A Call to Alacrity, not Perplexity

In my two previous posts I have been discussing an article by Professor Dan Doriani titled What is The 'Abomination of Desolation'? The article appears at The Gospel Coalition website. This post seeks to answer the question posed in the title of Professor Doriani's article.

It could be pointed out that by considering what the Abomination of Desolation is, Professor Doriani is also seeking to establish when it is. In other words, did it happen in 70 AD, or is it yet a future event? Understanding what it is assists in understanding that it has not yet occurred.

Some keys to answering this question of when are in Matthew 24: 15 itself. The verse begins with the clause "Therefore when you see the Abomination of Desolation..." (NASB). Not "if you see..." The text presumes that the reader who happens to be located in the vicinity of the event will see it. With the assistance of current technology (and, hypothetically, of future technology), it is easy to consider how those in the region could view a video feed of the event. On the other hand, in the first century it would not seem plausible that everyone in the district could personally observe, from their houses and fields,  an occurrence taking place inside the Temple. Also, the definite article and reference to the book of Daniel both clarify that a technical prophetic term is being implemented to refer to a specific earth-shaking event--this is not just an abomination, but The Abomination. When it happens, it will dwarf other lesser abominations.

Then there is the urgent instruction  to flee from the area because the Abomination of Desolation signals the approach of superlative tribulation never seen before and never to be seen again (verses 16-21). But when Roman armies invaded the Temple in 70 AD it was at the conclusion of a long siege, not the beginning. This siege followed a military campaign throughout the region and a long duration of turmoil within the city. It signaled the culmination, not the onset of the Roman conquest. The time to flee would have arrived well before the Temple destruction. And as bad a time as it was, it was not the worst in history. Those taking flight from the invasion would have long since taken leave if able as the war and famine in the area had already been going on for a considerable duration. Thus pagan soldiers entering the Temple in the first century would have been too late a cue to try and escape. The urgency required by the directive in the text--not going back into the house, even to grab a coat, does not fit the first century invasion which would have allowed for enough warning prior, as armies gathered, for local residents to gather some provisions.

In addition there is the warning sign itself. It would be difficult to argue that the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 AD could not have been anticipated as the Roman armies gathered to invade after conquering the surrounding area. But in the warning of Matthew 24: 15-22 it is anticipated that people will have no warning except the Abomination of Desolation episode itself. Thus people may be outside without their luggage but are instructed not to delay by going back to their houses. And verse 20 isolates the time frame of the window of escape to a single day--hence the exhortation to pray it not be a Sabbath, when travel would be more difficult.

Verse 29 describes apocalyptic cosmic phenomena that were not witnessed in the first century, followed by the Second Coming of Jesus in verses 30 and 31. That itself should prove that verses 15-31 have not yet happened.

The question of whether the invasion by Titus of Rome in the first century was the Abomination of Desolation is a matter of some debate. But when the real Abomination of Desolation occurs, there will be no debate. Believers will know it when they see it.

Perspicuity vs Perplexity

In my previous post I discussed an article written by Dan Doriani at The Gospel Coalition website. In that post, I objected to the fact the Gospel Coalition editors did not clarify the point that Professor Doriani's article, titled What is the 'Abomination of Desolation'?, expressed a partial-preterist take on Matthew 24 which not all, nor even most, evangelicals agree with.

In this post I want to examine some points of Professor Doriani's approach in the article itself. Professor Doriani makes a number of generalizations about the passage without doing much exegesis. Considering the length of the article, this is not unusual for a short treatment of this type. But if the aim is to clear up perplexity, that would seem to require unpacking the verses.

The essay asserts that "Evangelical scholars...generally agree that (Matthew) 24: 3-35 mostly refers to events leading up to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70." Except they don't...beginning with the Abomination of Desolation itself. The majority evangelical viewpoint isn't going to go away simply by being ignored. The urgency described in verses 17-20 is not the type of urgency that matched AD 70. People not only  had time to go back into their houses to retrieve supplies, but were also able to anticipate the approaching siege by the Romans. Verses 17-20 describe a frantic urgency in which minutes are critical and isolate the event to a single day, hence the instruction in verse 20 to pray that it does not fall on a Sabbath, when travel would be more difficult.

Verse 21 depicts a superlative tribulation unmatched before or since. This did not occur in AD 70. Verse 22 warns of a threat to all human existence. Verses 23-26 warn of deception on a massive scale, and finally, verses 29-31 describe cataclysmic signs and wonders witnessed by the entire planet culminating in the Second Coming. Didn't happen in AD 70.

Professor Doriani concludes, "This prophecy makes sense only with reference to the fall of Jerusalem", but never engages the key defeaters of this statement, among them verses 16-31. He therefore takes a fairly clear passage and makes it perplexing by seeking to shoehorn it into a preconceived partial-preterist construct.

A Perplexing Perspective

An article written by Dan Doriani at The Gospel Coalition website presents a partial-preterist interpretation of Matthew 24. This is nothing novel; the partial-preterist conviction has been around for a good while, and there are certainly quite a few orthodox believers who hold it. The fact that Professor Doriani has expressed this persuasion is not the complaint of this post.

This protest is that the article is presented as the explanation of a passage described as "perplexing", part of a series described a one which "analyzes perplexing passages of the Bible", of which the subject article is billed as "the first installment in a new series..." Now, in Professor Doriani's mind it may be the explanation, and he is entitled to hold that opinion. If he wants to write partial-preterist articles until the rapture, that's his prerogative. But neither the article nor the series introduction contain any disclaimer from the website editors stipulating that professor Doriani's eschatological position is just one of a number of orthodox views.

After all, if the purpose is to coalesce in support of the gospel, it would seem third-tier issues could be allowed some interpretive latitude. One might expect that an organization which calls itself The Gospel Coalition--as opposed to, say, "The Partial-Preterist Eschatological Viewpoint Coalition"--would recognize that there are a variety of acceptable eschatological opinions among evangelicals, but would put its focus on uniting for the gospel. If one of their members wants to write about their opinion from the selection on the prophetic interpretation grid, perhaps the piece could include some clarifying comments, like:

Here is a difficult passage of Scripture. Well, it's actually not that difficult if you take the passage in its futuristic plain meaning sense. But there are some folks who think most of the events in this prophecy have already happened, which makes the passage difficult for them since the words in Matthew 24:16-31 do not describe accomplished phenomena. Most evangelicals do not agree with this esteemed chap's handling of this so-called "perplexing" passage; nevertheless, his minority viewpoint does have its followers, and as many of these eschatological points concern matters of nonessential doctrine, we present herewith his case for the readers' appraisal.

One might expect some sort of clarification, assuming The Gospel Coalition agrees that Partial Preterism is a) nonessential, and b) widely disputed.

Do We Stay or Do We Go?

While attempting to revive an often-refuted case against the idea of an end-times rapture which is separated by a short duration from the Second Coming, Matthew Dickerson also employs a somewhat novel tactic of comparing pre-trib rapture adherents to Gnostics. In his article appearing in Christianity Today titled "Who Gets Left Behind" Dickerson warns of embracing Gnosticism and Plato and Socrates (oh my!) as what he sees as the potential outcome of holding to a pre-trib rapture construct.

Dickerson needn't worry, I'm definitely no Gnostic--and I don't think any of my amil friends have ever called me one because of my eschatological position. I'm also not buying his argument. While he reinterprets the classic pre-trib rapture passage in 1 Thess 4: 13-18, Dickerson neglects to cite 1 Cor 15: 50-56. At the rapture, we don't leave our physical bodies behind, they come with us, instantly transformed into eternal, imperishable, but physical bodies. Even the bodies of saints who died centuries before are taken and transformed into a glorified but still physical state. So let's please dispense with irrelevant comparisons to Gnosticism. The hope of the rapture includes the hope of the resurrection and a new eternal glorified physical body for each believer.

Dickerson also frets that folks who expect to depart the earth when raptured by the Lord Jesus one day will treat this world more like a hotel than a home and won't give enough attention to working as "redeeming and restoring influences in this world of space, time, and matter." To which I respond that if he means we won't be caught up in the latest environmental myth like global cooling, ozone depletion, global warming, climate change, and whatever the next fad that comes along masquerading as science might be, then he may be right. But since we pre-trib people tend to lean toward the literal in our hermeneutics, I think most understand, as I do, that Genesis chapters one and two are to be taken as a literal historical narrative. And therefore I think most have no problem understanding the earth is a gift from God which we should be good stewards of while we're here. We're just not seeking to get lured into every politically correct economic reorganization scheme disguised as environmental concern.

So if Dickerson would like to believe that 1 Thess 4: 13-18 describes an event in which believers are raptured into the air and then make an immediate U-turn so they can come back to earth and get back in line again with unbelievers to be re-separated in the Judgment of the Sheep and the Goats described in Matt 25: 31-46, after having already been raptured, he is free to do so. And if he feels the unexpected surprise coming of the Lord depicted in Matt 24: 44 is a description of the same event as that in Rev 19: 11-21 which doesn't appear to surprise anyone, not even the birds...then he is free to do so. I tell my amil brothers and sisters that the Lord won't leave them behind just because they got their eschatology incorrect.

But that Gnostic argument just isn't going to fly. We believers will, though.

Kingdom Promise

In Acts 1:6, The disciples ask Jesus,

...Lord, wilt Thou it at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

In His response, Jesus tells them that it is not for them to know the times or the seasons. He does not correct their eschatological viewpoint or say that all those previous kingdom prophecies and teachings were only meant in a metaphorical and spiritual sense. So after three years of being taught by Him, they still expect an earthly kingdom, and even though He is getting ready to ascend to the Father and they are to establish the Church (and indeed, Christianity itself) and be the authorities on doctrine and practice, He does not insist that their eschatological hermenautic is too literal.

Wonder why that is? I think the reason is that, while the disciples may have been clueless about the time frame ( and indeed, we still don't know the times or seasons), they were correct in their expectation of an eventual earthly kingdom.

This was after the Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24 and 25, so they obviously did not read into that text, as so many partial preterists and amillennialists do, the absence of an earthly kingdom. For more comments on Matthew 24, see here, here, and here.

Perhaps the disciples anticipated an earthly kingdom because of the words of Jesus to them in Matthew 19: 28:

Verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

It is apparent that the disciples saw this as a literal prophecy, because in Matthew 20: 20-23 James, John and their mother have a conversation with Jesus in which she requests that the two brothers be granted the honor of being seated at the right hand and left hand of Jesus in His kingdom. Jesus does not correct their interpretation or insist that they misunderstood Him. Rather, He says the privilege they requested is "...for whom it is prepared of My Father."

So what do we make of the fact that Jesus taught about a future earthly kingdom and the disciples expected one? Looks like premillennialism to me.

Help Me Help You Help Me Understand

Well, it seems an intense discussion (yea, a verbal firestorm of sorts) has been roaring through (okay, maybe just crackling through) a few of the blogs I frequent. One of my favorite expositors, John MacArthur, recently expressed the opinion that he felt a premillennial eschatology was more consistent with reform soteriology than an amillennial view.

I have long agreed that if 5-point Calvinists would apply the same earnest diligent hermeneutic to their study of the prophetic Scriptures that they apply to those passages which deal with soteriology, they'd be premillers instead of amillers.

By the way, when I refer to the amillennial eschatological view, I include the postmillennial viewpoint in that category. I don't see much difference in the two perspectives, since both camps believe the millennial reign of Christ described in Revelation 20:4 is a description of the church age prior to the Second Coming, and many in the postmillennial group, like the amillennialists, reject a literal 1000-year time frame as the duration of the age described. One might argue that the posties are more optimistic about the way things are headed than some of the amillennialists regarding the conclusion of the church age, but I still think that divergence is a sub-category within the same general doctrinal eschatological construct. Sorry, what I mean to say is, I think they still hold the same general view and get there using the same general interpretive principals.


Now, there are all sorts of rationales and explanations given why the amillennialists don't accept that the words of Revelation 20:4 actually mean what the words of Revelation 20:4 say, or why a thousand years would not mean a thousand years, even though it is repeated 6 times in verses 2-7 of chapter 20. Seems to me that the apostle John really wants the reader to get the fact that the duration he is referring to is a thousand years. The rationales of the dissenters vary some from one amiller to the next, but generally rely on terms like "allegory", "prophetic language", etc. I dealt with some of these general issues in my former blog here and here.

I think the real challenge one should consider in reading this passage is, unless one brings a pre-established eschatological view with them when reading it, there is nothing there which compels the described thousand-year post-Second Coming reign of Christ to be taken any way but in the literal sense. There is nothing difficult about interpreting the narrative in the way it describes future events. There is no difficulty in understanding the plain meaning of the narrative and the context does not insist on resorting to allegory to understand it.

Also, there is a precedent concerning previous prophetic time-frames in Scripture which appear to have a literal meaning. Seven days in Genesis 7: 4 meant seven days. Three days in Genesis 40: 12-13 meant three days. Seven years in Genesis 41: 26-30 meant seven years. Forty years in Numbers 14: 33-34 meant forty years. Seventy years in Jeremiah 25:11-12 meant seventy years. Three days in Mark 10: 31 meant three days. There are more examples, but I think the point is made that an appeal to "prophetic language" does not automatically exempt one from accepting a time frame specifically defined in a Biblical prophecy. The only reason amillennialists are forced to impose a nonliteral interpretaion on the thousand-year reference is because the Church Age has already extended more than a thousand years and they have to reconcile that fact with the eschatological view they have settled on.

Having said all this, the issue is not one to divide over. Orthodox evangelicals can agree to disagree on the premill/amill issue. But we premillers do need to continue to make our case without apology to our amillennial brothers and sisters. After all, our eschatological hermeneutic should be consistent with the way we interpret the rest of Scripture.