity?
The above arguments might settle the argument once and for all if not for a passage in Luke that many equate with Matthew 24:15–18.
What About Jesus’ words in Luke 21:20–24?
Those who believe that Titus fulfilled Jesus’ words concerning Daniel’s “abomination of desolation” say that Luke 21:20–24 is another version of Matthew 24:15–18. They say that together, they represent Jesus’ full response to the disciples’ question regarding the temple destruction.
But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it, for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written. Alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! For there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people. They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
Do the above verses point to the events of AD 70 when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the temple? Yes, I believe they do.
On the other hand, is it possible to harmonize the Luke passage concerning the events of AD 70 with Jesus’ words in Matthew 24:15–18? No, it is not possible. The two passages cannot be harmonized into a single response to the disciples’ question regarding the temple destruction because of the following key differences:
First: There’s a key difference in what happens to the temple. In Matthew 24:15–18, Jesus predicts the desecration of the temple by a future rule. His words in Luke 21:20–24 depict the time when Titus would destroy the temple.
Second: The most significant difference between the Matthew and Luke passages is the warning signal that Jesus gives of imminent danger. In Luke 21:20, it’s the sight of “Jerusalem surrounded by armies” that alerts the Jewish people to the threat. In Matthew 24:15, it’s entirely different—it’s when those in Judea “see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place.” The passages refer to two separate events with two very different signs that alert the Jewish people of the imminent peril to their lives.
Third: In Matthew 24:15–18, Jesus instructs the Jews living at that time to flee for their lives when they see antichrist standing in the holy place of the temple. Although Luke’s reference to the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem also includes a warning to leave the area, there is a key difference. In Luke 21:24 the Lord also predicts that the people will “be led captive among all the nations.”
Fourth: Although the persecution of the Jews that follows both events is quite similar, there is one glaring difference: in Matthew 24:15–28, the judgments extend to the entire world in what Jesus describes as a time of “great tribulation.” He says this period will be so severe that unless “those days had been cut short, no human being would be saved” (Matthew 24: 22). There is no forced captivity of the Jews here, but only that of persecution aimed at their annihilation along with the rest of humanity.
Fifth: The worldwide calamity that follows Jesus’ prediction of the temple desecrations leads directly to His glorious return to the earth (Matthew 24:29–31). His Second Coming will cut short this time of “great tribulation” and prevent the ending of all human life on the planet. This is far different than the “distress” mentioned in the Luke passage leads to the trampling of Jerusalem “underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled” which aptly sums up the past two thousand years (Luke 21:24).
If Jesus’ words in Luke 21:20–24 refer to a completely different event than that of the temple desecration, and they do, then His words in Matthew 24:15–18 must await a future fulfillment when they will lead directly to His return and the rescue of Jews living in Jerusalem (Zechariah 14:1-8).
How Do We Account for the Two Different Prophecies?
Since Jesus’ words in Luke 21:20–24 and Matthew 24:15–18 refer to distinct events separated by nearly two thousand years, how we account for the fact that He spoke them so close together, perhaps during the same afternoon?
The most likely explanation, and the one I favor, is that Jesus spoke the words recorded in Luke 21:20–24 as He and His disciples walked out of its courtyard, shortly after predicting its total destruction. After they reached the Mount of Olives, He addressed the future defilement of the temple—the “abomination of desolation” spoken of by the prophet Daniel.
It’s also possible that Jesus addressed both matters on the Mount of Olives, but only Matthew recorded His words concerning the fulfillment of Daniel 9:27.
What we do know, however, is that the differences between these passages are far too significant to harmonize them into a single prophecy describing one event.
God Is Not Yet Finished with Israel
Because Jesus’ words in Matthew 24:15–18 await a future fulfillment, we know that God’s purposes for the entire seventy weeks of Daniel’s prophecy also await a future fulfillment.
Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. (Daniel 9:24)
Please note that the Lord did not decree sixty-nine weeks for the completion of His purposes for the Jewish people and Jerusalem, nor did He declare His purposes for Israel would end halfway through the final week with the temple destruction. The above words dictate Israel’s existence for the entire seventy weeks.
If the seventieth week indeed awaits a future fulfillment as I have shown, then it’s also certain God’s purposes for the nation of Israel remain to this day because He has not yet completed His stated purposes for His people and city. This invalidates the core belief of amillennialism, namely that God is finished with Israel upon which all its other beliefs rest.
In other words, the church cannot be Israel’s replacement, nor can it be a new spiritual extension of its kingdom.
And if this is the case, and it is, it exposes the Achilles’ heel of amillennialism, namely that God is not yet finished with Israel.
There are many other biblical references that affirm Israel’s restoration during Jesus’ thousand-year rule over the nations. It will have a prominent place in His kingdom as He reigns from Jerusalem.
Jesus’ words in Matthew 24:15–18 confirm that Daniel’s seventieth week awaits a future fulfillment and as such, exposes the fundamental flaw of amillennialism: it’s insistence that God is finished with the nation of Israel.
My book, The Triumph of the Redeemed–An eternal Perspective that Calms Our Fears in Perilous Times, is available on Amazon. This book provides a great deal of biblical support regarding the restoration of a kingdom to Israel. It’s the basis of our hope in Jesus’ imminent appearing to take us to the place that He’s preparing for us.
Note: Please consider signing up for my newsletter on the home page of my website at https://www.jonathanbrentner.com/. It will greatly help me in reaching more people with the truth regarding Israel’s future. Thanks!