GOD’S BLESSING TO YOU IN 2013! INCIDENTALLY, YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME!
BILL FITZGERREL
In the last article, I analyzed the
Preterist understanding of Matthew
24:15-22. In this article, I shall
survey the Dispensationalist
understanding of the same passage. I
have introduced the Dispensationalist approach in a previous article.
DISPENSATIONALIST
INTERPRETATION OF
MATTHEW
24:15-22
A
New Representative
To
this point I have used J. Dwight Pentecost’s Things to Come as a representative of the Dispensationalist
position. I believe his book is very
scholarly and is a fair representation of Dispensationalism. I have now available John F. Walvoord’s Every Prophecy of the Bible: Clear
Explanations for Uncertain Times.
This book is written for a “popular” audience, but Walvoord has written
many scholarly articles. Both Pentecost
and Walvoord have been at Dallas Theological Seminary. I shall use both of these works (hopefully
others later) to present Dispensationalist thinking.
Matthew
24:15 as a Key
Pentecost focuses on Matthew 24:15
as a key to understanding the Olivet Discourse, especially in establishing it
as a discourse on the end times. The
reasoning goes as follows: the 70th
Week of Daniel is predicted by Daniel to include the Abomination of
Desolation. Jesus predicted the
Abomination of Desolation as a precursor to the Great Tribulation. Therefore, the Olivet Discourse is a
description of the 70th Week.
The
70th Week: I do not want
to belabor the 70th Week of Daniel arguments, but an understanding
of Daniel’s prophecy concerning the 70 Weeks is the background for the
Dispensationalist approach. Daniel
9:24-27 says the following:
24“Seventy weeks are
decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to
put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in
everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint
a most holy place. 25 Know therefore and understand that from the
going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an
anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it
shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. 26And after
the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have
nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and
the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end
there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. 27 And he shall make a
strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall
put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations
shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on
the desolator.” (Scripture quotations
from English Standard Version unless stated otherwise)
The
following is the same passage in the New International Version:
24 “Seventy ‘sevens’
are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put
an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness,
to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place. 25 “Know and understand this: From
the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed
One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It
will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. 26 After
the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have
nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the
sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and
desolations have been decreed. 27 He will
confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he
will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an
abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out
on him.” (NIV)
In
this difficult passage, which is a statement from the angel Gabriel to Daniel,
there is a prediction of 70 Weeks (or sevens)—usually understood as 70
seven-year periods, or 490 years—for the Hebrew nation. Although it is difficult to follow, it
appears that 69 Weeks (7 + 62) are forecast until “an anointed one” comes. This is generally interpreted as the coming
of the Messiah (Anointed One). Then, a
series of events take place. First, the
anointed one is “cut off” (killed). This
is understood to be the crucifixion of Christ.
Then, the people of “the prince who is to come” will destroy the city
and the sanctuary (Jerusalem and the Temple).
This is understood to be the AD 70 destruction by the Romans. Then, there are wars and desolations. Then, “he” will make a “covenant with many
for one week…” This “one week” is
understood to be the 70th
Week. The “he” who is the covenant
maker is understood to be the “prince who is to come.” He will end sacrifices after one-half a
week. Then, “on the wing of abominations
shall come one who makes desolate.” This
is understood to be the Abomination of
Desolation. I have produced the
following table that I hope will be helpful to those who are unfamiliar with
these concepts.
|
CONCEPT
|
VERSE
IN
DANIEL
9
|
EXPLANATION
|
COMMENT
|
|
70
Weeks
|
24
|
Total
time given to complete the list of redeeming works for Israel
|
Usually
understood to consist of three divisions:
7 + 62 + 1 = 70
|
|
7
Weeks
|
25
|
Unclear
first division of the 70
|
Appears to be a time of building
|
|
62
Weeks
|
26
|
Second
division of the 70
|
|
|
Anointed
One
|
26
|
Comes
after 7 + 62 Weeks; understood to be the Messiah (Christ)
|
Cut
off or crucified
|
|
Prince
who is to come
|
26
|
Generally
understood to be the Beast/Antichrist
|
He
is “to come” so he is not present at the destruction of Jerusalem
|
|
People
of the prince
|
26
|
The
nation connected to the prince to come; this nation destroys Jerusalem and
the Temple (the Romans)
|
The
Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70.
|
|
“He”
|
27
|
Antecedent
appears to be the “prince who is to come”
|
|
|
Covenant
for 1 Week
|
27
|
This
prince makes a covenant with (what is understood to be) the Hebrew nation for
1 Week (7 years)
|
|
|
70th Week
|
|
Understood
to be this 7 year period of covenant with the Hebrews
|
Nothing
like this covenant has occurred in history.
Therefore, the 70th
Week is understood to be in the last days, yet in the future.
|
|
½
Week
|
27
|
The
prince is understood to betray the people and put an end to their religious
rites half-way through the 70th Week
|
|
|
Abomination of Desolation
|
27
|
Some
sort of detestable act that desecrates the Temple
|
It
appears to be done by the prince who is to come. It is assumed to take place at about the
same time the sacrifice and offerings cease.
|
Two
things are important in the reasoning for Dispensationalists. First, there is the idea that the 70th Week of Daniel is to
come in the future in the last days.
Second, the Abomination of
Desolation takes place in the middle of the 70th Week. Therefore, the mention by Jesus in Matthew
24:15 of the Abomination of Desolation is a “marker” that establishes that he
is talking about events of the last days and not the destruction of Jerusalem
in AD 70.
Use
of 24:15 as a Key: Pentecost uses
the mention in verse 15 as evidence that the Olivet Discourse is all about the
70th Week: “There are
indications that verses 9-26 describe the events of the last half of the
week. The abomination of desolation
(24:15) is clearly stated by Daniel (9:27) to appear in the middle of the
week…” (Pentecost, page 279) Walvoord makes a distinction between Luke
21 and Matthew 24 because the wording of Luke 21:20-24 differs considerably
from Matthew 24:15-22. So, he
understands Luke 21:20 (“But when
you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come
near.”) to be a prediction of the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem and Matthew 24:15 ((“So when you see the
abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy
place (let the reader understand))) to be a prediction of a future fulfillment
of the prediction in Daniel 9:27 of the Abomination of Desolation (Walvoord,
pages 374, 376-377).
Pentecost’s Interpretation
In
a previous article I have stated Pentecost’s position that all of Matthew
24:4-26 refers to the 70th Week, that is the future seven year
period before the return of Christ: “Consistency
of interpretation would seem to eliminate any application of this portion of
Scripture to the church or the church age, inasmuch as the Lord is dealing with
the prophetic program for Israel.”
(Pentecost, page 278) He believes
that verse 4-8 refer to the first half of the 70th Week, and that
verses 9-26 refer to the second half:
“The word ‘then’ in verse 9 seems to introduce the great persecutions
against Israel that were promised them…”
(Pentecost, page 279)
In analyzing these verses, Pentecost
jumps back and forth between verses 9-14 and 15-22. Verses 9-14, he understands, are events that
take place in the latter half of the 70th Week (Pentecost, pages
279-280). However, verses 15-22 also describe that period. Verse 15 announces the Abomination of
Desolation, and verses 16-20 constitute Christ’s warning to Israel to flee
because of the Great Tribulation that is to come (verses 21-22) (Pentecost,
pages 249 and 279-280). I have given a
summary of Pentecost’s scheme in the following table (based mostly on
Pentecost, pages 279-280):
|
CHRONO-
LOGICAL
ORDER
|
VERSES
FROM 9-14
|
VERSES
FROM 15-22
|
||
|
|
VERSE
|
INTERPRETATION
|
VERSE
|
INTERPRETATION
|
|
1
|
|
|
15
|
Abomination
of Des.
|
|
2
|
|
|
16-20
|
Warning
to flee
|
|
3
|
9
|
Great
persecutions
|
21-22
|
Great
Tribulation
|
|
4
|
11
|
Unbelieving
Israel
deceived
|
||
|
5
|
12
|
Unbelieving
Israel
apostasizes
|
||
|
6
|
14
|
Believing
Israel
witnesses
to the
“kingdom”
|
||
|
7
|
27
|
Second
Coming of
Christ
|
||
Incidentally, Pentecost clarifies
the usage (especially among Dispensationalists of the term “tribulation.” “[The word “tribulation”] is used in its
technical or eschatological sense in reference to the whole period of the seven
years of tribulation as in…Matthew 24:29.
It is also used in reference to the last half of this seven year period,
as in Matthew 24:21.” (Pentecost, page
170)
Walvoord’s
Interpretation
Generally, Walvoord and Pentecost
agree, though there is some difference of emphasis. One major difference is that Walvoord sees a twofold fulfillment of verses 4-14:
Still another point of
view presented in this writing is that the entire period described in verses
4–14 are general prophecies that can find fulfillment throughout the present
age, with verses 15–30 fulfilled in the great tribulation. However, these same
prophecies and the events predicted in verses 4–14 are repeated in the great
tribulation, when what was perhaps partially fulfilled earlier will have a very
literal and devastating fulfillment.
(Walvoord, page 371)
Walvoord clarifies a concept that
Pentecost also mentions (Pentecost, page 276).
This concept is that Luke 21
records Christ’s answer to the FIRST question of the Disciples and Matthew
24 records His answers to the other questions, as follows:
Matthew did not deal,
however, with the first question the disciples asked of when the destruction of
Jerusalem would take place, as predicted by Christ in verse 2. This is
answered, however, in Luke’s gospel.
(Walvoord, page 374)
Luke stated that the
sign of Jerusalem being surrounded by armies should alert them to the fact that
its destruction was imminent: “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by
armies, you will know that its desolation is near.” (Walvoord, page 374)
He compares the two periods of
history—the AD 70 war and the Great Tribulation—as follows:
Jesus, having described
the signs relating to the destruction of Jerusalem, which some of them would
live to see, and the general signs of the progress of the present age, then
revealed in detail the specific signs which would be unmistakable evidence that
the second coming of Christ and the end of the age was near. It is important to
note that the specific signs are entirely different from the signs for the
destruction of Jerusalem, though there are some similarities. In both, Israel
will be in time of trouble and tribulation. In both periods those in Judea are
urged to flee to the mountains. In both cases Gentile power, at least at first,
will be triumphant. But the specific signs of the end of the age and the coming
of Christ do not occur in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem but
await the future period leading up to the second coming of Christ, which will
be the specific sign of the end.
(Walvoord, page 376)
Note
in the passage above that Walvoord, along with Pentecost, understands the warnings in verses 16-20 to be to
Israel and not to the church (Pentecost, page 280).
Walvoord’s
comments on the Abomination of Desolation include the understanding that this
act in the future will be a desecration
of a Jewish Temple that will be in existence in the last days (Walvoord,
pages 376-377): For example, he says, “This
is called ‘an abomination that causes desolation’ because it destroys the
sacred character of the sacrificial altar and the temple that will be in
existence at the time.” (Walvoord, page
376)
COMMENTS
ON
PENTECOST’S
AND WALVOORD’S
VIEWS
To a great deal, I have already
analyzed much of what Pentecost has to say because his understanding of verses
9-14 overlaps his view of verses 15-22.
I have synthesized his views in a table earlier in this article. As I have analyzed Matthew 24, I have
observed a definite turning point between verses 14 and 15. There are some reasons why Pentecost and I
disagree on this point. (Most of the
following references to Pentecost are from pages 279-280.)
·
Pentecost is strongly committed to the
idea that the entire narrative of verses 4-26 concerns the 70th
Week. I understand that verses 4-14 are
developments in the church age.
·
Pentecost sees a major break in the
narrative at verse 9, and he concludes this corresponds to the change of
conditions for Israel with the change in the attitudes of the Beast/Antichrist
in the middle of the 70th Week.
I understand the narrative shifts in verse 9 from events of the world at
large to developments within the church.
·
I understand “this gospel of the kingdom
will be proclaimed” (verse 14) to mean that the gospel of salvation through
faith in Jesus will be proclaimed.
Pentecost understands “gospel of the kingdom” to mean a gospel about the
coming Millennial Kingdom.
·
I understand the descriptions of events
in 9-13 of persecution, apostasy, false prophets, and cold love to be
developments in the church, whereas Pentecost attributes these same
developments to occur during the Tribulation with Israel as the subjects.
·
I understand verse 15 does take place
during the 70th Week and the warning to flee in verses 16-20 would
apply to Christians who would be knowledgeable of Christ’s words (including
Jewish Christians).
If
I understand Walvoord correctly, he agrees with me on the break in the
narrative at verse 14. However, he sees
a double fulfillment for verses 4-14—as “general signs” of the coming last days
and as also having “a very literal and devastating fulfillment” during the
Tribulation (Walvoord, page 371). I am
not sure why he concludes this. One
would assume he would agree with Pentecost’s analysis.
I cannot agree with Pentecost’s
analysis of verses 9-14. Russell (see my
previous article) equates the Great Tribulation of verses 21-22 to the AD 70
destruction of Jerusalem. He does that
without any close analysis or reason for that idea. I have demonstrated that analysis of 15-22
does not “fit” well at all with that historical event. Moreover, verses 4-14 do not fit well at all
with the 40 year period from AD 30 to 70, as I have demonstrated in another
article. In Russell’s case, I believe he
can see a few specific markers in the narrative which he can identify with
certain historical events. For example,
some of the persecutions of verse 9 fit will with the first century. Any markers that do not fit so well, he
simply ignores or “waves a hand” toward.
This would be true for the description of world upheaval of nations in
verses 6-7 and for the description of apostasy in the church in verses 10 and
13.
In
the same way, Pentecost makes things fit for the narrative, yet close analysis
does not bear out his conclusions. For
example, he attributes apostasy in verse 10 to “unbelieving Israel” (Pentecost,
page 280). But an unbelieving people
would not go into apostasy. He also
ignores the prediction of verse 12 about the love of many growing cold. If Israel comes to Christ in great numbers
(as well as many Gentiles) in a period of seven years, it is difficult to
conceive of a simultaneous growing cold of such a fervent group. I believe that Pentecost has backed himself
into a corner in his interpretation by maintaining that the whole passage is
about the Tribulation (or 70th Week) period. This is consistent with his (and most
Dispensationalists’) position that the 70th Week is all about Israel
and not the church. And that position is
because of their belief in the Pre-Tribulation Rapture. (Although they would maintain that the
cause-and-effect relationship is in the other direction.)
Walvoord
and Pentecost believe that Christ’s warning to flee to the mountains in verses
16-20 is a warning to Israel. The practicality
of that view is difficult to maintain. Two
possibilities of how this warning would apply to Israel can be considered. One is that it is to be to any
Jews/Israelites in Judea at the time of the Abomination of Desolation. Non-Christian Jews are very unlikely to be
aware of Jesus’ words and would not heed them if they were aware. Christian Jews would be aware of His words as
would non-Jewish Christians to whom the warning might apply. This subject brings up another issue, which
is the presence or non-presence of the church at the time. I shall deal with that at another time.
In
neither Pentecost nor Walvoord, there is not a great deal of material about the
Tribulation period itself as they respond directly to these verses. They certainly—especially Pentecost—have a
great deal to say about the Tribulation.
I shall refrain also from dealing with that subject until another time.
I
believe the statement of Walvoord with regard to Luke 21:20-24 is very interesting. I shall put off dealing with that Scripture
until I deal with the parallels to Matthew 24 in Mark and Luke.
Summary: J. Dwight Pentecost’s
and John F. Walvoord’s views of Matthew 24:15-22 have been surveyed. Their views are very similar except that
Walvoord understands Matthew 24:4-14 to be fulfilled in the church age as well
as having a second fulfillment in the Tribulation period. Pentecost understands verses 9-14 to be
parallel in time to verses 15-22.
Walvoord and Pentecost believe that Luke 21:20-24 addresses the signs signaling
the approach of the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem whereas Matthew 24:15-20
deals with events in the last days. Both
men believe that the warning of verses 16-20 apply to Israel.
I
have reiterated my objections to Pentecost’s views of verses 4-14, which I
believe apply to the church age, as does Walvoord. I also have stated my views on how verses
16-20 in practicality would apply only to believing Jews/Israelites and not all
of Israel.
NEXT: Preterist view of
verses 24-31
REFERENCES:
Crossway
Bibles (2009-04-09). ESV Study Bible (Kindle Locations 235445-235449). Good
News Publishers. Kindle
Edition.
Pentecost,
J. Dwight. Things to Come. Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publish. House,
1958.
Walvoord,
John F. Every Prophecy of the Bible: Clear Explanations for Uncertain Times.
Colorado Springs,
CO: David C Cook. Kindle Edition, 2011.
International
Bible Society. Holy Bible, New International Version. Grand Rapids, MI: Biblica,
Inc., 2011. (courtesy www.biblegateway.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment