GOSPEL ESCHATOLOGY
A “BETTER RESURRECTION”
JESUS PROMISED
TO RETURN IN THE LIFETIME AND GENERATION OF THE INSPIRED N.T. WRITERS - IN A.D. 70 HE KEPT HIS PROMISE!
By: Michael
J. Sullivan
Copyright Notice: Copyright 2005. All rights reserved by Michael
J. Sullivan. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any way without the written permission of the author.
This work is still in process and has not been edited. Although I plan to offer this book free online I would still appreciate
the Christian reader to cite my work properly and legally. Thank you for your understanding and love in Christ. In the past
I myself have not properly cited my sources and having taken the time to write my own book I now understand the importance
in giving respect to those who have taken a lot of time and effort to read, research, and document their hard
work.
109
Sovereign grace
GOSPEL ESCHATOLOGY
A “BETTER RESURRECTION”
“And you will be
hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved. "When they persecute you in this city,
flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel
before the Son of Man comes” (Mt.10:22-23).
“For the Son of
man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily
I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his
kingdom” (Mt.16:27-28).
“Verily I say unto
you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled” (Mt.24:34).
“But the
end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.”
“For yet a little
while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry” (Heb.10:37).
“The Revelation
of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass;
and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John” (Rev.1:1).
1) THE QUESTION TO “END”
ALL QUESTIONS: WHO’S REALLY “CONFUSED,” “MISTAKEN,” OR “IGNORING” THE DISCIPLES
QUESTIONS ABOUT “THE END OF THE AGE” – THE DISCIPLES OR JOHN MACARTHUR, THOMAS ICE, KENNETH GENTRY, R.C.
SPROUL, N.T. WRIGHT…?
Virtually every futuristic eschatological view
interprets the Olivet Discourse to be addressing two prophecies: 1) The destruction of Jerusalem
and her temple in A.D. 70, and 2) A future return of Jesus to destroy the planet, end time, or bring an end to the current
Christian age. Because they all fail to consistently take the discourse in its original context and see that the judgment
upon Jerusalem and the destruction of her temple in A.D. 70 is the same thing as the end of the old covenant age,
they can never agree on what verses address AD 70 events and what verses address alleged future ones. A classic example of
this futuristic confusion over identifying which events speak to A.D. 70 events and which ones are alleged future events can
be found in the written debate between premillennial dispensatioanalist author Thomas Ice and reformed postmillennial partial
preterist author Kenneth Gentry in the their book, THE GREAT TRIBULATION PAST OR FUTURE? I will be interacting with
both of these authors throughout my interpretation of the Olivet Discourse since they have both sought unsuccessfully to disprove
exegetical preterism or my favorite term – Gospel Eschatology. I will also be refuting my former Pastor, College President,
and author John MacArthur. MacArthur has also come out in print attempting to disprove my view and the view of another former
pastor and friend of mine Ward Fenley. Therefore, I will examine MacArthur’s claims that Jesus “virtually ignores”
the disciples questions about the destruction of the temple and his eisegesis of the discourse in general. I will be interacting
with a wide rage of positions and authors but primarily Thomas Ice, John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, Kenneth Gentry, Gary DeMar,
and N.T. Wright.
As far as a flow and topics to be considered
in our exegesis of (Mt.24:3), I will be answering the question of whether or not the disciples were “confused”
on associating Christ’s return with the destruction of the temple and thus identifying what “end of the age”
they were asking about in light of Jesus prediction of the destruction of the temple. In identifying what “end of the
age” the disciples are asking about it is imperative to go back through Matthew’s gospel to identify what Jesus
taught them concerning the time frame of His return (Mt.10:17-23; Mt.16:27-28) and the declarations of Jesus’ ministry
of an “at hand kingdom.” It is at this point that the theme of John the Baptist’s declarations of an “at
hand” kingdom, judgment, and harvest/resurrection will be woven in and out throughout this section.
My exegetical propositions and presuppositions
for debate with any of the authors I cite and refute in this book are as follows:
1. The
disciples were not confused in associating the return of Christ
with the destruction of the temple and the end of the age. Nor did Jesus “ignore” their questions or interject
a second topic – the end of the physical planet or the end of time. Nor did Jesus go on to discuss something that they
never asked about – the end of the planet earth and time as we know it.
2. In
the immediate context, the “end of the age” in association with the temples destruction is speaking
to the end of the old covenant age or the mosaic age of the law and not the end of the Christian age.
1. The
context of Daniel’s prophecy predicted the abominations and desolation or destruction of the temple as the time when
the judgment, tribulation, inheriting the kingdom, and the resurrection of the dead would be fulfilled (Dan.7; Dan.9:24-27;
Dan.12:1-7).
2. According
to Jesus and Daniel, these texts were predictions dealing with the “holy people” and the destruction of their
temple as the point in redemptive history that would mark the “the time of the end” (not the end of time!),
and would consummate all of the eschatological promises made to Israel
in the law and prophets (Mt.24:15-34; Lk.21:20-32).
3. The
“end of the age” was predicted to occur by Jesus within the contemporary “this generation”
of the first century church (Mt.24:34).
3. Theologically
and contextually, the phrase “end of the age” or similar N.T. phrases NEVER speak to the end of the Christian
or new covenant age but always to the end of the old covenant or Mosaic age of the law. Jesus’ “this age”
judgment and harvest/resurrection in (Mt.13:49) is the identical “at hand” judgment and harvest/resurrection John
had warned of earlier in the gospel of Matthew (Mt.3:2; 10-12).
4. Therefore,
what was LITERALLY “at hand” for John the Baptist as the Elijah to come to prepare the way for the “great
and dreadful day of the Lord” was likewise LITTERALLY “at hand” in the N.T. writers day and spoke to Christ
returning in judgment in A.D. 70 (Jms.5:7-9; 1Pet.4:5; 7; 17; Heb.9:26-28/Heb.10:37). The “at hand” coming of
the messianic kingdom at the “end of the age” was neither “postponed” nor different than the kingdoms
arrival at the “at hand” second coming. The time statements in the gospel’s and the N.T. are addressing
a literal “near” fulfillment and are not to be spiritualized away based on a twisting of (2Pet.3:8). Nor are the
time statements to be “projected” past A.D.70 (1Pet.1:4-12; 1Cor.10:11). Any attempt to do so is to “go
beyond what is written.”
I will have to deal with a wide rage of futurists
errors over what age would end at Christ’s parousia and which one would take it’s place. Because futurists can’t
agree upon what verses are A.D. 70 events and which ones speak of an alleged future return of Jesus and they seem to be divided
at times as to the meaning of the “end of the age,” it will take some time to sort through the various views and
point out the flaws in each of them. Most futurists cannot deal with the straight forward statements of Jesus in the discourse
that state “all these things” would be fulfilled in Jesus’ “this generation.” And for those
futurists that have attempt to take a biblical definition of “this generation” in the Olivet Discourse as speaking
to A.D. 70 events -- are then forced to interpret “all these things” as “some of these things”
or they end up with the doctrine of two second comings, one to destroy Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (Mt. 24:1-34) and another one
in the alleged future (Mt. 24:36f.). At this point the reader is saying, “Man this is going to be confusing!”
And yes, thank you for making my next point which is, the interjection of a topic that isn’t in the text to begin with
- “the end of the Christian age” or planet earth, as opposed to the end of the OC age, makes the discourse very
difficult to understand let alone explain, chart out, and refute the many faulty approaches that have sought to interact with
preterist theologians.
Upon reading Paradise Restored
on one of my breaks from The Master’s College I traveled to David Chilton’s home and began asking him many questions
as to why he seemed to divide the OD into two different comings of Christ. I struggled why David didn’t go any farther
in the OD in his writings than he did and I struggled with his lack of an answer to my straight forward questions. David didn’t
even bother answering the questions I gave him on any exegetical level let alone had much to say about them, but simply smiled
and said, “It sounds to me like you need to read a book by James Russell.” Of course I wasn’t real impressed
with the interaction of my new eschatological hero at the time, but I did take his advise and began to read Russell’s
exegesis of Mt.24 – 25 and felt like a burden rolled off my back! Here was a man that had written an exegesis of Mt.24
– 25 that was not divided into two different comings of Christ – but one. So in honor of him and David Chilton
who eventually made it through the smile of being a partial preterist in writing but a closet full preterist in conscience
and then eventually in writing and public testimony as well, I shall quote Russell here at length in order to identify what
“end of the age” the disciples asked about and what “end” is consistently discussed throughout the
discourse and the rest of the N.T for that matter:
“It is not easy
for the ordinary reader to follow the ingenious critic through his convoluted scheme; but it is plain that the disciples must
have been hopelessly bewildered amidst a rush of crises and catastrophes from the fall of Jerusalem
to the end of the world. Perhaps we shall be told, however, that it does not signify whether the disciples understood our
Lord’s answer or not: it was not to them that He was speaking; it was to future ages, to generations yet unborn, who
were destined, however, to find the interpretation of the prophecy as embarrassing to them as it was to the original bearers.
There are no words too strong to repudiate such a suggestion. The disciples came to their Master with a plain, straightforward
inquiry, and it is incredible that He would mock them with an unintelligible riddle for a reply. It is to be presumed that
the Saviour meant His disciples to understand His words, and it is to be presumed that they did understand them.
3. The interpretation
which we are considering appears to be founded upon a misapprehension of the question put to our Lord by the disciples, as
well as of His answer to their question.
It is generally assumed
that the disciples came to our Lord with three different questions, relating to different events separated from each other
by a long interval of time; that the first inquiry, ‘When shall these things be?’—had reference to
the approaching destruction of the temple; that the second and third question—, ‘ What shall be the sign of thy
coming, and of the end of the world?’—referred to events long posterior to the destruction of Jerusalem, and, in fact, not yet accomplished. It is supposed that our Lord’s reply conforms itself to this threefold inquiry, and that
this gives the shape to His whole discourse. Now, let it be considered how utterly improbable it is that the disciples should
have had any such scheme of the future mapped out in their minds. We know that they had just been shocked and stunned by their
Master’s prediction of the total destruction of the glorious house of God on which they had so recently been gazing
with admiration. They had not yet had time to recover from their surprise, when they came to Jesus with the inquiry, ‘When
shall these things be?’ etc. Is it not reasonable to suppose that one thought possessed them at that moment—the
portentous calamity awaiting the magnificent structure, the glory and beauty of Israel?
Was that a time when their minds would be occupied with a distant future? Must not their whole soul have been concentrated
on the fate of the temple? And must they not have been eager to know what tokens would be given of the approach of the catastrophe?
Whether they connected in their imagination the destruction of the temple with the dissolution of the creation, and the
close of human history, it is impossible to say; but we may safely conclude, that the uppermost thought in their mind
was the announcement which the Lord had just made, ‘Verily I say unto you, there shall not be left here one stone upon
another which shall not be thrown down.’ They must have gathered from the Saviour’s language that this catastrophe
was imminent; and their anxiety was to know the time and the tokens of its arrival. St. Mark and St. Luke make the question
of the disciples refer to one event and one time—‘When shall these things be, and what shall be
the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?’ It is not only presumable, therefore, but indubitable, that the
questions of the disciples only refer to different aspects of the same great event. This harmonises the statements
of St. Matthew with those of the other Evangelists, and is plainly required by the circumstances of the case.
4. The interpretation
which we are discussing rests also upon an erroneous and misleading conception of the phrase, end of the world, (age) [sunteleia
ton aiwnov]. It is not surprising that mere English readers of the New Testament should suppose that this phrase really means
the destruction of the material earth; but such an error ought not to receive countenance from men of learning. We have already
had occasion to remark that the true signification of aiwn is not world, but age; that, like its Latin equivalent
aevum, it refers to a period of time: thus, ‘the end of the age’ [sunteleia ton aiwnov] means the close
of the epoch or Jewish age or dispensation which was drawing nigh, as our Lord frequently intimated. All those passages which
speak of ‘the end’ [to telov] ‘the end of the age,’ or, ‘the ends of the ages’[h sunteleia
tou aiwnov ta telh twn aiwnwn], refer to the same consummation, and always as nigh at hand. In #1Co 10:11, St. Paul says ‘The ends of the ages have stretched out to us;’ implying, that
he regarded himself and his readers as living near the conclusion of an aeon, or age.
So, in the Epistle to
the Hebrews, we find the remarkable expression: ‘Now, once, close upon the end of the ages’ (erroneously rendered,
The end of the world), ‘hath be appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself’; {#Hev 9:26} clearly
showing that the writer regarded the incarnation of Christ as taking place near the end of the aeon, or dispensational period.
To suppose that he meant that it was close upon the end of the world, or the destruction of the material globe, would be to
make him write false history as well as bad grammar. It would not be true in fact; for the world has already lasted longer
since the incarnation than the whole duration of the Mosaic economy, from the exodus to the destruction of the temple. It
is futile, therefore, to say that the ‘end of the age’ may mean a lengthened period, extending from the incarnation
to our own times, and even far beyond them. That would be an aeon, and not the close of an aeon. The aeon, of which our Lord
was speaking was about to close in a great catastrophe; and a catastrophe is not a protracted process, but a definitive and
culminating act. We are compelled, therefore, to conclude that the ‘end of the age,’ or [sunteleia ton aiwnov]
refers solely to the approaching termination of the Jewish age or dispensation.1
We all know that in archery
if one is the slightest bit off in his aim of the target at the outset, by the time the arrow reaches the point of destination
it is quite removed from the bull’s-eye. In the case of futurism in claiming that the Olivet Discourse and the destruction
of the temple is somehow describing the end of the church age instead of the “end” of the OC or Mosaic age of
the law, futurists aren’t even attempting to aim at the bull’s-eye but are rather shooting into the crowd and
maiming anyone attending their performance. To miss the context and bulls-eye of identifying the “end of the age”
with the OC age and the one to replace it as the “age about to come” as the NC Christian age, is to miss THE TIME
FRAME AND MEANING OF EVERY ESCHATOLOGICAL PASSAGE IN THE BIBLE. I will go one step further and say if one misses it here on
their eschatology, they have missed it in the soteriology as well. Are you sitting there thinking to yourself, “Hey
man I’m a Calvinist and understand my soteriology! Maybe I’m still working through my eschatology but that’s
okay.” No it’s not “okay” and if you don’t adhere to gospel eschatology, you not only do not
consistently believe in the sovereignty of God, but you proclaim a Christ who FAILED. I reject the Christ of Arminianism who
cannot save all He came to save, and I reject the futurist Christ who cannot save all He came to save WHEN He promise to save
them! One cannot separate their soteriology from their eschatology – this kind of thinking has surfaced from a systematic
theology approach to Scripture rather than developing a progressive redemptive approach.
The futurists first and most crucial
error in seeking to defend that the OD is about the end of the planet and church age and not the OC age, other than just assuming
it, is to try and create a problem that isn’t in the text and they will go on to “fix” that problem
with their particular brand of futurism. They state that the disciples were “confused” in thinking that
the destruction of the temple they were looking at and the one Jesus is stating will be destroyed in their generation - A.D.
70 has anything to do with his parousia or the “end of the age.” If they can persuade their audience that the
disciples were “confused” in thinking that the destruction of the temple somehow meant the end of the planet earth,
then they can come along a “fix” their confusion for us – thereby slipping in this alleged second topic
(the end of time) into the discourse at this early stage. I will demonstrate that this is a purely an eisegetical assumption
that cannot be proven and rips the OD out of it’s immediate context and the context of the entire Bible for that matter.
But first let’s examine those who are guilty of this folly before giving an answer to them lest they think they are
wiser than the disciples and our Lord in the Discourse. Let’s take a look at how a “PhD” “prophecy
expert” attempts to make the case that the Olivet Discourse is addressing two prophesied events and not one. Please
pay close attention at how these writers create a problem that is not in the text and then their approaches to “fix”
it. Within these quotes are some excellent admissions that I will use later on:
“However, they (the disciples) were wrong to relate the impending judgment upon
Jerusalem and the Temple with
the return of Messiah.”
“The disciples apparently thought that all three elements - the destruction
of the Temple, the sign of Christ’s coming, and the
end of the age - would occur at the same time. Yet this is not what Jesus was saying.”
“The disciples asked Jesus, “Tell us, when will these things be…? (Matthew
24:3). Thus, the first question relates to the destruction of the Temple
in A.D. 70.” 2
"J. Dwight Pentecost
tells us: 'The questions showed that they had arrived at certain conclusions… To these men Christ's words concerning
the destruction of Jerusalem was the destruction predicted
by Zechariah that would precede the advent of the Messiah. In Jewish eschatology two ages were recognized:
the first was this present age, the age in which Israel was waiting for the coming of the Messiah; the second was the age
to come, the age in which all of Israel's covenants would be fulfilled and Israel would enter into her promised blessing as
a result of Messiah's coming.'3
"Stanley
Toussaint echoes this notion: 'This sequence is so clearly in view that Luke records the question concerning the destruction
of Jerusalem only (Luke 21:7). That is, the
disciples took the destruction of Jerusalem to be completely
eschatological. Therefore, Luke records this question only, as though Jerusalem's
destruction would mark the coming of the King to reign. Bruce is correct when he asserts, 'The questioners took for
granted that all three things went together: destruction of temple, advent of Son of Man, end of the current age"
“While the disciples merged these three events into a single time period, Christ
did not. In fact, Matthew and Mark do not deal with the destruction of Jerusalem
in their accounts of the Olivet Discourse (what?!?). Rather, they focus upon the future days of tribulation leading up
to Christ’s return. Only in Luke’s account do we find Christ’s comments about Jerusalem’s impending destruction (21:20-24). But Luke goes on to deal with future
days of tribulation and Christ’s return as well (21:25-36). For whatever reason, Matthew and Mark’s entire focus
is upon Jesus’ answer regarding “the sign of [His] coming, and of the end of the age.”4
According to Ice’s erroneous presuppositions
that he imposes upon the text, the disciples ask “mistaken” questions that for “whatever reason”
(Ice’s dispensational “reasons”) Jesus doesn’t address at all in Matthew or Mark but arbitrarily does
in Luke! He admits that in Matthew and Mark the disciples ask about the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in regards
to “when will these things be…”, but then states that Matthew and Mark in their accounts NOT ONCE
deal with the A.D. 70 “these things” which are GRAMATICALLY LINKED to “…and what will be the
sign of your coming and the end of the age?” It is impossible to separate the phrase “these things”
from “the signs” “the coming” and “the end of the age” that the disciples asked about!
Jesus clearly goes on to discuss in Matthew, Mark, and Luke the “when will these things be” and they are
inseparable linked with “the end” (“end of the age”), the signs, and Christ’s coming! And “all
these things” would be fulfilled in the contemporary generation of Jesus and the disciples (Mt. 24:34, Mrk. 13:30, Lk.
21:32). This is a deplorable attempt at exegesis of the parallel harmony of the Olivet Discourse among the gospel writers
indeed.
To suggest that the “these things”
in Luke’s account is not the same “these things” in Matthew’s and Mark’s is simply untenable
and we will cover this faulty approach more when we get to that section of the discourse but I can’t help but cover
some of it here. Ice realizing that he has to find some reference to the A.D. 70 prediction to the disciples question “when
will these things be…,” arbitrarily decides that Luke’s desolation and the flight of the Jews from
Judea in that account is a DIFFERENT desolation and flight from Judea than the ones recorded
in Matthew and Mark’s accounts. In Luke Jesus says that the flight and desolation He speaks of is in fulfillment of
“all of the prophets.” In Matthew and Mark’s accounts, Jesus says it’s in fulfillment of Daniel’s
prophecy. How in the name of reason can one make these speak of two different events separated by thousands of years?!?
Obviously “Daniel’s prophecy” is included in “all of the prophets!” According to Jesus
did Daniel foretell two “time of the end” abomination of desolations in which the disciples were to flee
the city when they saw it’s approaching fulfillment with the Zealot or Roman armies (Dan. 9:27, 12:11; Mt.24:15f.; Lk.21:20f.)?
The pure exegetical observation and obvious reading of the text is that He did not. It doesn’t take a PhD to figure
out that Luke describes the same abomination of desolation and flight that Matthew and Mark do, but differently do to his
gentile audience. And before leaving this issue, somehow the “you” throughout the Olivet Discourse in Matthew
and Mark according to Ice’s eisegesis is not an audience related to the disciples or their contemporaries, nor does
the “you” speak of them in Lk. 21:8-19, only does “you” take on a contemporary meaning in (Lk.21:20
- 24), and then magically “poof” from (vss. 25f.) they somehow refer to people 2000 + years away.
John MacArthur in his book attempting to refute
preterism or gospel eschatology, makes similar assumptions upon the text and Jesus’ reply to the disciples that I find
disturbing not only on an exegetical level, but on a moral level:
“Whether they fully realized
it or not, the disciples were actually raising multiple questions in Matthew 24:3. “When will these things be?”
refers to the destruction of the temple and the events surrounding that catastrophe. “What will be the sign of Your
coming, and of the end of the age?” deals with a larger eschatological subject – the question of how Christ’s
victorious coming as Israel’s Messiah
fits into the whole prophetic timetable.
As we shall see in chapters to come,
Jesus’ answers by no means erased all the mystery from those questions. The interpretation of the Olivet Discourse
is no easy undertaking.5
Hence according to MacArthur,
“…Christ’s only
explicit remarks about the destruction of the temple are those recorded in verse 2, as Jesus and the disciples were departing
from the temple (v.1). In the Olivet Discourse itself He makes no clear reference to the events of A.D. 70. His entire
reply is an extended answer to the more important question about the signs of His coming and the end of the age. Virtually
ignoring their initial question, He said nothing whatsoever about when the destruction of Jerusalem
would occur. That is because those events were not really germane to the end of the end of the age. They were merely
a foretaste of the greater judgment that would accompany His return, previews of what is to come ultimately.”6
Wow, Jesus “ignores” their question
and does not tell the disciples when the destruction of Jerusalem
would occur because it wasn’t really that important!?! The only “mystery” here is how MacArthur can’t
see that the OT prophets taught that when the temple was destroyed and judgment rendered upon Jerusalem
was the event that would mark and bear witness of “Christ’s victorious coming as Israel’s Messiah!” The “end” that the disciples are asking
about in regards to the destruction of the temple and the “end” that Jesus discusses throughout the discourse
(hardly “ignoring” it!), is found in (Dan.9:24-27; Dan.12). When judgment of the “Holy
City” and thus the abominations and a desolation of Her temple occurs is when
Messiah comes in His victory and consummates ALL not some of Israel’s
salvation promises! Therefore MacArthur with some eisegetical slight of hand seeks to minimize the destruction of the temple
in A.D. 70 (Jesus allegedly “ignoring it”) so that he can replace the temple that is under discussion
by Jesus and the disciples with the destruction of another future temple associated with a future tribulation period
somewhere at the end of the Christian age which he obviously has to read into the context with his dispensational “previews”
of things to come. It is very clear at this early point that John MacArthur is imposing his carnal dispensational system upon
the text and thus violating all sound and normal rules of hermeneutics. John’s statements are not just completely removed
from the context of Jesus bring up the temple, the context of the disciples question about that temple, the context of Jesus
answering their question, the context of Daniel’s prophecy, but the context of all the OT prophets - because they ALL
predicted their fulfillments to come in the disciples day and generation (Lk.21:22/Mt.24:15/1Pet.1:4-12/1Cor.10:11) and were
NEVER described as “foretastes” or “previews” of something more “ultimate” to come! As
Christian’s apparently we are in need of ANOTHER BIBLE, The MacArthur Study Bible to teach us these things since
we can’t seem to be finding them from the teachings of Christ or His inspired writiers of the NT!
The disciples were not “mistaken”
nor did Jesus “ignore” their questions per Ice and MacArthur, for they and Jesus understood that the destruction
of the temple they were looking at would bring an “end” to the Jewish or OC age. Ice is quite correct though in
quoting Dwight Pentecost when he states that the Jews understood from the prophets that there were only two ages -
“this age” (the OC age), and then the one to come - ushered in by Messiah (the NC age). Daniel clearly prophesied
it and Jesus reinforced Daniel’s teaching. Both Daniel and Jesus clearly taught that when the “time of the
end” which was also described as when “the power of the holy people was completely shattered” [the temple
and judgment upon Jerusalem], was when “all of these things”, that is all of the eschatological things [The judgment,
abomination of desolation, great tribulation, & resurrection would occur (Dan. 12:1-7à Mt. 10:17-23à Mt. 13:40-49à Mt. 24:15-34=Lk. 21:20-32). So no the disciples
were not “mistaken” in either understanding Daniel’s prophecy or Jesus’ teaching leading up to His
Olivet Discourse concerning the “end of the age.” Jesus clearly asked the disciples if they understood His teaching
on the parables concerning the kingdom and the “end of the age” and they stated:
“Jesus said to
them, Have you understood all these things? They say unto him, Yes, Lord.” (Mt. 13:50)
It is clear that the disciples understood Jesus’
teaching about the resurrection and kingdom occuring at then end of “this age” (v.40) as the OC age - the one
in which they were living and the one that was experiencing the harvest/resurrection (Jn.4). According to futurists the NC
age (their alleged “this age”) hadn’t even begun yet so how can “this age” even remotely be
considered the Christian age!?! The only ones “mistaken” and “confused” on the identity of the “end
of the age” are futurists in their various degrees.
In dealing with the Dispensationalists statements
and to a certain degree partial preterists, the variations of the questions in Matthew are due to his Jewish audience as even
the additional use of parables (over that of Mark and Luke’s accounts) would validate. Any good Jew knew that according
to Daniel's prophecy the destruction of the temple and the coming of the Son of Man would be the "time of the end."
If Matthew is recording a second and separate question [per futurist and some partial preterists such as Greg Bahnsen and
others] regarding a completely different topic “and the end of the age/world,” then this would portray Mark and
Luke as fools to miss such very important information on Christ's teaching in the Olivet Discourse. More importantly,
the Holy Spirit would have only brought back to remembrance Jesus' teaching concerning “things to come” for Matthew
but failed to bring them to Mark and Luke's remembrance in regard to a major question introducing the alleged “second
topic.” Besides if according to Thomas Ice Matthew and Mark are in harmony in predominately addressing only the future
second coming associated with the end of the planet, then why doesn’t Mark like Matthew record this from the beginning
in the form of the question? According to Ice’s unsound theory, if it were to be recognized, we might consider Luke’s
omission of “and the end of the age?” (Since he is the only one allegedly dealing with some A.D. 70 events - per
Ice) but if Matthew and Mark are so in tune with each other in regard to post A.D. 70 second coming events then we would expect
that harmony in the form of the questions as well.
Remember we today have the privilege of reading all three
accounts but most likely the readers of Mark and Luke had to rely on those accounts alone. Mark and Luke correctly gave
their readers the accurate information - that the disciples only wanted to know when the temple would be destroyed and what
signs would precede it's destruction. No other separate subject was in view and therefore needed to be given.
Matthew's account of the questions agrees with Mark's and Luke's except adds Jewish overtones to the destruction of
the temple, which would be when the "coming of the Son of Man" would occur thus the "end" of her "age/world." Therefore,
no separate subject matter in Matthew is added outside the destruction of the temple context for the destruction of the temple
is equivalent to the end of the OC age and thus perfectly harmonizes the same subject matter in all three accounts.
When
we acknowledge this we can see that in the case of synoptic gospel parallel’s all three accounts are accurate and no
vital information is lost to the respected audiences. Matthew’s account of the Olivet Discourse in using
“and the end of the age” is not introducing a new topic (the end of the planet), but this phrase and Greek word
for “end” is used only in His gospel account (Mt. 13:39, 40, 49; Mt. 23:3; Mt.28:20). The only other example of
a complete synoptic parallel is found in the great commission (Mt. 28:20, Mk.16, Lk. 24:47). When we examine these texts I
don’t see anyone concluding that Mathew’s use of “end of the age” is addressing a different time frame
or subject matter than the variations of the same teaching in Mk and Lk’s accounts. Just as there is no reason to do
it in regard to the great commission, there is no need to do here in the OD. The only other place this word or phrase is used
is in another Jewish audience setting found in the book of Hebrews (Hebs. 9:26) which is addressing the superiority of the
in-breaking spiritual new covenant age/kingdom upon and over against the physical old covenant age/kingdom and has nothing
to do with the planet earth or time ending at Christ’s return! Taking these matters in consideration, Matthew is only
communicating that “the end” and destruction of the temple are equivalent with each other and describing the end
of Israel’s OC age!
We shall examine another futuristic brand that
seeks to portray the disciples as “bewildered” - even postmillennialist partial “preterist” Kenneth
Gentry in his debate with Thomas Ice in their book, The Great Tribulation Past or Future? claims the disciples were
confused and likewise divides the discourse into two prophetic subject matters:
“In these questions we sense once again the bewilderment among the disciples
at Jesus’ teaching—a bewilderment such as is seen elsewhere in Matthew, as in their confusion about the “leaven
of the Pharisees” (16:6-12), Christ’s death (vv. 21-23), the purpose of the Transfiguration (17:4-5), Christ’s
interest in children (19:13-15), and the nature of kingdom service (20:20-25). Quite clearly Christ divides their question
into two episodes in His answer: (1) He speaks about the coming Great Tribulation resulting in the destruction of Jerusalem
and the temple in A.D. 70 (24:4-34, which is in “this generation,” v. 34); and (2) His distant future second coming
at the end of history (24:36-25:46, which is after a “long time,” 25:19).”7
And joining hands in the fundamental error of
Thomas Ice Gentyr writes,
“As House and Ice admit: “It is probably true that the disciples thought of the
three events (the destruction of the temple, the second coming, and the end of the age) as one event. But as was almost always
the case, they were wrong.” Thus, Christ divided up the events for them. The coming “tribulation”
(24:36; 24:34; cp. 1Thess. 2:16) and was to be foreshadowed by certain signs (Matt. 24:4-8). But the Second Advent was to
be at “that” far day and hour, and was not to be preceded by particular signs of its nearness, for no man can
know it (24:36).”8
But according to another partial preterist R.C.
Sproul, Gentry is the one who is confused and not really arguing within preterist hermeneutic or frame work. Sproul when he
points out the error of John Calvin on the disciples question in regard to the “end of the age,” likewise refutes
fellow partial preterist Gentry whom he quotes extensively in his book. Sproul writes,
“Calvin regarded as erroneous
the disciples’ assumption that the destruction of Jerusalem
would coincide with the coming of Christ and the end of the world. This means that Jesus was answering a question that
contained false assumptions. The preterist view of J. Stuart Russell differs sharply from the view of Calvin. Russell
argues that the disciples’ assumption was correct – with one crucial qualifier: the disciples were asking not
about the end of the world, but abut the end of the age. This distinction is critical not only to Russell, but to virtually
all preterists. The end in view is not the end of all time but the end of the Jewish age.”9
Hence,
“Fundamental to preterism
is the contention that the phrase “the end of the age” refers specifically to the end of the Jewish age and the
beginning of the age of the Gentiles, or church age. J. Suart Russell begins his exposition of this concept by referring to
the content of Matthew 13:”
“…Kosmos in ver. 38, 40,
refers to a period of time, and should be rendered age or epock… It is of the greatest importance to understand correctly
the true meaning of this word, and of the phrase “the end of the aion, or age.” Aion is, as we have said, a period
of time, or an age. It is exactly equivalent to the Latin word aevum, which is merely aion in a Latin dress; and the phrase,
sun-teleia tou aionos, translated in our English version, “the end of the world, should be “the close of the age.”1
Russell argues that the end of the
age signals not merely an “end,” but a consummation of one age that is followed immediately by another. This was
part of the traditional view of the Jews with regard to their Messiah. The new age that would be called the “kingdom
of heaven.” The existing age was the Jewish dispensation, which was drawing to a close. This idea was central
to the preaching of John the Baptist, who spoke of the time that was “at hand.”10
Sproul is saying that according to “virtually
all preterists,” himself and Gentry included, the disciples are not asking questions with false assumptions.
In other words the disciples are not confused or need “correction” (per Gentry and Ice) in associating “the
end of the age” with Christ coming to bring judgment upon Jerusalem
and lay waste her temple. We wish that Mr. Sproul were correct on this point but partial preterist Kenneth Gentry apparently
does not consistently admit or make the “critical distinction” that needs to be made in order to cease
from falsely accusing the disciples of being confused – and thus promoting his confusing “exegesis” of the
discourse. And if Sproul sees no false assumptions made by the disciples in the form of their question(s), then how does Sproul
justify Christ teaching a future return of Himself to bring an end to the planet or end to the current Christian age when
this was never the topic to begin with? No matter what version of the partial preterist position you take (which is confused
futurism), you have the introduction of an end of an age and coming of Christ that is not in the context (or in the OT for
that matter) and thus the partial preterist is just as guilty of eisegesis (reading something into the text) at this early
stage of interpreting the Olivet Discourse as is the premillennialist (historical or dispensationalal), amillennialist, or
postmillennialist.
N.T. Wright has become a popular and controversial
N.T. scholar over the last 10 years or so and has made some helpful comments regarding the context, harmonizing the gospel
accounts of the questions, allowing the disciples to have a more Jewish and apocalyptic understanding of the OT Scriptures
than is commonly admitted, and identifying the age to come with Christ’s parousia in A.D.70. I will quote his comments
on the OD and the disciples questions about the end of the age and likewise quote some more of his statements about the “end
of the age” that he has made elsewhere in the gospel of Matthew and briefly critique them. He states:
“The questions the disciples
ask Jesus are explicitly related to this prediction. In Mark (13.4) there is no unclarity about this: ‘When will this
be, and what will be the sign when these things are about to happen?’ In Luke (21.7) it is even clearer: ‘When
will this be, and what will be the sign when this is about to take place?’ We have already seen that Matthew’s
use of the word parousia is not a sign that he has altered this meaning…” “…that has given scholars,
and popular readers and preachers, the idea that the discourse is really about the end of the space-time universe. There was
no reason, either in their own background or in a single thing that Jesus had said to them up to that point, for it even to
occur to them that the true story of the world, or of Israel, or of Jesus himself, might include either the end of the space-time
universe, or Jesus or anyone else floating down to earth on a cloud. They hand not yet even thought of his being taken from
them, let alone that he might come back; nor did they have any idea of another figure, earthly, heavenly, or something in
between, who would one day come on a literal cloud.102 Had Jesus wished to introduce so strange and unJewish an idea to them
he would have had a very difficult task; as often find in the gospels, their minds were not exactly at their sharpest in picking
up redefinitions even of ideas with which they were already somewhat familiar.
The disciples were, however, very
interested in a story which ended with Jesus’ coming to Jerusalem
to reign as king. They were looking for the fulfillment of Israel’s
hopes, for the story told so often in Israel’s
scriptures to reach its appointed climax. And the ‘close of the age’ for which they longed was not the end of
the space-time order, but the end of the present evil age (ha’olam hazeh), and the introduction of the (still very much
this-worldly) age to come (ha ‘olam haba’) – in other words, the end of Israel’s period of mourning
and exile and the beginning of her freedom and vindication.103 Matthew 24.3, therefore, is most naturally read, in its first-century
Jewish context, not as a question about (what scholars have come to call, in technical language) the ‘parousia’,
but as a question about Jesus ‘coming’ or ‘arriving’ in the sense of his actual enthronement as king,
consequent upon the dethronement of the present powers that were occupying the holy city.104 The disciples were pressing Jesus
to give them details of his plan for becoming king, as David had become king, in the city that was at present still rejecting
him. They were longing for their own version of the great event for which all Israel
had been on tiptoe. Matthew is not, in other words, out on a limb from Mark and Luke at this point.105 The question at the
start of all three versions, seen from within the story the disciples have in their minds, must be read to mean: When will
you come in your kingdom?106 When will the evil age, symbolized by the present Jerusalem regime, be over?”11
In another work of Wright’s he states of
the “age to come,”
“The final promise, that Jesus
will be with his people ‘until the close of the age’ (hoes tes synteleias tou aionos), belongs closely within
the ‘two-age’ structure of chronology which we have seen to be characteristic of mainstream Pharisaic/rabbinic
Judaism, and also of early Christianity, particularly Paul.42 The point here is that the ‘age to come’ has now
been launched with Jesus’ resurrection, and that the risen Jesus represents and embodies this new age, and hence becomes
the human bride between it and the present one. His promise to be ‘with you always’ is thus at the same time the
fulfillment of the Emmanuel promise, and with it of YHWH’s promise to be with even a small group of worshippers as though
they were actually in the Temple itself.43 It is also the sign that in him the eschaton has come to birth, so that his people
are guaranteed safe passage through the present age and into the long-awaited age to come.” Footnote 42 reads, “On
‘the close of the age’ in Mt., cf. 13:39f., 49; 24:3 (where it is linked with the fall of Jerusalem and the parousia of Jesus). See too Heb. 9:26; 1 En. 16.1; 4 Ezra 7.113.”12
Futurist N.T. Wright is correct here in identifying
Christ’s parousia in the OD with the dethronement of the then present powers of the holy city and thus Christ coming
into His kingdom. However, Wright and others such as Gary DeMar paint themselves into a corner and violate the analogy of
Scripture when they separate the time frame of Jesus’ parousia in the OD from Paul’s parousia in (1Cor.15:23).
Wright and DeMar play Paul against Jesus when allegedly Paul is now discussing a different parousia, a different “end,”
and covering a different time period of Christ ruling over His enemies than Jesus predicts in the OD. But according to Jesus,
ALL the OT prophets and the N.T. inspired ones, bore testimony to a fulfillment no further than the contemporary generation
or lifetime of the first century church (Lk.21:20-32/1Pet.1:4-12/1Cor.10:11).
How can Wright claim that Paul like Jesus identified
“this age” with the OC age and the “age to come” with the NC age of the Church and then seek to
defend at the same time that they are teaching two completely different resurrection/harvests at the end of the same “this
age” – one in A.D. 70 at the end of the OC age in (Mt.13) and then a second resurrection/harvest taught by Paul
some 2000 + years away in (1Cor.15) that none of the OT prophets predicted or Jesus discussed in relation to His teaching
on the time frame of His parousia? Wright states the parousia, judgment, and resurrection/harvest in (Mt.24-25 and Mt.13)
are the same and occurred at the end of the OC “this age” in A.D. 70. The problem with this is that Jesus is referencing
Daniel 9 and 12 in both of these passages and if the resurrection had occurred in A.D. 70, then the ENTIRE fulfillment of
the 70 weeks has been fulfilled. This of course is what I believe as well, but for Wright to admit that the resurrection in
(Mt.13) occurred at the end of the OC age in A.D. 70, is to admit that the resurrection Daniel foretold occurred at this time
as well (Dan.12:2-3/Mt.13:42-43). To admit this is to admit that everlasting righteousness and an end to sin came in A.D.
70. To claim that the parousia and resurrection in Mt.24, Mt.13, and Dan.12 happened in A.D.70 is to claim that ALL of the
70 weeks prophetic events occurred at that time as well. Therefore, exegetically and logically, to say that (Dan.12 and Mt.13)
were fulfilled at the end of “this age”—the OC age in A.D.70, is to believe that Christ “put an end
to sin” and that ALL prophecy has been fulfilled – “seal up vision and prophecy.” But to believe that
Christ put an end to sin at His parousia in the OD is to believe that Christ at the same time would bring the victory over
the sting of death which was SIN, and thus the victory over the power of SIN which was THE LAW (Dan.9:24-27/1Cor.15:55-57).
To believe that Dan.9 and Dan.12 were fulfilled at the end of the OC age in A.D.70 is once again to claim that all prophecy
contained in the law and prophets has been fulfilled. But wait, isn’t (Dan.7, 9, 12; Ps.110; Isa.25:7-8 and Hos.13:14)
of which Paul quotes or echoes in (1Cor.15) apart of the “jots and tittles” of the “law and prophets”
(Mt.5:17-18)?!?
Wright cannot claim that Israel’s
prophecies found in the law and the prophets were all fulfilled by A.D. 70 and then claim at the same time that (Isa.25:8,
Hos.13:14) have yet to be fulfilled and are prophecies predicting the end of the Christian age. Were not these resurrection
passages that Paul quotes in (1Cor.15) made too and thus included into “the hope of Israel” (Acts 24, 26, 28:20)?!? Was it not Paul’s testimony and
defense that he said no “…other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come”
(Acts 26:22)? This destroys the partial preterist (futurist) position that try’s to dichotomize between resurrection
promises made to Israel that ended her OC age at “a” parousia of Christ in A.D. 70; but then invents another resurrection
promise to occur at the end of the current Christian age at another or “the” parousia of Christ. This is an eisegetical
myth propagated by those “scholars” who want to keep their high paying jobs funded by creedal employers and their
financial supporters but having nothing to do with being faithful to the Gospel Eschatology of Scripture. However, we should
thank Mr. Wright in at least having the boldness to correctly identify the “end of the age” or “this age”
in (Mt.13) with A.D.70 even if it’s in a footnote. To Wright’s credit, by at least addressing (Mt.13) and making
this A.D. 70 admission goes farther than most partial preterists as we will now take a look at.
Popular partial preterist speaker
and author Gary DeMar admits that the “end of the age” in the OD refers to A.D.70 and does a fair job of developing
the context:
“The “woes”
of Matthew 23 and the destruction of the temple and the city of Jerusalem were a result of all that John the Baptist and
Jesus had been warning the scribes, Pharisees, and chief priests regarding the judgment that would come upon them if they
did not repent. “All these things,” Jesus cautioned, “shall come upon this generation”
(23:36). It is after hearing about the desolation of their “house” – the temple – that the disciples
ask about the “temple buildings” (24:1). Jesus answered the disciples’ questions relating to the time and
signs of Jerusalem’s destruction, always with the background
of Matthew 23 in view, since His comments in that chapter had precipitated the questions (24:3). The Old Covenant order
would end with the destruction of Jerusalem. This would be
the “sign” of the “end of the age,” the end of the Old Covenant, and the consummation of the New Covenant.”13
Gary does a good job of laying the immediate
context of the OD by discussing Jesus’ prediction in (Mt.23) and likewise the impending “at hand” kingdom
judgment that John the Baptist warned was coming in (Mt.3). In this same book Last Days Madness, Gary DeMar also attributes
the coming of Christ and judgment of (Mt.10:22-23; Mt.11-12; Mt.16:27-28; Mt.21:33-45) as referring to A.D.70. But did you
notice something? There is absolutely no reference anywhere in his book where he discusses the end of “this age”
in (Mt.13:36-51). Notice in the above quote how DeMar italicizes “this generation” and applies it to AD
70 but avoids a discussion of (Mt.13:40) “this age” when identifying “the end of the age”
in (Mt.24:3) as A.D.70! DeMar elsewhere in his book claims that had Jesus intended the generation under discussion to be speaking
to a future generation some 2000+ years away he would have stated “that generation.” Apparently partial
preterists want to make the argument that “this generation” is referring to Jesus contemporary audience
but when it comes to the resurrection occurring in Jesus’ contemporary “this age” it just can’t
be so – for the creeds don’t allow it! DeMar is also deficient in (Mt.3:10-12) in only acknowledging an “at
hand” judgment but what of the harvest/resurrection?!? I challenged Gary publicly on (Mt.13:40/Mt.24:3ff.) and it’s
inseparable time frame link with (Dan.12:1-7) on the Preterist Archive web site and Gary just said, “I’m still
studying Daniel 12” and that he “didn’t have time to pursue these things with preterists.” This is
after what, at least 15 years of being confronted by full preterists on these issues! Gary DeMar has had more than
enough time he just sees the contradictions in his hermeneutics and doesn’t want to face them. We will later discuss
the teaching of N.T. Wright and Gary DeMar in their attempts to claim that (Mt.24 & 25) were fulfilled in A.D.70 and continue
to be fulfilled but that the resurrection was not associated with that parousia of Christ. While Kenneth Gentry is another
partial preterist who doesn’t go as far into an A.D.70 fulfillment as Gary DeMar, he nonetheless has mastered the art
of avoiding these questions and texts and has been “ducking” a formal debate with exegetical or full preterists
for years now.
Now getting back to the question of the disciples
and their alleged “confusion” about the “end of the age” in relation to the temples destruction. Granted
the disciples were amazed at Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of their temple but they also knew that according
to Dan.9:24 and Dan.12:7 that Israel’s
“end” would be when “the power (that resided in the temple sacrificial system) of the holy people has been
completely shattered.” As I will soon demonstrate and supported by the comments above by futurists N.T. Wright and indirectly
and directly stated by R.C. Sproul, and Gary DeMar, by the time we reach (Mt.24) the disciples correctly understood that
judgment upon Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple
would be the end of their OC age and no other!
What Gentry, Ice, and other futurists don’t
tell their readers is that Jesus clearly asked the disciples about His teaching on the kingdom parables concerning the “end
of the age” (Mt.13:49) or “ THIS age” in (Mt.13:40) and if they understood and they answered, “yes
Lord” (Mt. 13:51). The only “bewilderment” here is how Gentry deceitfully overlooks the disciples understanding
that the parable was speaking to the end of their “this age” as to the OC age and then try’s to give the
reader some “proof texts” that the disciples experienced “bewilderment” over this phrase in (Mt.24:3)
because of their history of “confusion” elsewhere in the gospel of Matthew. In other words Gentry is likewise
guilty of trying to create a problem in the text that isn’t there. He wants to “prove” the disciples confusion
at this point to justify the Olivet Discourse teaching a second topic - the end of the planet/history Second Advent
(Mt. 24:36f.) into it’s discussion. How can any discussion of whether the disciples were confused or not confused
