THE GREAT TRIBULATION IN PROGRESSIVE
DISPENSATIONALISM (PART 3)

I continue this month with my critique and response to Darrell Bock's commentary on the Olivet Discourse in Luke ("Luke: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament," 1994). Bock is one of the premiere progressive dispensational theologians. His massive commentary is in most respects a superb piece of evangelical craftsmanship. His exposition of Luke 21 (the Olivet Discourse) provides an excellent resource for the progressive dispensational approach to the important prophecy of Christ. And as I noted in my first installment in this series, "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."

I have noted up to this point that Bock has avoided many of the pitfalls of the classic and revised dispensational analysis of Christ's prophecy. The dispensational view preceding the arising of progressive dispensationalism was so weak that it actually helped generate progressive dispensationalism, a massive system overhaul of dispensationalism. As David Turner noted a decade ago: "The manner in which dispensationalism has traditionally handled this section is thus weak on several fronts. . . . Contemporary dispensationalists should rethink this area of NT exegesis." And: "It must be concluded that the futurist view, held by traditional dispensationalists, is unconvincing. It does not satisfactorily handle the contextual emphasis on the fall of Jerusalem." (David L. Turner, "The Structure and Sequence of Matthew 24:1-41: Interaction with Evangelical Treatments," Grace Theological Journal 10:1 [Spring, 1989] 7, 10).

Now with the arising of more theologically savvy dis- pensationalists, this Achilles Heel of dispensational exegesis (the futuristic approach to Olivet) has been protected. Unfortunately, the healing process (no pun intended) for dispensationalists is provided by means of a quarter inch leather guard strap rather than by means of amputation. We should appreciate the re-orientation of progressive dispensationalism in this regard, but we must not assume the problem for futurism is solved. Progressive dispensationalists get to first base, but they are thrown out trying to steal third by running across the pitcher's mound.

I will provide a seriatim interaction with important sections of Bock's exposition of Luke 21. This will not only provide a critique of progressive dispensationalism (the purpose of our newsletter), but will offer an apologetic for evangelical preterism (which is making inroads into the prophetic market.) (In fact, R. C. Sproul's 185,000 circulation "Tabletalk" devotional guide will focus on preterism in the January, 1999, issue, as will his Ligonier Ministries' 1999 Orlando Conference at which I will be speaking: "The End: Finding Hope in the Millennial Maze.")

We need to keep in mind that the Olivet Discourse appears in Matthew 24-25, Mark 13, and Luke 21. However, there are some differences between these parallel accounts — with Luke being the most distinct account over against Matthew and Mark. Luke's account is distinctive enough that older dispensationalists claim it is the only one dealing with both A.D. 70 and the Second Advent (Matthew and Mark, supposedly, speak only of the Second Advent).

RELATING A.D. 70 AND THE SECOND ADVENT

Before I begin the formal interaction, it is important to note that I agree on one very important point with Bock over against the older dispensationalism of Ryrie, Walvoord, Pentecost, Lindsey, Hunt, Jeffreys, and others. Bock and I agree that Matthew brings together the A.D. 70 catastrophe AND the Second Advent. An observation such as this is helpful for smiting the revised dispensationalists hip and thigh with a great slaughter (those dispensationalists with book sales over a million per title and who produce novels based on their novel system, i.e., old-line dispensationalists who have cornered the novelty and naivete market). You see, a first step in the struggle against the Goliath named Revised Dispensationalism is to point out that dispensationalism is not monolithic; it is fragmented and engaged in inner-family squabbling. My observation, then, is designed to shock, amaze, and confound the naive assumption of Joe Dispensationalist who dreams that the "plain, simple" hermeneutic has created a unified and impregnable eschatological system. Shock therapy is often beneficial (unless you are on death row, which I believe dispensationalism now is).

The Lord brings the Second Advent and A.D. 70 together in his discourse, even though they are two distinct events. They are thematically RELATED even though they are not historically IDENTICAL. Historic, orthodox Christianity has always and every- where affirmed a future Second Advent (contrary to higher critical liberalism) and the bodily resurrection of the dead (contrary to cultic Jehovah's Witnesses). And my preterist exposition of Scripture confirms the Second Advent — even in Matthew 24-25.

However, having stated that, I do not believe I am THEOLOGICALLY committed to requiring that both judgments (A.D. 70 and Second Advent) appear in Matthew's Olivet Discourse. My evangelical creedal commitments require a Second Advent, to be sure, but not necessarily a Second Advent in Matthew 24-25. Indeed, these chapters could theoretically speak ONLY of A.D. 70 (even though I believe such would be quite awkward). I do not have any unyielding theological commitments against applying the entire Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24-25 to A.D. 70. If these chapters apply only to A.D. 70, so be it!

Nevertheless! I do see a clear distinction drawn in Matthew's text. And I think it is important for our study's backdrop to provide EXEGETICAL reasons why I believe that distinction exists in Matthew — irrespective of whether or not such a temporal distinction appears in Luke's context (it does not!). These observations from Matthew must be laid down before I interact with Bock on the parallel passage in Luke 21 — because I will take exactly the OPPOSITE position from Bock on Luke's scope of interest: Luke's concern is SOLELY with A.D. 70. Consequently, I need to justify my position on Matthew 24 and show how the texts differ.

What, then, are my exegetical motivations for distinguishing Matthew 24:4-35 (fulfilled in A.D. 70) from Matthew 24:36ff (to be fulfilled at the Second Advent, which according to Jack Van Impe will be before the year 2000)? I do NOT follow the higher critical arguments for a "little apocalypse," that is, that the Gospel writers interleaved Jesus' actual teaching with a contradictory "little apocalypse" making the rounds in their day. The little apocalypse theory attempts to sort out a word here, a phrase there with the precision of a brain surgeon removing cancerous leaders from a tumor. Nor do I follow the method of Bock and the progressive dispensationalists (with which I will interact later). In fact, I disagree with their method in general and their exposition of the Discourse in particular, as I will make clear in my later exposition. I am neither a closet liberal (as some naive dispensationalists assume), nor a closet dispensationalist (as some hyper-preterists assume).

DRAWING DISTINCTIONS

Basically I follow the same methodology as R. T. France in his excellent little commentary, "The Gospel According to Matthew" (HIGHLY recommended). And the methodology of J. Marcellus Kik in his classic "The Eschatology of Victory" (THE seminal work begetting the current resurgence of evangelical preterism). My methodology recognizes numerous textual indications of a change of time. I will list those below.

Contextual evidence suggests that Christ is distinguishing two different comings. One coming is his judgment upon Jerusalem to end the old covenant era (24:4-35; cp. Heb. 8:13; 10:24-25; 12:18ff). The other is his coming at the Second Advent in final judgment to end history (24:36ff). These two "comings" are theologically related (one is a microcosmic expression of the other) while historically distinct. Consider the following exegetical notations:

First, Matthew 24:34 seems clearly to function as a concluding statement; it ends the preceding unified prophecy that builds to a crescendo: "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." Contrary to progressive dispensationalists and other non-preterist evangelicals, Matthew does not present us a hodge-podge mixture of A.D. 70 and Second Advent material that we must, with great ingenuity, sort out ourselves. He presents a nicely demarcated delineation of the two events. When you read Matthew 24 up through verse 34 through 36, you cannot help but surmise that Jesus is closing down his prior prophecy as he picks up on his Second Advent prophecy. Why would verse 34 appear sixty verses PRIOR to the end of his presentation of A.D. 70 (Matt. 25:46)?

The events following Matthew 24:34-35 apparently relate to another catastrophe not in his contemporary generation: there is no later mention of "this generation" (as there is twice in Matt. 23:36 and 24:34). Thus, all prophecies before verse 34 are to occur in "this generation," i.e., the one to which Jesus is speaking. In Luke 21 the "this generation" statement appears only four verses before the end of the discourse, thus as a part of his conclusion. And one of those verses (v. 33) is actually a part of the "generation" statement (like Matt. 24:35 must be understood with Matt. 24:34), while the other two are moral applications of obligations devolving upon his hearers as a result of the prophecy. (Later I will engage Bock's analysis of the function of "this generation." Presently I am laying ground work for understanding my view.)

Second, in Matthew 24:34-36 Jesus contrasts that which is near from that which is far, in such a way as to suggest a long passage of time (which happens to be almost 2000 years already). The second verse following verse 34 reads: "But of THAT day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." Thus, an evident TEMPORAL distinction appears between "THIS generation" (using the near demonstrative houtos) and "THAT day" (using the far demonstrative ekeinos). In verse 36 it would seem more appropriate for Christ to speak of "this day" or (perhaps) "these days" rather than "that day" if he is referring to the time of "this generation."

Grammatically we should recognize that near and far demonstratives, when temporally employed and placed in juxtaposition, imply close and distant emphases (this is especially evident when ALL of the arguments I am presently lie before us). The Arndt-Gingrich-Danker Lexicon defines outos as meaning: "'this', referring to something comparatively near at hand, just as ekeinos refers to something comparatively farther away." Samples given include Luke 18:14 and James 4:15 (which will require consultation of the Greek text).

Third, the syntactical structure of the new section suggests a change of subject: "but concerning" (in the Greek it is peride). Of this verse, the Arndt-Gingrich-Danker Lexicon comments that this structure appears "at the beginning of a sentence" and "is connected with the verb that follows." It does not provide additional insights to the preceding observations, but either contrasts with them or adds new material (e.g., 1 Cor. 7:1; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1). France insists on this basis that verse 36 "marks a deliberate change of subject."

Fourth, all of these exegetical markers make perfect sense when we realize that before verse 34 Christ mentions various signs pointing to the A.D. 70 judgment coming: "wars and rumors of wars" (v. 6), "famines and earthquakes" (v. 7), "false prophets" (v. 11), and so forth. Indeed, these were to show the disciples the "beginning of sorrows" (v. 8). Thus, according to Christ his disciples (who asked the question leading to the discourse, 24:3) may — and should — recognize the time of the approach of Jerusalem's destruction; it is a predictable event with specific harbingers.

After verse 34, though, signs totally evaporate from the text. They are replaced by elements of surprise and ignorance, indicating that the time of the events in that section is unknown and therefore unpredictable: "they did not understand" (v. 39), "you do not know" (v. 42), "if the head of the house had known" (v. 43), "coming at an hour when you do not think He will" (v.44), "he does not expect him" (v. 50), and "you do not know" (25:13).

Fifth, Christ Himself even declares that he does not know the time of the Second Advent (v. 36): "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." The prevailing sin of populist, apocalyptic dispensationalism is the overlooking of this statement, as titles to current books show: "I Predict 2000"; "Prophecy 2000: Rushing to Armageddon"; "The 90's: Decade of the Apocalypse"; "How Close Are We?: Compelling Evidence for the Soon Return of Christ"; "2000 A.D.: Are You Ready?"; "2001: On the Edge of Eternity"; "The End: Why Jesus Could Return by A.D. 2000." (Ironically, the authors of the books will be proved "false prophets" by the year 2010!)

This total ignorance of Jesus on this point is wholly out of accord with his earlier presentation (which has led critical scholars to assume a "little apocalypse" theory and wholesale confusion in the discourse). In the earlier section prior to verse 36, Jesus clearly knows the time of the A.D. 70 judgment, for he tells his disciples that certain signs may come but "the end is not yet" (v. 6). How could he know "the end" (of the Temple, Matt. 23:38; 24:1-2) was "not yet" if the time was unknowable? Indeed, he forthrightly asserts: "Behold, I have told you in advance." Furthermore, the Lord also tells his disciples that all these things will certainly happen in "this generation" (v. 34).

Sixth, in the early section of Matthew 24 the time frame is short: "this generation." Just as the judgments are to befall the THEN LIVING Pharisees (Matt. 23:31-38) of "this generation," so shall the events of Matthew 24 — up to verse 34. In the following section (and through Matt. 25) the time frame is extended: "My master is DELAYING his coming'" (Matt 24:48). "But while the bridegroom was DELAYED" (Matt. 25:5). "After a LONG time the lord of those servants came" (Matt. 25:19).

Seventh, the character of the first section dramatically differs from that of the second. When reading the whole discourse we find ourselves leaving one world and enter into another one wholly different. In the first section (Matt. 24:4-34) all is chaotic, laden with war and persecution (vv. 7, 9-12). The upheaval of death and disease is everywhere present, so that men must "endure" the circumstances if they hope for deliverance (v. 13). Catastrophe hangs in the air (v. 19); confusion reigns supreme (vv. 23-24); flight is the order of the day (vv. 16-18, 20). The times must be "shortened" if any hope can prevail (v. 22).

In the second section (Matt. 24:36ff), however, the scene is totally changed. All appears tranquil. Life continues in all of its mundane relations. People are marrying (v. 38), rather than fearing having a family to care for, v. 19). They are eating and drinking freely (Matt. 25:38), rather than leaving behind all their belongings in order to flee (vv. 16-18). Agriculture and economic production are continuing unabated (Matt 25:40-41). These folks are not engaged in the production of war implements, but are enjoying a life of calm peace and productive prosperity. Danger is the farthest thing from their minds.

Eighth, in the first section Christ urges his disciples to flee the area: "Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains; let him who is on the housetop not go down to get the things out that are in his house; and let him who is in the field not turn back to get his cloak. But woe to those who are with child and to those who nurse babes in those days! But pray that your flight may not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath" (Matt. 24:16-20). This clearly implies there will be both opportunity and time to flee.

In the second section, however, absolutely no opportunity for flight exists; and no command for such is given. In fact, disaster befalls people so suddenly that the text presents them as caught in the midst of their tranquil labors: "Then there shall be two men in the field; one will be taken, and one will be left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken, and one will be left" (Matt. 24:40-41).

Ninth, in the first section the time frame is extended so that many "days" are consumed. We see reference to "days" plural: "But woe to those who are with child and to those who nurse babes in those days!" (24:19). "And unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days shall be cut short" (24:22). "But immediately after the tribulation of those days" (24:29).

When we enter the Second Advent section, "days" are replaced by the "day": "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone" (24:36). "Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming" (24:42). "The master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him (24:50). "Be on the alert then, for you do not know the day nor the hour" (25:13). (In verse 37 "days" are mentioned, but this refers back to Noah's time, not to that future time.)

WHERE WE ARE GOING

So then, it seems clear to me that Matthew shows that the Lord himself draws the line in the sand, as it were, at Matthew 24:34-36. But the question arises as to whether LUKE provides such a demarcation, bringing into close juxtaposition A.D. 70 and the Second Advent. That is a question that I will deal with in the next installment of this series. In the meantime, I hope the reader will remember my nine point argument for a distinction in Matthew: I believe it is based on rational, publicly verifiable, exegetical observations.

But when we get to Luke 21 we will notice something quite remarkable: Luke considers ONLY A.D. 70. (For some reason — and I use the term loosely — Tommy Ice assumes I hold that Luke 21 speaks of the Second Advent, and he uses that against me. Unfortunately, this error on his part appears in his last installment in our Kregal debate book. Consequently, I could not respond to it.) Though I believe Luke 21 focuses only on A.D. 70, Bock attempts to find a distinction between A.D. 70 and the Second Advent in Luke 21. This concept is important to Bock as an individual exegete, as well being necessary for futurism as an interpretive system. The evidence he presents is tenuous, at best. When one looks at the field of study, it becomes a field of dreams. And that is where we headed next month, class!

UPCOMING SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS

I will be speaking at the following conferences and classes. If you are in the area, come join us! If you are not, don't! If you are neither here nor there, you are confusing me. :-)

November 14, 1998: "Bahnsen Symposium" at the DoubleTree Hotel in Irvine, California (sponsored by SCCCS). Call: 714-572-8358.

January 18-21, 1999: "Eschatology Conference" at Westminster Presbyterian Church, Vancouver, WA. (call: 360-254-1726)

February 18-20, 1999: "Ligonier Conference on Eschatology" in Orlando, FL. Call: 407-333-4244.

February 22-26, 1999: "Eschatology and History Course" at Christ College, Lynchburg, VA. Call: 804-528-9034 or 9552.

February 26-28, 1999: "Introducing Reformed Eschatology" at

Rivermont Presbyterian Church in Lynchburg, VA. Call: 804-846-3441.

April, 1999 (details TBA): Conference on Revelation in Phoenix, AZ.

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

TAPES

Set #88. "The Divorce of Israel: Introduction and Survey of Revelation." (22 tapes: $85.00; Syllabus (optional): $15.00).

Set #49. "Comparison of Millennial Views" (1 tape: $4). WMUZ Radio. Interview of John Walvoord, Peter Lillbeck, and Gentry on eschatology.

Set #6. "Dispensational Distortions" (3 tapes: $12). Lectures. Introduction to classic dispensationalism, with analysis of leading flaws. Helpful for demonstrating errors to dispensationalists. Study Guide for class use: $1.50 each.

Set #80. "History & Hope" (19 tapes: $72) (1) Importance of Historical Hope (2) Foundations of Historical Hope (3) Dominion & Hope (4) Struggle & Hope (5) Questions & Issues (6) Worship & Hope (7) Personal Faith & Hope (8) Gradualism & Hope (9) Abraham, Jesus & Hope (10) Government & Hope: Principles (11) Government & Hope: Structure (12) Warning & Hope (13) Christ's Rule & Hope (14) Everlasting Hope (15) God's Time & Hope #1 (16) God's Time & Hope #2 (17) Kingdom of God & Hope. (18) Christ's Plan & Hope. (19) Redemption & Hope.

Add $2 shipping and handling per order.

Send orders to:

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