PROPER
HERMENEUTICS AND THE FOLLY OF THE "TWO CONVERSATION" ARGUMENT
Studying the Grammar and Contextual Flow of the Olivet Discourse
To Disprove the Doctrine of Dispensationalism
PART 5
Mike Blume
November 2010
When
one reads the synoptic gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke, one immediately
understands why they are called “synoptic”. The
term “synoptic” is defined as follows:Affording
a general view of the whole, or of the principal parts of a thing; as a
synoptic table.This
especially becomes pertinent when we consider the Olivet Discourse as
related in these three gospels. Since the Synoptic Gospels afford us
with a general view of the whole of Jesus’ ministry
– showing the principle parts – the comparison of
all three Olivet Discourse accounts is meant to show us a general view
of the one single discourse. When the three Gospels each recount the
same story, there is a variance of terms used. No one suggests there
are more than one event simply due to the variation of terms.
Take for example the lists of the apostles found in the gospels.“We
have four lists of the apostles, one by each of the synoptic
evangelists (Mat_10:2-4;
Mar_3:16;Luke_6:14),
and one in the Acts (Act_1:13).
No two of these lists, however, perfectly coincide.”(M.G.
Easton M.A., D.D., Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 1897.)
No one would consider suggesting that the four variations of the lists
of apostles’ names suggest there were four different groups
of apostles, as futurists claim the Olivet Discourse accounts have
differences that indicate two distinct conversations.
Easton also wrote,“The
authors of the first three Gospels, the synoptics, wrote independently
of each other. Each wrote his independent narrative under the guidance
of the Holy Spirit. Each writer has some things, both in matter and
style, peculiar to himself, yet all the three have much in
common.”
Therefore, we can say that the variation of terms used in the three
accounts by the three writers of the same Olivet Discourse is only
indication of the writers’ respective styles and manners
peculiar to themselves.
Easton quotes another source and says,“Out
of a total of 1151 verses, Luke has 389 in common with Matthew and
Mark, 176 in common with Matthew alone, 41 in common with Mark alone,
leaving 544 peculiar to himself. In many instances all three use
identical language.”(Cambridge
Bible, Luke, Introd.) Comparing each synoptic gospel to the other,
Easton noted,“thirteen-fourteenths
of Mark, four-sevenths of Matthew, and two-fifths of Luke are taken up
in describing the same things in very similar language.”
I claim that among the 13/14 of Mark, the 4/7 of Matthew and the 2/5 of
Luke that are describing the same things includes the Olivet Discourse
of Matt 24,Mark
13andLuke
21.
Andrew Robert Fausset wrote these words,“In
42 sections the three Synoptists coincide; 12 more sections are given
by Matthew and Mark alone; five sections are given by Mark and Luke
alone, 14 sections are given by Matthew and Luke. Besides, five
sections are unique to Matthew, two sections are unique to Mark, and
nine sections are unique to Luke. The verbal coincidences are chiefly
in reciting the words of Jesus or of others in connection with, Him,
seldom in the narrative of the evangelists themselves. In Matthew the
proportion is as one to more than two, in Mark one to four, in Luke one
to ten (Norton, Genuineness, I. 240).”(Fausset's
Bible Dictionary by Andrew Robert Fausset (1821-1910), co-Author of
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's COMMENTARY ON THE WHOLE BIBLE.)
Much ado is made by some dispensationalists about a discrepancy between
the three gospel accounts regarding the sign Jesus gave for the
Christians to flee Jerusalem.
A.T. Robertson made this remark,“Christians
did flee from Jerusalem to Pella before it was too late as directed inLuke_21:21;
Mar_13:14.;Mat_24:16.”Notice
he indicated that the three accounts all were fulfilled by Christians
fleeing to Pella, thereby implying the signs were actually one and the
same, and referred to first century fulfillments in all three cases.
(WORD PICTURES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, by Archibald Thomas Robertson.
Comment onLuke
21:20).
B.W. Johnson wrote,“In
the holy place. Mark says,
‘Where it ought not;’ around ‘the holy
city.’”(The
People's New Testament (1891) by B. W. Johnson, comment onMatthew
24:15).
This informs the reader that the armies “around the holy
city” fulfilled this prophecy. Johnson had no trouble with
the inside/outside conundrum that some dispensationalists feel exists
if one were to state that the SIGN to flee was one and the same.
Dispensationalists have claimed that Matthew’s and
Mark’s references to the abomination of desolation being the
sign for believers to flee cannot be one and the same sign as what Luke
described in speaking of Jerusalem surrounded by armies. They claim
Matthew and Mark speak of the abomination of desolation as occurring in
the temple alone, and that conflicts with the sign of armies
surrounding Jerusalem. How can this be one and the same conversation,
they say, if Matthew and Mark speaks of a sign inside the city in the
temple, and Luke speaks of a sign outside the city and around it?
Johnson also said,“Mat
24:15-20When
therefore ye see the abomination of desolation.
This is the sign when Christians should flee from Jerusalem. See Dan_9:27;Dan_11:31;Dan_12:11.
Luke says, ‘When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with
armies’ (Luke_21:20).
[color]This was, therefore, Christ's explanation of the abomination of
desolation.[/color]”
According to Johnson, Luke’s account explained what the
abomination of desolation was! He implied Matthew and Mark merely
mentioned the abomination, but Luke actually explained the details of
what it was!
Luke’s Gospel was without a doubt written to Gentile readers,
and Luke was a well known companion of Paul the apostle to the
Gentiles. Scholars agree Luke went into details that common Jews would
know as a given, in order for the Gentile readers to more clearly get
the point. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown wrote,“
But the explanations in his Gospel of things known to every Jew, and
which could only be intended for Gentile readers, make this quite plain
- see Luke_1:26;Luke_4:31;Luke_8:26;Luke_21:37;Luke_22:1;Luke_24:13.
A number of other minute particulars, both of things inserted and of
things omitted, confirm the conclusion that it was Gentiles whom this
Evangelist had in the first instance in view.
…But we have also observed that along with this he shows a
wonderful flexibility of style, so much so, that when he comes to
relate transactions wholly Jewish, where the speakers and actors and
incidents are all Jewish, he writes in such Jewish Greek as one would
do who had never been out of Palestine or mixed with any but
Jews.”
This would explain why Luke’s reference to the armies around
Jerusalem was written instead of simply speaking of the abomination of
desolation that Mark and Matthew wrote about. Jews would readily know
that it was abomination for the Romans to stand around Jerusalem with
idols whereas Gentiles might not, as I feel is precisely the case with
the dispensationalists’ aversion to the abomination being
those armies on city grounds.
Adam Clarke agreed with Johnson:“Mat
24:15The
abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel–This
abomination of desolation, St. Luke,
(Luke_21:20,Luke_21:21),
refers to the Roman army; and this abomination standing in the holy
place is the Roman army besieging Jerusalem;
this, our Lord says, is what was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, in
the ninth and eleventh chapters of his prophecy; and so let every one
who reads these prophecies understand them; and in reference to this
very event they are understood by the rabbins.The Roman
army is called an abomination,
for its ensigns and images, which were so to the Jews.
Josephus says, (War, b. vi. chap. 6), the Romans brought their ensigns
into the temple, and placed them over against the eastern gate, and
sacrificed to them there. The Roman army is therefore fitly called the
abomination, and the abomination which maketh desolate, as it was to
desolate and lay waste Jerusalem;and this army besieging Jerusalem is
called by St. Mark, Mar_13:14, standing where it ought not, that is, as
in the text here,the holy place; as not only the city, but a
considerable compass of ground about it, was deemed holy, and
consequently no profane persons should stand on it.”