Dispensationalism in Transition Challenging Traditional Dispensationalism's "Code of Silence"

© Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., 1999

February 1999

 

THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY

The Great Tribulation in Progressive Dispensationalism (Part 8)

INTRODUCTION

I am continuing my lengthy interaction with progressive dispensationalist Darrell L. Bock's commentary in the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the NT: Luke (1994, v. 2). I am engaging his discussion of the Olivet Discourse material in Luke 21. Invariably when I appear at conferences or on radio and am dealing with eschatology, the Olivet Discourse arises in the question period following. Older dispensationalism has fumbled badly with the material (see my debate with Thomas D. Ice: The Great Tribulation: Past or Future? [Kregel, 1999; release date: May, 1999]). But I am showing that though more credible, the newer progressive dispensationalism also fails in its exposition of this centerpiece of Christ's eschatological teaching.

More and more evangelicals are becoming annoyed with the shrill sounds and disappointed with the uncertain calls emitting from populist apocalyptic exposition. The naivete of prophetic populism is evident in both of its leading formats: The biblical study format seen, for example, in Lindsey's The Late Great Planet Earth and LaHaye's No Fear of the Storm. And in its Christian fiction approach (which is difficult to distinguish from the preceding) as seen in LaHaye's Left Behind series. (In fact, the title of LaHaye's series is my hearty recommendation on how to respond to the book series in a Christian bookstore and are preparing to leave. But I digress.)

Unfortunately, the growing disenchantment against apocalypticism's approach to prophecy is leading Christians to abandon eschatological inquiry as an embarrassment to the faith and a waste of time. (Ironically at the very moment I wrote this line, my mail came. In the mail I found Baker Book House's January, 1999, "The Discerning Reader." Therein I found the following opening words to a review of Sproul's The Last Days According to Jesus: "Ordinarily I read only sparingly concerning the end time." ) This is unfortunate in that Christianity IS eschatology: The first coming of Christ is the result of OT eschatological expectation and set in motion the last stage (the "eschatology") earth history. To dismiss eschatology is to dismiss Christianity.

Thus, I am encouraged to witness the massive transformation occurring within dispensational circles. Progressive dispensationalism is a giant step in the right direction, so much more acceptable than the two-step of old-line dispensationalism. To re-phrase a 1960s Oldsmobile commercial: This isn't your grandfather's dispensationalism. Yet — again! — problems persists. And THIS is our point in Dispensationalism in Transition: to highlight the changes and to expose the NEW flaws.

Let us get to the study now. Let us turn to Luke 21:12, which reads: "But before all these things, they will lay their hands on you and will persecute you, delivering you to the synagogues and prisons, bringing you before kings and governors for My name's sake." Bock's exegesis has good elements and bad elements. First, the good news.

THE GOOD IN BOCK'S ANALYSIS OF LUKE 21:12

Before I begin, we must recall that revised dispensationalism holds that Luke 21:20-24 alone deals with the A.D. 70 destruction of the temple. The other sections of this chapter are supposedly general indicators of the future Second Advent, and therefore stretch throughout the present age.

Bock will have none of this, though! He is too good an exegete to stumble so badly here — after all, Baker's Exegetical Commentary is a world-class commentary which expects high standards of its authors. Bock perceptively notes of verse 12: "He seems to make the point that persecution is the church's short-term destiny" (p. 1668). Here Bock recognizes that Jesus is speaking to his first century Christian audience — particularly to his own original disciples. In fact, he notes that the Lord is responding specifically to their "talking about the temple" which stood firm and strong before them. In other words, Bock engages in historical exegesis — interpretive analysis that gives full credence to the original environment of Christ's instruction, rather than the latest U. S. News and World Report.

Bock continues (and his exegetical notes are helpful even for our preteristic analysis): "They will be delivered up to synagogues . . . where they will face beatings" (p. 1668). By noting the appearance of "synagogues" here (a very glaring textual feature) Bock recognizes the proper historical setting. Bock does not have to re-interpret this as persecution from within cockpits of Cobra helicopters or computer control rooms for ICBM missiles, or any such contra-historical application. He sees it as generated out of the first century Jewish antipathy to Christianity.

Old-line dispensationalist Walvoord, however, in his Prophecy Knowledge Handbook(pp. 400-401) provides a table in the midst of his discussion of the Olivet Discourse. There he shows detailed contemporary "Predicted Events Relating to the Nations" which include: "1. United Nations organized as first step toward world government in 1946. 2. Israel is formed as a recognized nation in 1948.... 8. The Arab oil embargo in 1973..."! WHERE in Luke 21 do we find a reference to the United Nations, the modern state of Israel, or the Arab Oil embargo? This provides us a classic illustration of the difference in Bock's exposition of Luke 21 and Walvoord's, of progressive dispensationalism and revised dispensationalism.

Not only so, but Bock notes that "All of this trouble is 'for the sake of Jesus' name,' a phrase that dominates the Book of Acts" (p. 1669). If this phrase "dominates the Book of Acts" then it is not dominating the New York Times. That is, it expects the prophesied persecution to occur against those to whom he is speaking — and in their lifetimes. To the modern populist, this surely is an outlandish assertion that defies the logic and principles of historic dispensationalism. Yet it is nothing more than sound exegetical inquiry.

Perhaps as important as is our "conclusions" in our debate regarding the meaning of the Olivet Discourse is the matter of the "method" whereby we can arrive at the proper conclusions. Historical exegesis of the text is absolutely essential for discerning CHRIST's meaning from the text — regardless of Walvoord's expectations regarding the U.N. and the Arab Oil Embargo.

I am discovering that a growing number of listeners and readers are picking up on the methodological procedure governing preteristic postmillennialism (my approach) and accepting it joyfully as bringing sanity into the discussion (as contrasted to the older dispensational exegesis). For instance, when House and Ice attacked the postmillennial exegesis of the Olivet Discourse, they wrote boldly and confidently: "One major reason Matthew 24 could not have been fulfilled in A.D. 70 is that 'the abomination of desolation' (24:15) was not accomplished in the destruction of Jerusalem" (Dominion Theology, 290). But what do they mean? The "abomination of desolation" phrase is important to House and Ice as a "major reason Matthew 24 could not have been fulfilled in A.D. 70 is that 'the abomination of desolation' (24:15) was not accomplished in the destruction of Jerusalem (p. 286). Here we find an incredible arbitrariness: They aver that Luke 21:20 and Matthew 24:15 speak of "two separate events" because "in the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem there was no image set up in the holy place, no worship of the image required, and no three-and-a-half year period of time between that event and the second coming of Christ.... Finally, no image came to life and beckoned men to worship it" (Ibid., 290).

Incredibly, House and Ice charge that preterist postmillennialist Chilton "cannot make his interpretation of the abomination of desolation fit the text of Scripture. Instead, he ignores the details of the passage he is supposed to be studying and goes to other unrelated passages importing them into the passage" (Ibid., p. 317.) We are left in bewilderment to ask: Where in the "details of the passage" is their come-to-life, speaking image? Where do they discover a three-and-a-half year period? Not in the Olivet Discourse! To insert them here is violently arbitrary; there is no contextual warrant.

Well, let's get back to work. Regarding Bock I will gladly assert: "So far, so good." Luke 21 anticipates first century persecution prior to A.D. 70. But Bock is, remember, a dispensationalist. Consequently, his commitment to futurism can drive his exegesis roughshod over textual warrant. He does not heed the sign warning of "Severe tire damage," when he backs up and guns his dispensationalmobile in an effort to get over the speed humps in the text. We have seen "the good" in his exegesis, now let us consider "the bad and the ugly."

THE BAD IN BOCK'S ANALYSIS OF LUKE 21:12

No evangelical will deny that biblical writers can associate near events and far events, A.D. 70 phenomena and Second Advent material. (Earlier I indicated that I myself do. See: Dispensationalism in Transition, September, 1998). After all, the Bible is a book for all times, not just for New Testament times. BUT — and this is the kicker — we must have EXEGETICAL warrant for such, not THEOLOGICAL motive.

All is progressing fine in the first three paragraphs of Bock's discussion of Luke 21:12. But something happens; Bock nods off while driving around on the Mount of Olives and crashes. While comparing the language of Luke with that of Matthew, Bock asserts: "In the earlier Matthean text, persecution is part of the mission of the Twelve to Israel. Since a reference to the Son of Man's return also ends that passage (Matt. 10:23), the same pattern of treatment is present during the entire age until Jesus returns" (p. 1669).

In that I respect Bock, let us have a few moments of silence before proceeding any further. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Okay, enough. Let us continue. I will begin by quoting the verse in its context (Matt. 10:17-23); then I will demonstrate Bock's misapplication of the particular verse in question (v. 23). Matthew 10:17-23 reads:

"But beware of men; for they will deliver you up to the courts, and scourge you in their synagogues; [18] and you shall even be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles. [19] But when they deliver you up, do not become anxious about how or what you will speak; for it shall be given you in that hour what you are to speak. [20] For it is not you who speak, but it is the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you. [21] And brother will deliver up brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents, and cause them to be put to death. [22] And you will be hated by all on account of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved. [23] But whenever they persecute you in this city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you shall not finish going through the cities of Israel, until the Son of Man comes."

Obviously the Matthew 10 passage is very similar to the Luke 21 passage. But that does not in itself prove they are speaking of the same thing (even though I believe they are). We must carefully apply SOUND exegetical principles across the board, rather than leaping to a conclusion on the basis of similarity of expression. Such a method is an equally pernicious error to anti-contextual exegesis. Before I expose Bock's mistake here, I must warn of the problem of leaping to conclusions on the basis of similar language shared between passages.

Similarity does NOT demand identity. This is evident in the numerous similar sounding OT judgments (e.g., Isa. 13; 34 and Joel 2); in similar sounding temple cleansings by Jesus (John 2:14; Mark 11:15 — liberals are convinced these speak of the same event and that either Matthew or John wrongly placed them in their materia); in similar sounding feedings of the multitudes (Matt. 14:15-21; 15:32-39). These samples of similar sounding things are discrete historical events that must not be compounded into one episode. Unfortunately, Bock makes just that error.

What, then, DOES Matthew 10 mean? How does Bock go astray after such a fine start? Let me over a multi-stage argument for the FIRST century fulfillment of Matthew 10:17-23:

First, once again we discover Christ warning of his disciples being delivered up to the "synagogues" (10:17). By itself, of course, that does not DEMAND a first century fulfillment — the Jews were able to engage in post A.D. 70 persecution (though not as vigorously and almost never through direct synagogue action). In fact, though, this passage does fit the pattern of first century fulfillment, as I noted regarding Luke's similar language in Luke 21. So the counter-evidence will have to override this tendency (see references above to the Acts record).

Second, Jesus' prophecy here implies continuing divine revelation and inspiration: "do not become anxious about how or what you will speak; for it shall be given you in that hour what you are to speak. For it is not you who speak, but it is the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you" (10:19-20). Though this is debated by some, we have here the promise of divinely inspired words for the apostles to speak. This would not be possible after A.D. 70, when such revelatory gifts were withdrawn from the church. (I cannot argue this position in the present setting; I simply assert it. For more detail see my The Charismatic Gift of Prophecy or Palmer Robertson's The Final Word. Do NOT see Jack Deere's Surprised by the Spirit.)

Third, the temporal indicator in the passage DEMANDS a first century fulfillment. Clearly Jesus is speaking to his original disciples when he forthrightly declares: "But whenever they persecute you in this city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you shall not finish going through the cities of Israel, until the Son of Man comes" (Matt. 10:23). Notice Christ dogmatically asserts: "You shall NOT finish going through the cities of Israel, until the Son of Man comes." May we seriously suggest that after 1900 years they are still "going through the cities of Israel" awaiting the "finish" of their task?

But what does it means when it says "the Son of Man COMES"? We must note that Christ "comes" in several ways in addition to his Second Coming: (1) He comes to us spiritually in the person of the Holy Spirit. John 14:16-18 says: "I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you."

(2) He "comes" to God in heaven to receive His kingdom. Daniel 7:13 says: "I saw in the night visions, and, behold, [one] like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him." Clearly this "coming" is to heaven.

(3) He comes in judicial judgment upon men in history. To one of the seven churches, Jesus says in Revelation 2:5: "Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent." He warned them of His severe chastisement. In Matthew 21:40, 41, 43, 45 he says: "When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out [his] vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.... Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.... And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them." This Matthew 21 passages clearly speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem which Christ prophesied.

So I believe the evidence demands that in Matthew 10 Christ is referring to his coming to judge Jerusalem (number 3 above), not his Second Advental conclusion of earth history. Consequently, Bock errs in ASSUMING that Matthew 10:23 refers to the Second Advent and helps his exposition of Luke 21:12. The preterist analysis of Luke 21 stands; the progressive dispensational analysis fails.

APPENDIX: A NOTE ON A RECENT CONFERENCE

For several months I have been advertising the Vancouver conference on postmillennialism. I can now report that the conference was very successful. Attending were 290 registrants (a great number had to be turned away due to seating limitations). All four nights were well attended, a good number of books were sold, and many fine questions were fielded in the Q&A at the end of each evening. Even a few hardy dispensationalists came and engaged in the discussion (though some unwary dispensationalists were humming Paul Simon's "Slip out the back, Jack" as they raptured themselves out at the first break on the first evening). In this conference I spoke on: the errors in dispensationalism (two hours); the postmillennial exposition of Psalm 2 (one hour); and the Book of Revelation (one hour). The Revelation study generated the most interest. If you are interested in the tapes, e-mail me and I will inform you when they are available.

One question asked of me by a dispensationalist after the Revelation presentation was: "If John is writing to gentile churches in Asia Minor, how could he expect them to understand that the name hidden in the cipher "666" had to be spelled in Hebrew in order to give the correct evaluation?" This was asked in light of my arguing that 666 referred to Nero Caesar, as spelled in Hebrew characters.

My response was: (1) This "problem" of Hebrew demands in a gentile letter is not unique to deciphering 666. The entire Revelation is written in such a Hebrew cast that R. H. Charles and David E. Aune had to produce special Greek grammars for Revelation. This is necessary because Revelation is written in a very Hebraic-impacted Greek. (2) Other words and images appearing in Revelation are strongly Judaic and, therefore, not within the thinking pattern of gentile Christians. Nevertheless, John sent them in his Revelation. (4) The theme and thrust of Revelation is a "clue" to such a need. That is, the theme (1:7) and point (God's divorce of Israel) point directly to a Judaic setting.

A related dispensational question arose: "Why would John write to churches in Asia Minor about the destruction of the temple and the great tribulation that was to occur in Jerusalem, far to the south?"

My response:

1) The matter of Jerusalem's destruction in AD 70 is important beyond Israel. Early Christianity tended to be headquartered there (Acts 8:1; etc.). The wider Christian community needed to know what was going to happen so that they would not be alarmed (as were the Thessalonians in chapter 2:1-3).

2) The AD 70 devastation FOCUSED on Jerusalem. But its shock waves spread throughout the Roman Empire. It was a catastrophic event with wide ranging implications.

3) The same type of problem is raised from another angle: Why did John write such a Hebraic book, with so many Hebraic and OT images, if he is writing to Gentiles in Asia Minor? In fact, R. H. Charles and David E. Aune have written special grammars on Revelation that indicate John wrote in Greek but thought in Hebrew.

4) The role of the Jews in opposing Christianity was a VERY important factor of the early Christian experience. In fact, John takes time out in his seven letters to the Asia Minor churches to denounce the Jews as a synagogue of Satan charging that they are not true Jews (cp. Rom. 2:28-29; Gal. 3:28; Phil. 3:3). The coming destruction of Israel fulfills biblical prophecy AND separates Christianity from Judaism (in Rome's eyes, as well as their own).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS AVAILABLE

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

NEW BOOKS NOW AVAILABLE:

Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond. I am one of three contributors to Zondervan's CounterPoint book edited by Darrell L. Bock (!): . That book is scheduled for release on February 5. Copies may be ordered from me now at the address above for $16.00 plus $1.00 shipping and handling. (Those who ordered it as a pre-publication special need not re-order.)

Before Jerusalem Fell  (third edition). New edition with 50 pages of new material responding to critics. The book will be released on February 17 and may be ordered now from me for $25.00 plus $1.00 shipping and handling. If you want the NEW edition be sure to SPECIFY "new edition." Otherwise I might accidentally send you a second edition.

CONTEMPORARY THEOLOGICAL DEBATES ($50 for 14 tape set; $4.00 per tape).

Provides an analysis and exegetical-theological critique of contemporary theological controversies that are beginning to affect and alter historic evangelical orthodoxy. A defense of historic reformed orthodoxy and an illustration of proper theological method in resolving these and like issues. Issues covered: Annihilationism (2 tapes); Abortion (1 tape); Alcoholic beverages (1 tape); Charismatic: miraculous healing and tongues (2 tapes); Creation Framework Hypothesis (2 tapes); Homosexuality (2 tapes); Hyper-preterism (1 tape); and Theonomic challenges (2 tapes).

WRITING CORRESPONDENCE COURSE

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.

To these ends the Righteous Writing course will help you: 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.

For more information contact me at: KennethGentry@Compuserve.Com

SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS

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

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

June 7-10, 1999: "Conference on Biblical Creation" at Westminster Presbyterian Church, Vancouver, WA. Phone: (360) 892-4407. Speakers: Ken Gentry, Jim Bordwine, and others to be announced.

For conference inquiries, contact me at:

KennethGentry@CompuServe.Com.

CATALOG OF BOOKS, TAPES, VIDEOS, AND COURSES

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

Kenneth Gentry P.O. Box 388 Placentia, CA 92871