HERMENEUTICS AND OLIVET

The Great Tribulation in Progressive Dispensationalism (Part 2)

INTRODUCTION

This is my second entry in a series on the progressive dispensational approach to the Olivet Discourse. In this series I will be critiquing Darrell Bock's approach as provided in his massive commentary (2 vols., 2150 pp) on Luke in the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Baker: 1996). In the series I will focus on a major prophetic passage that serves as an excellent sample of the distinctive evangelical approaches to eschatology. It is also a passage that has a direct impact on the Christian worldview as it relates to history: Is the great tribulation of which Jesus speaks looming in our future? Or has it already been fulfilled in our past? Enormous issues hang in the balance: theologically, whole eschatological systems may rise or fall on this passage, and practically, Christian worldview outlooks are governed by this prophetic foreview.

Perhaps I should have introduced this second contribution in my series by stating: "This is my second entry in a series on A progressive dispensational approach" to this great prophecy, substituting "A progressive dispensational approach" for "THE progressive dispensational approach." As with any theological tradition, there is seldom one approach from among its advocates (witness the three radically different approaches to the new covenant among older dispensationalists). The same is true here. For instance, Marvin Pate's "Doomsday Delusions" (IVP: 1995) offers a slightly different understanding of the Olivet material than does Bock's commentary on Luke. And both of these approaches are fundamentally different from the older dispensational perspectives.

All of this says something, I believe, about the "plain" and "simple" hermeneutic and the theological naivete of older dispensationalism. If an important New Testament prophetic passage such as this is not "cut-and-dried," how can we affirm prophecy is so "plain and simple"? It is not! And Bock's fine effort recognizes the various difficulties of coming to clear cut conclusions on various points. We need to point this out to the dispensationalist-in-the-pew (they are found hanging around in the most embarrassing areas in Christian bookstores: the prophecy section). Joe Dispy tends to approach prophecy as game puzzle for children. Or as Tommy Ice puts it: Prophecy provides for us a Road Map of the future (implying it is intended to be as simple, straightforward as a Rand-McNally Road Atlas). Of course as evangelicals, none of us should declare the matter hopeless. I certainly do not — and neither does Bock. But any serious inquiry into the Olivet Discourse recognizes various interpretive problems.

In the course of this series I will not deal with Bock's textual critical and higher critical analysis. Suffice it to say: he holds to an evangelical approach to these matters. In fact, I commend my readers to his study in this regard; it is a fine sample of evangelical scholarship and a helpful defense of the integrity of Scripture (specifically of the Gospel record). Rather, my critique will engage the matters associated with the interpretation of Jesus's meaning.

HERMENEUTICAL SOPHISTICATION

Bock allows a hermeneutical maneuver that older dispensationalists disparage: Jesus's prophetic language in the Olivet Discourse is patterned after Old Testament prophecies of the historical fall of Jerusalem to Assyria and Babylonia: "A focus on the city's fall versus the temple's desecration is stronger in Luke, but the language of Jerusalem's siege comes out of the LXX. The LXX portrait describes the city's earlier exilic fall (proved beyond question by Dodd 1947).... [This] reflects a consistent prophetic pattern that had a rich history extending back to Deuteronomy" (Bock 1656).

Of course, older dispensationalists do not deny a linguistic similarity between Jesus and the Old Testament prophets. In fact, in my debate with Tommy Ice ("The Great Tribulation: Past or Future? [Kregal: forthcoming]), Tommy allows such. My point, rather, is that the apocalyptic judgment language of the Old Testament prophets serves as a pattern for Jesus's prophecy of Israel's HISTORICAL judgment in A.D. 70, rather than a FUTURE universal judgment; it therefore is figurative not literal. Older dispensationalist viewpoints resolutely deny this. Even though apocalyptic language sounds universal and world-ending, it really may be local (Jerusalem and Israel) and age-ending (temple system conclusion; Israel's judgment).

We will find that at an important juncture Bock hesitates at applying this apocalyptic language to A.D. 70 — despite his hermeneutic system allowing the possibility. This, I believe, is where his eschatological system casts a spell upon him and forces his hand. Of course, he does not balk on the basis of "Ryrie said it; I believe it; therefore, it is true." Rather, he provides sophisticated exegetical notations and contextual arguments for his view (I believe these are ultimately unconvincing; but I will respond to them all in good time). This is a far cry from: "Plain and simple literalism will not allow it," which is the rally cry of the old-line dispensationalist. This allowance of hermeneutical complexity generates a greater appreciation for the newer dispensational approach, and takes the debate to a new and higher level of sophistication. It also makes the challenge of dispensationalism much greater.

Bock suggests (properly, I believe) that "In Luke's view, the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 is part of God's plan and judgment. THIS FALL PICTURES THE END" (Bock: 1656; emphasis mine). Just as we may look to Old Testament judgments on various ancient peoples (Egypt, Edom, Assyria, Babylon) as the backdrop of the New Testament fall of Jerusalem, so may we expect that same pattern continued in the world-concluding events associated with the Second Advent. And what is unreasonable about this? Why should we not expect that various divine judgments might have basic similarities, just as all human wars share certain similarities. (Note: This is NOT prophetic double-fulfillment, which operates on the basis of prophetic diplopia rather than clear-focused exegesis; this is simply recognizing the similarity of various distinct prophecies.)

Bock goes on to say: "Given that short-term events mirror long-term events and that these earlier events represent a pattern for God's ultimate judgment, it is clear that someone interpreting Jesus' remarks could focus on either side of the temporal mirror and reflect appropriately on his comments" (Bock: 1656). Here again we see the prophetic-pattern hermeneutic. And once again he asserts: "Jerusalem's fall is part of God's total eschatological plan."

I wholeheartedly concur with both of these assertions, i.e., that Jerusalem's fall mirrors the eschatological end-time and that A.D. 70 "is part of God's total eschatological plan." Some have questioned me as to why I speak of A.D. 70 as an aspect of "eschatology" since I believe that the end is still in our (distant) future today. They ask, "Doesn't 'eschatology' mean 'the study of the last things'"? But this theological confusion is due to what is known as the "root fallacy." The root fallacy looks at the etymological derivation of a term (such as "eschatology") and refuses to allow any theological usage beyond the simple etymological significance or admit any theological enhancement of the concept. In this case, though A.D. 70 is not PROPERLY at the end of history ("eschatology"), it nevertheless is a part of the eschatological program of Scripture — very much as Bock puts it.

I would add, though, that A.D. 70 is more or less a conclusion to Jesus's first century ministry. It formally vindicates Christ against his enemies (the Jews, Matt. 23:34-36; Acts 2:22-23; 3:13-15a; 5:28, 30; 7:52; 10:39; 1 Thess. 2:14-15) and publicly initiates the "last days" (the "eschatos" days), which BEGIN in the first century (Acts 2:16-17, 24; 1 Cor. 10:11; 2 Tim. 3:1; Heb. 1:1-2; 9:26; 1 John 2:18; 1 Pet. 1:20) and continue up until the final end of all things. Last DAYS must

precede the last DAY; and the last days begin in the first century with Christ, the divider of history. Until the final end, the last day has not arrived.

Interestingly, to admit Bock's prophetic mirroring does not commit one either to futurism or to preterism. The THEOLOGICAL debate is still up in the air at this juncture. And Bock points this out very carefully:

"To see the approach of this event is to know that the rest of the plan will come as well.... The similarity within the mirror might make it hard, in the original setting, to know whether one is speaking of the near term, the long term, or both. The ambiguity in the pattern's original setting must be appreciated, for only reflection on the speech in light of later developments might make aspects of its original force clear" (Bock:1657).

This hermeneutic, then, is not system-determined in advance; instead it is exegetically-derived from within the Scriptures. It is a well from which all systems might draw.

AVOIDING BIZARRE HERMENEUTIC ASSERTIONS

Older dispensationalism dogmatically asserts of the relationship of Matthew 24 and Luke 21: "Matthew does not deal, however, with the first question the disciples asked of when the destruction of Jerusalem would take place, as predicted by Christ in [Matthew 24:2]. This is answered, however, in Luke's Gospel" (John F. Walvoord, "Prophecy Knowledge Handbook" (Wheaton, Ill.: Victory, 1990), 386. For other sources for this remarkable claim, see also: 95 House and Ice, "Dominion Theology" (Eugene, Ore.: Multnomah, 1989), 293-294. 95 Thomas Ice and Timothy Demy, "The Truth About the Tribulation" (Eugene, Ore.: Harvest, 1996), 12-13. 95 Paul D. Feinberg, "Dispensational Theology and the Rapture," in Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master, eds., "Issues in Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody," 1994), 241. 95 J. Dwight Pentecost, "Matthew," in John F. Walvoord and Roy B Zuck, eds., "Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament" (Wheaton,Ill.: Victory, 1985), 76.

As I indicated last month, Bock avoids this remarkable and absurd claim. He holds only that Matthew and Mark "focus slightly more on the end-time, while Luke tends to stress the nearer future." In a footnote he comments: "A careful reading of the Synoptics reveals that Matthew is the most oriented toward the future...." (Bock: 1657). For Bock Matthew differs only "slightly" for Luke, who focuses on both A.D. 70 and the End. For Bock Matthew is the "most oriented toward the future"; he is not totally focused on it.

Walvoord and others of his school of thought are forced by their presupposition regarding the nature of language ("it must be literal unless absurd") to DISALLOW Jesus's apocalyptic-prophetic language to apply to A.D. 70 (see my chapter 8 in Bahnsen and Gentry, "House Divided" [Institute for Christian Economics]). This forbids their allowing Matthew to record Jesus's answer to the disciples' direct question (!). But Luke's (more Gentilic, less apocalyptically-charged) language allows them to interpret a portion of Luke 21 as applying to A.D. 70.

Bock recognizes the "problem" in Matthew's "mixing" of A.D. 70 and end-time events. Consequently, he argues that Luke has as his "major concerns" (Bock: 1657):

"1. a clear separation between Jerusalem's fall and the end-time
2. a focus on the city's collapse
3. a suggestion that the end is further off because of all that must precede it...."

He claims, therefore, that Luke is CLEARER in distinguishing A.D. 70 from the End, not that he uniquely does so. This, again, allows Matthew to speak of A.D. 70. But it reserves Bock the option of sorting out Matthew's mixed-prophecy in terms of his (Bock's) dispensational eschatological pre-commitments. This is much better than the old school approach. BUT: it is still deficient, as we will see.

So, once again, I must express my appreciation for the massive changes in the hermeneutical system of progressive dispensationalism. The various eschatological schools can all gather on the same playing field. Unlike the older dispensationalists, the modern dispensationalists do not require that you play by their (presupposed) rules.

AN ASIDE

As an aside, if you are looking for some helpful material on the beauty and significance of the Herodian Temple to first century Judaism, Bock provides much insightful documentation on pages 1660-63. This material is very helpful for critiquing the older dispensational viewpoints: How in the world (or as Tommy Ice and other apocalyptists would say: "How on Planet Earth...?") could Matthew omit Jesus's prophecy regarding the destruction of THAT temple (Matt. 23:38-24:1) in light of the DIRECT question from the disciples (Matt. 24:2-3) given the HISTORICAL CONTEXT of Jesus (approaching the end of his ministry and his final rejection by the Jews, Matt. 27:11-25) and the TOPICAL DRIFT of Matthew (cf. Matt. 23-24 relationship)?

For the significance of this temple discussion in the eschatological debate, see my initial presentation in: Thomas D. Ice and Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., "The Great Tribulation: Past or Future? (Grand Rapids: Kregal, forthcoming). In fact, I wish I had known of Bock's presentation before my submitting my initial chapter to Ice in our exchange of chapters (once exchanged, they cannot be altered). Since Bock agrees with the common evangelical approach (Matthew DOES deal with A.D. 70), I will not highlight this point.

TACTICAL APPROACH

Bock secures his progressive dispensational futurist system by approaching Luke 21 through a three step process:

FIRST: "The discourse starts with a prediction of the temple's fall (21:5-6), which leads the disciples to ask about the events associated with it (21:7). Jesus replies in three initial steps, starting with a discussion of events that do not foreshadow the end (21:8-11). He then treats incidents that will precede these events (21:12-19). Next come events that parallel the end and reveal what it is like (21:20-24). There will be time for mission before the end, but this interim period will also involve intense persecution and will lead to Jerusalem's fall to the nations. Only then does Jesus relate the cosmic signs that precede the Son of Man's return, when he comes on the clouds in the splendor of deity (21:25-28)." (Bock: 1650).

By this means, Bock has Luke's presentation phasing step-by-step into the eschatological end-time. That is, Jesus begins his discourse "in describing the events that lead to the city's fall" so that "Jesus first notes what will not signal the end" (Bock: 1664). The events serving as advance warnings of Jerusalem's destruction must not confuse the disciples into thinking that the end of history is upon them. These prophetic events are not signs of the end-time.

Interestingly, the very prophecies covered here in Luke 21:7-19 parallel those in Matthew 24 which older dispensationalists apply to the end-time phenomena. Of course, they could retort: "Similarity does not imply identity." But here the contexts are identical, not similar: the very same temple is pointed out and the very same questions are asked (Matt. 24:1-3; Luke 21:5-7). These must surely be parallel, not merely similar.

SECOND: Bock notes Luke's second step is to record the express declaration of Jerusalem's fall in A.D. 70. This, Bock says, is recorded in Luke 21:20-24. Here we see Bock's phased-array approach to A.D. 70. This historical catastrophe is significant in and of itself (in fact, the tongues at Pentecost are signs of judgment at holocaust, A.D. 70 [Acts 2:16-20]). But it also is "a part of the signs of consummation" (Bock: 1675).

In this section Bock notes that "Jesus speaks like an OT prophet. The picture is of swarming victorious armies conquering the nation's capital. Though Luke's focus is on the near fulfillment, the use of this language in Rev. 11:2 shows that the early church saw the allusion as referring to a future time of terror for the city. The passage shares a short- and long-term view.... Jerusalem's fall in the short term is analogous for the end" (Bock: 1680).

For Bock, then, this section dealing with Jerusalem's destruction becomes an historical transition point. The earlier signs (Luke 21:7-19) serve as the first phase of Jesus' prophecy as recorded by Luke, pointing to the first century holocaust. But that A.D. 70 holocaust becomes a blended point: A.D. 70 and the end-time appear conjointly. Thus, Luke 21:20-24 appears as the second phase in Luke's presentation.

THIRD. This allows Bock to make the transition from A.D. 70 (Luke 21:20-24) to the end-time (Luke 21:25ff), which is the third phase in Luke's presentation.

I certainly agree that A.D. 70 is a pointer to the Second Advent. And I agree that the two events can be drawn into the same eschatological contexts (as I argue in my various works on the Olivet Discourse, and in 2 Thess. 1 and 2 [see: Gentry, "Perilous Times: A Study in Eschatological Evil," forthcoming]). What I find objectionable in Bock's viewpoint is the lack of clear textual indicators. He manufactures indicators from too subtle nuance differences between Luke and Matthew. And this error is fatal to Bock's analysis (as I will show later).

UPCOMING SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS

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

August 28-29, 1998: "Survival of the Fittest: Christianity vs.
Evolution" in Fullerton, California.

November 14, 1998: "Bahnsen Symposium" at the DoubleTree Hotel in
Irvine, California (sponsored by SCCCS).

January 18-21, 1999: "Eschatology Conference" at Westminster
Presbyterian Church, Vancouver, WA

February 18-20, 1999: "Ligonier Conference on Eschatology" in Orlando, FL

February 22-26, 1999: "Eschatology and History Course" at Christ College, Lynchburg, VA

February 26-28, 1999: "Introducing Reformed Eschatology" at Rivermont Presbyterian Church in Lynchburg, VA

For conference inquiries, contact me at
KennethGentry@CompuServe.Com.

END