The Olivet Discourse: A Resolution of Time PDF

Preview

Summary

THE OLIVET DISCOURSE: A RESOLUTION OF TIME1 by Ron J. Bigalke Jr. Introduction Matthew 24–25 is crucial for every prophetic system. The key to understanding the Olivet Discourse is to interpret it consistently, noting the context and the Jewish understanding of the phrase the end of the age. Importi...

Description

Accelerat ing t he world's research.

The Olivet Discourse: A Resolution of Time Ron J Bigalke

Related papers

Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

"T he Olivet -Revelat ion" Juxt aposit ion T wo Different T imes St ephen Whit set t Eschat ology - Quest ions and Answers Brian H . Wagner Genesis of t he End: An Underst anding and Evaluat ion of t he Hermeneut ics of Millennial Posit ions Greg Pet erson

THE OLIVET DISCOURSE: A RESOLUTION OF TIME1 by Ron J. Bigalke Jr. Introduction Matthew 24–25 is crucial for every prophetic system. The key to understanding the Olivet Discourse is to interpret it consistently, noting the context and the Jewish understanding of the phrase the end of the age. Importing the church into this distinctly Jewish discourse confuses the interpretation. Asserting a past or present fulfillment of these future events also distorts the passage. Interpretative Issues Four possible views concerning the timing of prophetic events in the Olivet Discourse exist: preterism (past), historicism (present),2 idealism (timeless),3 and futurism (future). This article will consider the preterist and futurist views. Preterism. The preterist view of the Olivet Discourse is that most, if not all, of prophetic fulfillment has already taken place.4 J. Marcellus Kik, a preterist postmillennialist, believes verse 34 is the key to Matthew 24: We might term this key verse the “time text” of the Chapter. If the literal and well-defined meaning of this verse be accepted, then we shall quite readily perceive that the verse divides the 1

The author read an earlier draft of this article at the eleventh annual meeting of the Pre-Trib Study Group on 11 December 2002 in Dallas, Texas. 2 The historicist view sees prophetic fulfillment throughout the age of the church. Historicists interpret literal numbers like 2,300 days (Daniel 8:14) and 1,290 days (Daniel 12:11) as years (a day-age theory). 3 The idealist (spiritual or timeless) view teaches that the prophetic events of Matthew 24–25 apply to believers in any age. It almost completely divorces history from fulfillment. 4 Preterism must date Revelation during Nero’s reign (A.D. 54–68).

The Olivet Discourse 107 entire Chapter into two main sections. Section One speaks of events which were to befall the contemporary generation of Jesus. Section Two relates to events that are to occur at the Second Coming of the Lord. Verse 34 thus is the division point of the two sections.5

Futurism. Futurists believe that prophetic fulfillment is in an eschatological period. Consistent futurists view the tribulation, Second Coming, and millennium as entirely future events for national Israel. The only future prophetic event for the church is the Rapture, which is imminent and without any signs. The fact that tribulational events will not occur during the present church age does not make world events insignificant. Present events may set the stage for fulfilling prophesies relating to the tribulation. Thomas Ice remarks: A good interpreter keeps the future in the future. If an event in a passage is to occur during the tribulation, then it cannot happen during the current church age. It is wrong to say that something is being fulfilled in our day when in fact, the biblical context sets it within the future time of tribulation. Having emphasized the point that we are not to commingle the future with the present, it does not mean that current events have no future meaning in the present. The issue is how they relate and have meaning. After all as a futurist, I do expect that God will one day fulfill His plan for the last days.6

Tribulational events have no fulfillment in the current church age. Consistent pretribulationism will not adopt a historicist interpretation of world events by quoting passages that clearly refer to future events as fulfilled. Chafer reminds his readers: 5

J. Marcellus Kik, An Eschatology of Victory (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1971), 60. 6 Thomas Ice, “Stage-Setting of the Last Days,” in Revelation Hoofbeats, ed. Ron J. Bigalke Jr. (Longwood, FL: Xulon Press, 2003), 284-285.

108 CTS Journal 9 (Spring 2003) [D]istinction must be made between the “last days” for Israel—the days of her kingdom glory in the earth (cf. Isa. 2:1–5)—and the “last days” for the Church, which are days of evil and apostasy (cf. 2 Tim. 3:1–5). Likewise, discrimination is called for between the “last days” for Israel and for the Church and “the last day,” which, as related to the Church, is the day of the resurrection of those who have died in Christ (cf. John 6:39–40, 44, 54).7

Each biblical passage relates to its appropriate era (either the church or Israel). Commingling eschatological events for the church and Israel confuses issues. The following chart shows how the various terms relate to the Church and to Israel. Last Things for the Church8 Singular Last Time

Plural Last Days Latter Days Last Times

Last Things for Israel9 Singular Last Day

Plural Last Days Latter Days Latter Years

The Rapture and Olivet Discourse The Olivet Discourse does not refer to the church age so it does not discuss the timing of the Rapture. Even so, the fact that so many insert the Rapture into the passage necessitates a brief discussion of this issue. 7

Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 8 vols. (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947; reprint in 4 vols., Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1993), 4:374–75. 8 The italicized phrases refer to the church in the following passages: (1) last days in 2 Timothy 3:1; Hebrews 1:2; James 5:3; 2 Peter 3:3; (2) latter days in 1 Timothy 4:1; (3) last time in 1 Peter 1:5; 1 John 2:18; Jude 18; and (4) last times in 1 Peter 1:20. 9 The italicized phrases refer to Israel in the following passages: (1) last day in John 6:39–40, 44, 54; 11:24; 12:48; (2) last days in Isaiah 2:2; Micah 4:1; Acts 2:17; (3) latter days in Deuteronomy 4:30; 31:29; Jeremiah 23:20; 30:24; 48:47; 49:39; Ezekiel 38:16; Daniel 2:28; 10:14; Hosea 3:5; and (4) latter years in Ezekiel 38:8.

The Olivet Discourse 109 The Nature of the Tribulation. The word tribulation is not a technical term. It can refer to general suffering,10 to the seven years of Daniel’s Seventieth Week,11 or to the second half of that week, the great tribulation.12 The Seventieth Week does not relate to God’s purpose for the church. The tribulation will come upon a world that is in rebellion against God (Revelation 15:1; 16:1–21; 19:15) and will reveal Satan’s nature (12:7–12). During the tribulation, national Israel will come to repentance and faith in the Messiah in preparation for the millennium (Jeremiah 30:7–9; Zechariah 12:9–14:5; Revelation 19:1–6). It will also be a time of evangelism (Matthew 24:14; Revelation 6:9–11; 7:1–17; 11:2–14; 12:13–17; 13:7; 14:1– 5, 12–13). The Prophetic Time clock. The next prophetic event, from our standpoint, is the Rapture (cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18; 1 Corinthians 15:51–54). Living Christians will be caught up in the air to meet Jesus Christ. The Rapture will reunite living saints with those who previously died in Christ. Both will receive their glorified bodies and go to the Father’s house (John 14:1–3). Second Chances. Some suggest that pretribulationism offers a second chance of salvation, claiming that it “undermines the gospel” and may “cause indifference to the gospel.”13 The

10

John 16:33; Acts 14:22; Romans 5:3; 12:12. Jeremiah 30:7–9; Daniel 9:24–27; 12:1. 12 Matthew 24:21 refers to the last half of Daniel’s Seventieth Week as the great tribulation, while Matthew 24:8 uses beginning of sorrows for the first half. Unless otherwise stated, all Scripture quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977 by The Lockman Foundation. 13 Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), “Between Millennia: What Presbyterians Believe About the Second Coming of Christ” (1989): 8; Ronald L. Siegenthaler, “What’s Behind Left Behind: Part Three,” Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church Communicator 11 (April 2001): 16; W. Fred Rice, “The Not So Secret Rapture,” rev. ed. [article on line] (Center For Reformed Theology and 11

110 CTS Journal 9 (Spring 2003) sentiment that an unbeliever can reject the gospel, be left behind14 at the Rapture, and then later believe in the gospel does not presume upon God’s grace, but magnifies His grace. Scripture testifies, Now is the day of salvation (2 Corinthians 6:2). For an unbeliever to presume that he may be reconciled with the Creator tomorrow (or in the years to come) is presumption since no man knows his last day on earth. Pretribulationism could only be accused of offering a second chance if it taught that an unbeliever could trust in Christ after death (it does not) since that would be the only true sense of a second chance. After death will be the judgment (Hebrews 9:27). Is it not grace that God allows unbelievers, at any time, opportunity to believe the gospel even after initially rejecting it? Furthermore, it is grace that those following the Rapture may still believe. Rapture Terminology. The word Rapture does not appear in English Bibles. It derives from the Latin rapere and the Vulgate uses it in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 to translate @arpazw (“to snatch, take away”). Jesus will come in the clouds to snatch away His saints from the earth, while at the Second Coming, Jesus will come to the earth with His saints to establish the millennial kingdom. Logically, then, the Old Testament does not reveal the Rapture, because this is a concept for the church. The church (which began at Pentecost) was an unrevealed mystery in the Old Testament. Christ first gave the promise of the Rapture in the New Testament. However, the Old Testament promised the coming of Messiah to earth as the sovereign King.

Apologetics, accessed 31 August 2002) available from Internet address http://www.reformed.org/eschaton/Not_So_Secret.html 14 Left behind alludes to the prophetic fiction series by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins.

The Olivet Discourse 111 Distinct Prophetic Emphases Old Testament È Millennial Reign

Gospels È Second Coming

Epistles È Rapture

Revelation È Tribulation

The epistles primarily emphasize the Rapture. The Gospels emphasize the Second Coming. His disciples expected fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies of Messiah who will reign on David’s throne in Jerusalem. Thus, the Gospels would logically emphasize Christ’s coming to national Israel to fulfill the covenantal promises and establish His earthly kingdom. It is logical that Matthew 24:37–44, Mark 13:32–37, and Luke 17:26– 37 refer to Christ’s Second Coming, not the Rapture. The Hermeneutical Context We must interpret prophecy according to original context; otherwise, it becomes a pretext. Context includes the following: the verses immediately surrounding the passage, the paragraph within which it occurs, the whole book, its audience (Israel or the church), the whole Bible, and the historical-cultural environment at the time of the writing. The expositor must consider the author’s context, first near then far. Context includes the theme of the whole book, that is, audience and purpose. The far context involves the book’s plot. The near context involves the immediately surrounding verses. Moreover, the student of the Word must consider the dispensation and the historical-cultural environment at the time of writing. The Author’s Context Matthew gives the fullest account of the Olivet Discourse (cf. Mark 13 // Luke 17:20–37 // Luke 21:20–37). Even a cursory reading of Matthew’s Gospel shows that he emphasizes that Jesus is the prophesied Messiah.

112 CTS Journal 9 (Spring 2003) Matthew also depicts Christ as the King, linking Jesus with both Abraham (1:2) and David (1:6). The genealogy of Jesus shows His royal lineage, proving His right to the Davidic throne. Jesus is King of the Jews and an authoritative Teacher (2:2; 7:28– 29; 21:5), so He commissioned the disciples to reach the lost sheep of the house of Israel (10:6). He authorized His disciples to go to all the nations sharing the good news that the kingdom of heaven is at hand. He offered the earthly kingdom to Israel, but Matthew 12:24 reveals the national rejection of His Messiahship. This unpardonable sin (blasphemy against the Spirit) resulted in revoking the kingdom offer to that generation. Instead, that generation experienced the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Thus, Matthew explains why Jesus did not bring in the prophesied kingdom of God at His first coming. Israel’s rejection of their Messiah postponed the kingdom, though it did not cancel God’s promises to the nation. Matthew establishes that Jesus is the Messiah, even if He did not institute the prophesied kingdom at His first coming. Matthew records more information about the kingdom than any other Gospel. Jesus’ miracles and fulfillments of Old Testament prophecies authenticated His Messianic claims. Having set forth Christ’s credentials, Matthew establishes that Israel’s rejection of her King was what postponed the kingdom. The Far Context Matthew 10:7 commissions Jesus’ twelve disciples to perform signs authenticating that the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Their work in Matthew 10 requires the nation of Israel to accept or reject the King. Sadly, the nation chose to reject Him. The rejection first evidenced itself in refusing the message of the forerunner, John the Baptist, which in itself is a rejection of the King’s message (11:2–24). The King commanded those who received His message to separate themselves from the religious

The Olivet Discourse 113 leaders (11:25–30). Israel’s wrong concept of the kingdom did not lead to God rejecting that generation; rather, national rejection resulted from their refusal to repent. Therefore, the King postponed the kingdom and appealed to individual Jews. Matthew 12:24 gives the official basis upon which the nation of Israel rejected the King. The charge that Christ works by the power of Beelzebub marks a final and irreversible breach between the King and the religious leaders. The nation’s rejection of Jesus caused Him to begin teaching in parables (13:3, 34) and to withdraw Himself and forsake the nation temporarily (13:54– 16:12). Having left the nation of Israel (16:4), Jesus instructed His disciples in preparation for His crucifixion. The transfiguration in Matthew 17:1–13 authenticates the Messiahship of Jesus, as well as anticipates the future earthly kingdom (cf. 2 Peter 1:16–18; cf. 1:19–21)). Jesus’ rejection of Israel did not permanently revoke their eternal standing before the Lord. God’s unconditional covenants with Israel guarantee that a future generation will receive the King and enter into Messianic kingdom blessings (cf. Romans 11:25–27). In Matthew 21:17–22, Jesus illustrates God’s transient rejection of Israel with a parable. He found a fig tree without fruit15 and cursed it. The cursing of the tree for lack of fruit symbolized God’s judgment on the nation for its unfruitfulness. Despite her pretense of godliness, Jerusalem was utterly fruitless. Thus, Jesus said, no longer shall there ever by any fruit from you (Matthew 21:19). Noting the disciples’ amazement at the withered fig tree, Jesus impressed upon them the primacy of faith. The unbelief of that faithless generation would cause it to wither. In contrast, Christ urged His disciples to be faithful in order that all things you ask in prayer, believing, you shall receive (21:22).

15

H. A. Ironside, Matthew, rev. ed. (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux, 1948, 1994), 158.

114 CTS Journal 9 (Spring 2003) The parable of the marriage feast in Matthew 22:1–14 prepares for the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24–25.16 The king (God the Father) invites guests to his son’s (Christ’s) marriage dinner; however those who had been invited (Jews) do not come. The king sends forth his servants again, but the invitees’ preoccupation with daily business makes them unwilling to come. Some of the invited guests treat the king’s servants roughly and even kill them. When the king hears this, he sends armies to destroy the murderers and to burn their city (22:3–7), hinting at the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70). The king declares the previous invitees as unworthy and now tells his servants to invite anyone (Gentiles) to come (22:8–10). These verses speak of postponing the kingdom until the wedding hall [is] filled with dinner guests. The King then announces judgment on the nation. The scribes and Pharisees receive seven woes (Matthew 23:13, 15, 16, 23, 25, 27, 29). These woes are a stinging condemnation of the religious leaders. Jesus refers to the scribes and the Pharisees as hypocrites seven times (23:13–15, 23, 25, 27, 29). He calls them blind guides (23:16–17, 19, 24, 26), fools (23:17, 19), whitewashed tombs (23:27), serpents and a brood of vipers (23:33), and in danger of the sentence of hell (23:33). The Pharisees and scribes had an outward form of godliness, but were corrupt inside. The religious leaders exemplified the opposite of true righteousness, but the Jewish people followed these blind guides. The nation, therefore, as well as the religious leaders, is under God’s condemnation.

16

Some prophecy teachers place the feast in the seventy-five days between Christ’s Second Coming and the start of the millennium (Daniel 12:11–12). However, Jesus’ own words in Luke 22:18 (For I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes) indicate that the marriage supper of the Lamb will occur during the millennium.

The Olivet Discourse 115 The Near Context Christ’s lament over Jerusalem was prompted by her rejection of God’s prophets. Thus, He declares His rejection of that generation (23:36). The unrelenting attempt to find the fulfillment of Bible prophecy in the alleged rejection of Israel drives preterism. For the preterist, proof of the view lies in the destruction of Jerusalem. The church, according to preterism, is now the means through which millennial blessings will flow. One of the advocates of preterism says the following. It seems totally clear that He [Jesus] is speaking to the religious rule of that day, to the religious center of Israel, to the culture of His time, and He is pointing out sin in them. And He says, “Woe unto you.” Why? Because these great tribulational things will be coming upon them: those who betrayed Him, those who had Him crucified, and those who persecute Jesus’ followers from city to city—the first century Jews here being confronted in their leadership. It is important to recognize that “that generation” was objectively the most wicked generation of history for “that generation” committed the worst crime and the worst sin of universal history. It crucified the Son of the living God by rejecting Him though He did many wonderful deeds in their presence.17

The quotation misses the mark. Certainly, Matthew 23:36 indicates the imminence of judgment upon the nations and the religious leaders for all their violence against the prophets. As a result, Christ rejects the generation of His day; therefore, He will not establish His kingdom among them (23:37–39). However, this rejection is not permanent, as the conjunction until in Matthew 23:39 validates. Christ will establish the prophesied kingdom when the nation repents. A purpose of the tribulation is to bring Israel to repentance whereby they recognize that Jesus is Messiah. At the end of the tribulational period, all living Jews will 17

Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., “Postmillennialism and Preterism: Great Tribulation is Past,” audiotape (Nacogdoches, TX: Covenant Media Foundation, n.d.).

116 CTS Journal 9 (Spring 2003) acknowledge Jesus as Messiah, fulfilling Romans 11:25–27, indeed, all Israel shall be saved. Kenneth Gentry, however, attempts to connect the national indictment in Matthew 23 with this generation in Matthew 24:34.18 J. Marcellus Kik does similarly: Since, then, the obvious sense of the word generation must be taken...