BOCK GIVETH AND BOCK TAKETH AWAY

I am continuing a lengthy review of progressive dispensationalist Darrell L. Bock's commentary on the Olivet Discourse material in Luke 21 (Luke: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the NT [1994], v. 2). Bock is one of the brighter stars in the progressive dispensational galaxy. His work cannot be avoided if we are to accurately understand, relevantly critique, and effectively rebut the progressive dispensational system.

Neither may we skirt the issue of the Olivet Discourse in the various eschatological systems. This famous discourse by our Lord has generated the most intense scholarly scrutiny of any of his major discourses. It has also had the greatest popular impact on the modern fundamentalist outlook and Christian publishing in the field of prophecy. Christ's words have been greatly employed in erecting the detailed and extravagant — though ever popular and financially profitable — eschatological schemes of prophetic populists such as Hal Lindsey. All eschatological inquiry will eventually make its way back to Olivet; and most of it begins there. Hence, the significance of our study.

First, I recognize that Lindsey and his loose-cannon friends are deemed embarrassing advocates by both revised and progressive dispensationalists. See: revised dispensationalist Lightner, "The Last Days Handbook," 172; and progressive dispensationalist Bock, "Charting Dispensationalism" in Christianity Today (Sept. 12, 1993), 27. You cannot point to Lindsey by way of rebutting Bock. This reality is important to grasp, and is one of the justifications for our newsletter. Of the whole revised dispensationalist enterprise, reformed exegetes have noted that since light travels faster than sound that must explain why some people appear bright until the speak.

Nevertheless, second, an interesting but little known fact is that the infamous higher critical "Jesus Seminar" was partly sparked by a liberal reaction to Lindseyesque apocalypticism. The left-leaning members of the Seminar were alarmed at the political influence such apocalyptic speculation was having on the Reagan White House.

In last month's newsletter I summarized, critiqued, and rebutted Bock's exposition of Luke 21:8-10. I now move on to the next section of Luke's version of the Olivet Discourse.

In Luke 21:11 Jesus prophesies: "there will be great earthquakes, and in various places plagues and famines; and there will be terrors and great signs from heaven." Lindsey's entire fortune has been built on this statement. Nothing sells like prophetic pablum calling for disasters on this scale.

I largely agree with Bock's understanding of this prophetic dictum. Bock's (and my!) view, however, is contradictory to Walvoord's revised dispensationalist analysis. The remarkable fact is: My postmillennial preterism is oftentimes close to the progressive dispensational analysis of some features of the Olivet Discourse. But my views virtually never parallel revised dispensationalism (Walvoord, Pentecost, Ryrie and mutant versions appearing in Lindsey, LaHaye, and Hunt). We must grant the far greater credibility of progressive dispensationalism in the modern debate — even though in the final analysis the system is fraught with its own problems.

This statement of Christ (v. 11) appears in a section of Luke 21 that revised dispensationalists, such as Walvoord, apply to worldwide events associated with the Rapture of the Church at the end of the Church age. One of the most peculiar, strained, and unbelievable aspects of the revised dispensationalist exegesis appears in their analysis of this Discourse. (Their argument is more bizarre than the fact that "abbreviation" is such a long word, and that some things are called "apartments" even though they are stuck together.) Revised dispensationalists would have us believe that not one word in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 (parallels to Luke 21) applies to the disciples' question about Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of the first century temple. Despite Christ's pronouncement of the Temple's approaching doom being the very statement sparking the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24:2; Mark 13:2)!

In Walvoord's massive "Prophecy Knowledge Handbook" (1990) we discover a section titled "Prophecies Concerning the End of the Inter-Advent Age: Prophecy on the Mount of Olives." There we read these words: "In answering the three questions [of the disciples], the answer to the first question concerning the destruction of Jerusalem was given in Luke 21:20-24. The second and third questions concerning signs of His coming and the end of the age actually were the same question because the age ends at the time of His coming. Matthew gives us the most complete answer to these two questions" (PKH, 381).

Consequently, Walvoord divides his discussion of the Olivet Discourse in the following manner: First, "General Signs of His Second Coming: Matthew 24:1-14; Mark 13:5-13; Luke 21:5-19." Second, "The Sign of the Destruction of Jerusalem: Luke 21:20-24." Third, "The Specific Signs of the End and of the Coming of Christ: Matthew 24:15-26; Mark 13:14-25; Luke 21:25-28." As this division indicates, Walvoord allows ONLY four verses in Luke (21:20-24) to deal with the destruction of the Temple, which — again! — was the issue generating the entire Discourse.

According to Walvoord, then, Matthew records absolutely NOTHING about A.D. 70 in his ninety-seven verses (Matt. 24:1—25:46); Mark provides ZERO discussion in his twenty-seven verses (Mark 13:1-27); and Luke only allows four measly verses in his thirty-two verse report (Luke 21:5-36). Consequently, on Walvoord's view, out of 156 verses only four answer the relevant point! This is only 2.5% of the Olivet Discourse! This type of fancy footwork provides the context which helps us understand the progressive dispensationalists' exodus from revised dispensationalism: they decided that one long trek out of the camp, though tiring and fraught with institutional danger, would be preferable to constant, exhausting dancing around texts and scholarly marginalization. (When progressive dispensationalism finally dies, we will recognize the truth in the motto: "I don't jog because I want to be sick when I die.")

Bock, however, recognizes the dangers inherent in suppressing the A.D. 70 significance of the Olivet Discourse. He allows Jesus' discourse actually to answer the fundamental question of the disciples. This in itself is a welcome breath of fresh air. Of the "natural disasters" (p. 1667) of Luke 21:11, Bock notes that this "class of signs," these "physical signs in the universe" are not "uncommon" in antiquity. In fact, such natural occurrences appear in the ancient world from time to time: they are not major, world-ending chaos features. Indeed, in a footnote to his discussion he cites material from Josephus that postmillennial preterists are fond of noting: "Josephus records that when the temple burned, a bright star resembling a sword stood over the city and that comets were visible for a year; Jewish War 6.5.1-3."

Consequently, Bock notes of Luke 21:11: "A similar description of signs reappears in Luke 21:25, as Luke parallels what happens in the near future with what will happen in the end" (p. 1668). (I will return to his faulty assumption that 21:25 refers to the end and not to A.D. 70 in a moment.) He comments that "what happens to Jerusalem as A.D. 70 approaches will be like the real end, which brings the return. In these descriptions Jesus answers the disciples' short-term question about the temple, but also sets up a long-term discussion about the end. The two events mirror each other in their terror" (ibid.). Thus, he recognizes that the "natural disasters" punctuate the first century development to A.D. 70, which radically distinguishes him from Walvoord, Ryrie, and others of the revised dispensationalist camp.

One important and welcome feature of the new dispensationalism is its jettisoning the older dispensational hermeneutic of "plain and simple" exegesis. We see evidence of this here. Though Bock sees a similarity between the events of A.D. 70, he does not fall for the erroneous similarity-means-identity exegesis that so plagues populist expositions. That is, he does not make the exegetical mistake of assuming that because two events are SIMILAR they must be IDENTICAL. After all, similarity does not demand identity: note similar OT judgments (Isa. 13; 34; Joel 2); Jesus's two temple cleansings (Jn 2:14; Mk 11:15); the feeding of the multitudes (Matt. 14:15-21; 15:32-39).

Remember: A major concern of our newsletter is to point out that dispensationalism is "in transition." And when the transition becomes evident in a passage of the significance of the Olivet Discourse, we have a system-impacting transition. And when it comes close to the preterist position, we have a welcome change. Nevertheless, Bock's argument — welcome as it is — is not without failures.

I agree with Bock that A.D. 70 is a mirror of the eschatological end. This helps distinguish my evangelical preterism from the unorthodox hyper-preterism being generated out of the writings of present and former members of the Church of Christ. The hyper-preterist deems A.D. 70 the end-all of eschatology, claiming that the Second Advent, resurrection, and final judgment occurred in those events.

I must mention this matter because of the rampant tendency among assailants of orthodox preterism (such as I hold). Foes of preterism oftentimes fallaciously attack all preterism as either: (1) inconsistent in not adopting the hyper-preterist conclusions, or (2) dangerous in necessarily leading to those conclusions. See for instance Tommy Ice's response to me in our forthcoming: The Great Tribulation: Past or Future? (Kregel, 1999). See also the forthcoming critique of preterism by Charles Hill in David Hagopian, ed., Always Reforming: A Dialouge of Differences within the Reformed Tradition (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1999). (In that work I present a positive case for preterism and Hill critiques preterism.)

Subscribers to R. C. Sproul's Tabletalk devotional guide will notice my article in the January, 1999 issue. There I clearly distinguish three forms of preterism: liberal, orthodox, and heretical. In that article I note with the following words that this demarcation may also be found among premillennialists: "Just as premillennialism has cultic (e.g., Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses), dispensational (e.g., Scofield and Ryrie), and historic (e.g., Ladd and Kromminga) expressions, so preterism has three main divisions today." Sproul himself has recently published a very helpful presentation of preterism that distinguishes its evangelical and heterodox forms: The Last Days According to Jesus (Baker, 1998). But now back to the matter at hand.

Even though I agree that A.D. 70 mirrors the eschatological end, I disagree with his insertion of that mirroring here in exposition of Luke 21. A principle may be true while its application in a particular circumstance is faulty. And this is the problem for Bock. Remember: Bock declares that a "similar description of signs appear in Luke 21:25, as Luke parallels what happens in the near future with what will happen in the end" (p. 1668). The problem for him here is that Luke 21:25 does NOT refer to the end. And this should not go unchallenged.

Due to challenges to my preterism I frequently drive home a major interpretive point that is absolutely crucial to grasp. I often reiterate the logical principle stated previously: "Similarity does not demand identity." Thus, as a preterist I argue against the hyper-preterists that similar sounding judgment episodes in Scripture do not necessarily imply they are speaking of the same events. A problem with hyper-preterism is that they will note a point of similarity between two passages and demand that the two be speaking of the same events. But I hold that we cannot know for sure if two passages are speaking of the same events unless context demands such. I argue that those passages are necessarily preteristic WHEN they have time indicators embedded in them, such as "near," "shortly come to pass," "this generation," and so forth. If judgment passages lack these notations then other issues must be brought to bear to determine the time-frame.

Unfortunately for Bock, a verse he deems eschatological (Luke 21:25) is firmly rooted in a passage tied to the first century. Associated with Luke 21:25 are these statements: "When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing NEAR" (v. 28). "He told them this parable: 'Look at the fig tree and all the trees. When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is NEAR'" (vv. 29-30). "Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is NEAR" (v. 31). "I tell you the truth, THIS GENERATION will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened" (v. 32).

Like revised dispensationalism, Bock's progressive dis- pensationalism is a variation in the futurist school. His futurism pre-commits him to positions that the text do not require. So, even though Bock's exegesis is light years ahead of the older dispensational analysis (which moves at the speed of dark), it still fails to be persuasive because anti-contextual.

Send check to Ken Gentry at P.O. Box 388, Placentia, CA 92871 Add 10% for shipping and handling

I offer a writing correspondence course, called Righteous Writing. The course is a result of more than twenty years of writing experience and study of the art of writing and the world of publishing. This course is for you, if you want to:

Produce better research papers for high school or college; Expand your ministry through writing; Receive writing instruction so that you might teach others; Generate extra income through publishing.

Sharpen your reading and research skills, while shortening your research time; Avoid potential pitfalls of writing with a word processor or computer; Polish your writing style and learn professional manuscript layout; Discover essential resource works and market guides for writers; Learn how to effectively approach publishers by means of queries and proposals; Increase your chances of publication by presenting a marketing strategy for your manuscript; Find out how to protect your work through copyrighting and contracts; Understand how to efficiently keep track of your research and submissions.

I will be speaking at the following conferences. If you are in the area, come join us!

January 18-21, 1999: "An Eschatology of Victory Conference" at Westminster Presbyterian Church, Vancouver, WA. Phone: (360) 892-4407. Speakers: Ken Gentry, Jim Bordwine, Gary DeMar, and Peter Leithart.

February 18-20, 1999: "The End? Finding Hope in the Millennial Maze." Ligonier Ministries' 1999 National Conference at First Baptist Church, Orlando, FL. Phone: (407) 333-4244. Speakers: Ken Gentry, R. C. Sproul, Eric Alexander, and Michael Horton.

February 22-26, 1999: "Eschatology and History Course" at Christ College, Lynchburg, VA. Phone:(804) 528-9034. Teacher: Ken Gentry.

February 26-28, 1999: "When Shall These Things Be? Introducing Reformed Eschatology" at Rivermont Presbyterian Church in Lynchburg, VA. Phone: (840) 846-3441. Speaker: Ken Gentry

April 16-17, 1999: "Introduction to Revelation Conference" in Phoenix, AZ. Contact: Rev. Jeff Neill: (602) 516-1648. Speaker Ken Gentry.

May 7-8, 1999: "Conference on the Book of Revelation." Speaker Ken Gentry. Contact: Scott Broderhausen: sbroder@xylan.com

If interested in a catalog of various Christian Educational materials I have produced, send $1.00 to me at:

Institute for Christian Economics

P.O. Box 8000, Tyler, TX 75711

Donations are fully tax deductible; checks should be made out to Institute for Christian Economics.

Released for informational purposes to allow individual file transfer, Usenet, and non-commercial mail-list posting only. All other copyright privileges reserved.