ESCHATOLOGICAL HERMENEUTICS

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 6
Mike Blume
November 2010

While dispensationalists split hairs over whether or not the sign was inside the city or outside, scholars like Johnson and Clarke agree the city and “a considerable compass of grounds about it were deemed holy, and consequently no profane persons should stand on it.” So being outside the city was no big issue to these scholars. A considerable compass of grounds about the city was just as holy as the city. So the holy place included the temple, the city and a considerable compass of ground about the city. Dispensationalists have made much ado about nothing!
Not only that, but the account of Luke, that disp’s claim conflicts with Matthew’s and Mark’s record, mentions an abomination that any unbiased reader would recognize as one and the same as that mentioned in Matthew and Mark.

Matthew 24:15 KJV When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand: )

Mark 13:14 KJV But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

Luke 21:20 KJV And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

Luke 21 recorded that Jesus said, “The abomination thereof is nigh.” A desolation would occur that would completely wipe out the city. The dispensationalist absurdly demands that not only is every single detail listed up until this point in Luke a completely different series of events than the same that are mentioned in Matthew and Mark, but that the “desolation” associated with Matthew’s and Mark’s abomination is a completely different desolation than that in Luke. So, what do futurists claim the desolation actually was in Luke?

Occam’s Razor is a rule of logic that states that the simplest solution with the least amount of hoops to leap through in order to explain the picture of any given situation is likely the correct one. With 13 mirror image events in the same sequence listed in all three gospels, and the reference to a desolation in all three that is associated with a SIGN, the simplest explanation is that these three accounts are speaking of one and the same conversation. The similarities and identical sequence of events far outweighs the hoop-gymnastics (not sound hermeneutics) the dispensationalist has to experience in explaining this is being two conversations.

Then there is the alleged discrepancy in the synoptic about the tribulation and/or days of vengeance.
The believers were instructed by Jesus to flee Judaea because…

Matthew 24:21 KJV For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Mark 13:19 KJV For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.

Luke 21:22 KJV For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

Luke is noted by disps to not have stated that the days of vengeance were never paralleled in the past nor ever to be in the future, unlike Matthew’s and Mark’s accounts. Is that enough grounds to claim this is evidence of a completely different conversation in Luke? I think not, and neither do scholars.

Albert Barnes noted that Luke’s verse mentioned “that all things which are written may be fulfilled.” What things were written and where were they written? Barnes answers as follows, “Particularly was this very destruction foretold by Daniel, Dan_9:26-27; ‘And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself; and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.’”

What other passages would Jesus have referred to in Luke’s record? Barnes seems to think it was particularly Daniel’s passage speaking about the 70 weeks of Daniel.

Dispensationalists agree Luke 21 was speaking of the AD70 events. However, they do not agree that Daniel 9:26-27 spoke of the AD70 events. They think the prince that shall come that shall destroy the city is a yet-future “antichrist,” and not Titus the Roman in AD70. Barnes commented on the prince that shall come in Dan 9:26 saying, “No one can fail to see the applicability of this to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman power, after the Lord Jesus was put to death.” However, dispensationalists do fail to see this!

Barnes continued, “…the language could not have been better chosen, or the prediction more exact. No one can reasonably doubt that, if the ancient Hebrews had understood the former part of the prophecy, as meaning that the true Messiah would be put to death soon after his appearing, they could not fail to anticipate that a foreign prince would soon come and lay waste their city and sanctuary.”

Dispensationalists feel there was nothing soon after Christ’s death at all. They believe that after two thousand years this prince has still not yet come!

John Gill stated that Moses wrote of this destruction of the city foretold by Jesus: “that all things which are written may be fulfilled; as in Moses and the prophets; see Deut._28:20.”

Deuteronomy 28:20 KJV The LORD shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly; because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken me.

AT Robertson agrees:

“Luke 21:22 That may be fulfilled (tou plēsthēnai). Articular infinitive passive to express purpose with accusative of general reference. The O.T. has many such warnings (Hos_9:7; Deu_28:49-57, etc.).”

Deuteronomy 28:49-57 KJV (49) The LORD shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand; (50) A nation of fierce countenance, which shall not regard the person of the old, nor shew favour to the young: (51) And he shall eat the fruit of thy cattle, and the fruit of thy land, until thou be destroyed: which also shall not leave thee either corn, wine, or oil, or the increase of thy kine, or flocks of thy sheep, until he have destroyed thee. (52) And he shall besiege thee in all thy gates, until thy high and fenced walls come down, wherein thou trustedst, throughout all thy land: and he shall besiege thee in all thy gates throughout all thy land, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. (53) And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee: (54) So that the man that is tender among you, and very delicate, his eye shall be evil toward his brother, and toward the wife of his bosom, and toward the remnant of his children which he shall leave: (55) So that he will not give to any of them of the flesh of his children whom he shall eat: because he hath nothing left him in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee in all thy gates. (56) The tender and delicate woman among you, which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye shall be evil toward the husband of her bosom, and toward her son, and toward her daughter, (57) And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly in the siege and straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall distress thee in thy gates.