FUTURIST MARKER DEFICIT DISORDER

The Great Tribulation in Progressive Dispensationalism (Part 4)

Last month I noted several clear exegetical observations showing that Matthew 24 provides a break in the development of the Olivet Discourse. At Matthew 24:34-36 we see the Lord himself transitioning between A.D. 70 (Matt. 24:4-35) and the Second Advent (Matt. 24:36ff). As we well know from the biblical record, his disciples were often confused on matters: For example, they did not understand the necessity of his death (Matt. 16:21-22; Mark 9:31-32). So perhaps the same is true here in the way the Lord answers their question regarding his statement about the Temple's destruction. We find subtle evidence of their confusion over the matter, so that Jesus separates the two events. In this observation (though not for the same reasons or in the same way), I noted that progressive dispensationalist Darrell Bock (of Dallas Theological Seminary) and I AGREE — over against historic dispensationalism which adamantly denies Matthew's account records ANYTHING about A.D. 70. I mentioned that this very fact of disagreement between newer and older dispensationalism is significant.

But then I went on to suggest that even though Matthew deals with both events in his version of the discourse, Luke does not! And in this I DISAGREE with both older and newer forms of dispensationalism (and probably with other forms that will arise in the next few weeks and months as dispensationalism continues to mutate into new varieties, species, genera, families, orders, classes, and phyla). I indicated then that I will provide a survey of Bock's exposition of Luke 21, as provided in his massive commentary in the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: "Luke" (Baker: 1994). I will be using only the second volume, unless otherwise noted.

This whole matter of the Olivet Discourse is extremely important in eschatology. The discourse represents Jesus's largest, most sustained entry into prophetic matters distinguishing futurist schools from preterist schools. (Matthew 13 is perhaps his most important sustained presentation of instruction establishing a postmillennial eschatology over against pre- and amillennialism.)

In fact, Olivet is also a focal point of intense debate between higher critical liberalism (with their composite theories) and conservative evangelicalism (concerned to defend the integrity of the prophetic record and of Jesus Christ). R. C. Sproul's latest book shows how preterism defends Christ's prophecy against higher critical views (Sproul, "The Last Days According to Jesus," Baker).

Olivet also is a flashpoint of debate within the evangelical community, as anyone who walks through a Christian bookstore or turns on a Christian radio should realize. Or who with great daring appear on Christian radio talk shows and weather the storm of bizarrely understood dispensationalism, such as I endure from time-to-time. And with the recent renewal of evangelical preterism, it has become an even more significant center of controversy. But, of course, my concern is to critique progressive dispensationalism.

My method of critique of Bock will basically be by means of a chronological survey of his presentation, responding to his important observations along the way. But, of course, I will occasionally have to run ahead and gather some material from later sections in his book. I will not focus on Bock's interaction with and response to higher critical theories (with which I mostly concur). As with Joe Friday, I desire "Just the facts, ma'am." I will provide parenthetical page numbers to facilitate finding his observations in volume 2 of his commentary.

BOCK'S TWO-FOLD ARGUMENT

Early on in Bock's exposition we stumble upon a key observation. Bock considers this observation important for substantiating his argument, while I consider it valuable for showing his error. Allow me to cite the Scriptural text first, then I will consider Bock's argument:

Luke 21:5-7: "And while some were talking about the temple, that it was adorned with beautiful stones and votive gifts, He said, 'As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down.' And they questioned Him, saying, 'Teacher, when therefore will these things be? And what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?'"

Of the key phrase "when therefore will these things be," Bock argues: "The plural tauta ["these things"] is also significant, since it shows that, although the temple's fall is the question's focus, it is not the only topic" (1663).

Thus, Bock holds that this plural phrase supports application of the passage BEYOND the events of A.D. 70 to the Second Advent. Now as I have already noted (above, and last month): I believe Jesus DOES deal with both A.D. 70 and the Second Advent in the Olivet Discourse — as found in Matthew's version (chs. 24-25). But: I do NOT believe LUKE records Jesus's words relative to his future advent. I will (eventually!) show that Bock's attempt to sort the verses into their prophetic categories (A.D. 70 and the Second Advent) is not very convincing, especially when compared to the strong evidence we have in Matthew (see last month's newsletter).

(As an important aside: Please note that in my various books and articles I sorely criticize old line dispensationalism for suggesting that Matthew's account of Jesus' discourse does NOT record AT ALL Jesus' answer to the disciples specific question about his prophecy of the temple's looming destruction. This criticism is NOT a two-edged sword that may now be used on me when I deny that LUKE's account refers at all to the Second Advent. Remember: the SPECIFIC question asked is about the temple's destruction, not about the Second Advent, Luke 21:6-7.)

Bock points to the plural tauta ("these things") as a key argument. Then he observes in the next sentence that those who suggest "the plural refers only to the temple's destruction" ignore "the end of the discourse, which clearly deals with eschatological concerns" (1663). He continues in his next three sentences: "The question is about all the events related to the temple's collapse. Jesus replies about events related to Jerusalem's fall in A.D. 70 and about the end, since the discourse ends with a reference to the Son of Man's return. All such judgment is part of God's plan" (1663). Shortly thereafter, he observes that "this language clearly looks to the chain of events, some of which may extend beyond the temple issue" (1664).

Thus Bock provides two basic arguments that are foundational to his futurism in Luke 21: (1) Being plural, the tauta in 21:7 must refer to more than one event, and (2) Luke's language in verses 25-27 is too dramatic to apply to A.D. 70 and must therefore speak of the Second Advent. I simply do not agree with either of these arguments, and I will show why.

RESPONSE TO PLURAL EXPRESSION ARGUMENT IN LUKE

In the first place the burden of proof is on Bock, by his own admission. He is well aware of the necessity of seeing A.D. 70 in this passage: "The remark, in 21:7 looks back to the description in 21:6" (1663, fn 17). That is, "these things" (21:7) must include the stone-by-stone destruction of the temple (21:6). Anyone reading this passage will agree. But Bock says more in his sentence, which I only partially quoted: "The remark, in 21:7 looks back to the description in 21:6 BUT DOES NOT IGNORE LARGER CONCERNS." The "larger concerns" for Bock include the Second Advent. Bock's clear observation ("21:7 looks back" to "21:6") is then an admission that the burden of proof for anything beyond A.D. 70 is on him. And I believe he fails to provide enough proof to overcome that weighty burden.

With his admission (which, of course, is contextually unavoidable) Bock confirms the obvious: Jesus is referring to A.D. 70. But then he tries to slip into his argument that which is not-so-obvious: that Jesus is also referring to the Second Advent. And he does so on the most slender of evidence — as far as this one particular argument from the plurality of tauta is concerned. As I noted last month, Matthew's passage is highly structured, offering several converging textual indicators to draw a line of demarcation between prophecies regarding A.D. 70 and those focusing on the Second Advent. Luke's account is wholly lacking in such syntactical and lexical evidence.

In my remaining arguments, I will show see how slim Bock's evidence at this point is, especially since the burden of proof is on him.

Second, if in fact Luke extends Jesus' discourse to include the Second Advent, the plural "these things" is doubtful evidence in that direction. Tauta is a demonstrative pronoun, and as a pronoun it requires an antecedent to flesh out its meaning. In its contextual setting the antecedent seems abundantly clear: "And while some were talking about the temple, that it was adorned with beautiful stones and votive gifts, He said, 'As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down'" (21:5-6).

Here in 21:5-6 Jesus clearly uses the same word tauta ("these things") in verse 6 to apply to the temple stones and gifts which will be destroyed. It would seem that the question of the disciples regarding tauta ("these things") in verse 7 would do them same. His statement gives rise to their question. The "things" the early disciples were looking at (especially the marvelous stones). In fact, they repeat his "these things" (tauta) TWICE in their question in 21:7: "And they questioned Him, saying, Teacher, when therefore will THESE THINGS be? And what will be the sign when THESE THINGS are about to take place?" How can we imagine they are talking of something other than THESE THINGS of which Jesus just spoke?

Third, tauta is not only a demonstrative pronoun (generally) but a NEAR demonstrative pronoun (specifically). As the Arndt-Gingrich-Danker Lexicon states: It is a "demonstrative pronoun, used as adjective and substantive: this, referring to something comparatively near at hand, just as ekeinos refers to something comparatively farther away" (Lexicon, p. 596).

This nearness factor better fits the A.D. 70 event, rather than the far distant Second Advent. The near demonstrative pronoun, when taken by itself undercuts the case for a distantly future event. And as I will show in the next point, this fits very nicely in the contextual delimitations.

Fourth, in the final analysis, Luke's record DEMANDS a first century fulfillment of these things which Jesus prophesies, as recorded in Luke's version (which is shorter than Matthew's). We must note that AFTER Jesus details all the prophetic information in Luke 21:5-27 he EXPRESSLY and REPEATEDLY asserts the NEARNESS of "these things." Notice the relentless and rather repetitious string of temporal indicators that conclude the discourse as found in Luke's Gospel:

Luke 21:28: "When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing NEAR."

Luke 21:29-30: "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.'"

Luke 21:31: "Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is NEAR."

Luke 21:32: "I tell you the truth, THIS GENERATION will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."

How can anyone read these concluding statements and surmise he means anything other than that "all" these events are "near" in "this generation"? As recorded by Luke, Jesus appears to go out of his way to nail down the temporal relevance of this prophecy.

PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO LANGUAGE ARGUMENT IN LUKE

I will not greatly expand upon Bock's argument and my response at this juncture. Rather, I will wait until I approach the material in question as I work seriatim through the Lucan text. I will, however, provide a preliminary observation that appears to me to weaken Bock's bold assertion.

Let me cite Bock's fuller statement in this regard. Bock observes (1663):

"The plural tauta is also significant, since it shows that, although the temple's fall is the question's focus, it is not the only topic. Fitzmeyer (1985: 1331), Schewizer (1984: 314), and Ellis (1974: 243) argue that the plural refers only to the temple's destruction, but this ignore the end of the discourse, which clearly deals with eschatological concerns. The question is about all the events related to the temple's collapse. Jesus replies about events related to Jerusalem's fall in A.D. 70 and about the end, since the discourse ends with a reference to the Son of Man's return. All such judgment is part of God's plan."

Of course, I must confess that I agree with Bock (and most other evangelical interpreters) that there is a topical linkage between A.D. 70 and the Second Advent. Jerusalem's collapse is a microcosmic illustration of the universally catastrophic return of Christ at the last day. The two are tied together as eschatologically significant events. But that the two are related does not demand that they must ALWAYS appear together. The two events can — and often do! — appear separately in Scripture. And I believe such is the case here.

But Bock argues that the language at "the end of the discourse . . . clearly deals with eschatological concerns . . . [which involve] a reference to the Son of Man's return" (and by his "return" Bock means his bodily return at the Second Advent, not his judgment-return in A.D. 70.) Luke's language is as follows:

"And there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and upon the earth dismay among nations, in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves, men fainting from fear and the expectation of the things which are coming upon the world; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory" (Luke 21:25-27).

A serious problems appears to undercut the effectiveness of his argument: Bock himself allows that dramatic imagery such as in Luke 21:25-27 can actually refer to historical events prior to the Second Advent. Events such as A.D. 70, the Babylonian conquest of Israel, and so forth. If that is so, then how can we argue — AGAINST the near time indicators! — that this language must HERE refer to the Second Advent and NOT to A.D. 70? Allow me to illustrate my concern.

Bock observes (rightly) that in the Olivet Discourse "Jesus speaks like an OT prophet" (1680) and that his "imagery is drawn from OT and apocalyptic pictures" (1682). Then on page 1685 he elaborates upon the imagery of "coming on the clouds" as used in the OT prophets:

"This image is important because the picture of a figure coming on the clouds is one of 'superhuman majesty and state,' to use S. R. Driver's apt description (1900: 88). The association of a figure 'riding on the clouds' or with clouds is normally tied to the authority of God or the gods in the OT (Exod. 14:20; 34:5; Num. 10:34; Ps. 104:3; Isa. 19:1)."

If we look up Isaiah 19:1 we discover (as Dallas Seminary's "Bible Knowledge Commentary" even admits) that this cloud coming is God's judgment upon Egypt IN THE OT PERIOD. Consequently, the Olivet language can apply EITHER to the Second Advent OR to A.D. 70 — or some other such historical event. It does NOT demand a future, eschatological Second Advent.

Furthermore, Bock draws texts such as Isaiah 13:10 and 34:4 into the discussion of the Second Advent (1682). Yet when we look up these passages, we discover they CLEARLY refer to OT events in our distant past (once again, as Dallas Seminary's "Bible Knowledge Commentary" confesses!). Read them yourselves:

In Isaiah 13:1 we learn the prophecy was against OT Babylon: "The oracle concerning Babylon which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw." In v. 10 we discover the language in question: "For the stars of heaven and their constellations will not flash forth their light; the sun will be dark when it rises, and the moon will not shed its light." Then in verses 17-19 we again see the historical circumstances associated with Babylon's fall: "Behold, I am going to stir up the Medes against them, who will not value silver or take pleasure in gold, and their bows will mow down the young men, they will not even have compassion on the fruit of the womb, nor will their eye pity children. And Babylon, the beauty of kingdoms, the glory of the Chaldeans' pride, will be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah." What could be more clear? (Except maybe Luke's near time indicators!)

In Isaiah 34:4-6 we read catastrophic, apocalyptic language describing Edom's historical judgment under God's providence: "All the host of heaven will wear away, and the sky will be rolled up like a scroll; all their hosts will also wither away as a leaf withers from the vine, or as one withers from the fig tree. For My sword is satiated in heaven, behold it shall descend for judgment upon Edom, and upon the people whom I have devoted to destruction. The sword of the LORD is filled with blood, it is sated with fat, with the blood of lambs and goats, with the fat of the kidneys of rams. For the LORD has a sacrifice in Bozrah, and a great slaughter in the land of Edom." Clearly this passage refers to the conquest of Edom; clearly apocalyptic the-sky-is-falling language may apply to pre-consummation historical wars. And I believe Luke 21 applies to A.D. 70.

Finally, let us look at the supposed transition in Luke 21 as Jesus supposedly redirects his attention from A.D. 70 to the Second Advent. We will discover that there is NO transition, no text indicators! Remember: Bock suggest Luke 21:24 concludes A.D. 70 and Luke 21:25 begins consideration of the distant future. At verse 25 Bock notes: "Jesus now turns his attention more directly to the end" (1682). See if you can find anything that would cause a leap from A.D. 70 to the Second Advent, like that found in Matthew 24. Luke 21:20-26 reads:

[26] "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is at hand. [21] Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are in the midst of the city depart, and let not those who are in the country enter the city; [22] because these are days of vengeance, in order that all things which are written may be fulfilled. [23] "Woe to those who are with child and to those who nurse babes in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land, and wrath to this people, [24] and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. [25] And there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and upon the earth dismay among nations, in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves, [26] men fainting from fear and the expectation of the things which are coming upon the world; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

The phrase "and there will be signs" does not appear to indicate a radical transition, to say the least. And I do not believe one exists here. Remember: shortly thereafter Jesus repeats references to the nearness of the end (Luke 21:28, 30, 31, 32). What we have in this supposedly futurist passage is the Futurist Marker Deficit Disorder, which has claimed the life's work of many an expositor.

As we work our way through Bock's exposition, we will discover how an A.D. 70 exposition appears more coherent. That being the case, the futurism of progressive dispensationalism is greatly weakened in this vitally important text.

 

---

 

UPCOMING SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS

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

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

January 18-21, 1999: "Eschatology Conference" at Westminster
Presbyterian Church, Vancouver, WA. Phone: (360) 892-4407

February 18-20, 1999: "Ligonier Conference on Eschatology" at First Baptist Church, Orlando, FL. Phone: (407) 333-4244.

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

February 26-28, 1999: "Introducing Reformed Eschatology" at Rivermont Presbyterian Church in Lynchburg, VA. Phone: (840) 846-3441

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

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: P.O. Box 388, Placentia, CA. 92871