In my previous blog, I addressed some of the Biblical interpretation issues raised by the extremely popular Left Behind novels. Though these books are fictional, they nevertheless represent a certain theological approach to the book of the Revelation, and other apocalyptic texts in the Scriptures. This particular view is known as “Dispensationalism.” This view first emerged in the in the 1830’s, and is therefore relatively a “new” interpretative method. As I pointed out in reference to its approach to Revelation, it ignores the intended first century audience and the relevance of this book to them. It insists that this book had little purpose for the first century churches in Asia Minor, to whom it was explicitly written and only has true relevance for those of us living in the present day. For you more scholarly types, this means that the historical-grammatical principle of hermeneutics is ignored. Please understand I do believe that the book of the Revelation has relevance for us today, but we cannot forget that it was written to the seven churches located in Asia Minor, and what it would have meant to them. We apply this principle to interpreting Galatians, the Corinthian letters, Ephesians, etc.; why ignore it when we come to Revelation?
As I pointed out in the previous blog, Revelation 1:1 and 1:3 both show us that the intended audience in the first century was to expect the events described in the book to “soon take place” (Rev. 1:1), for the time was “near” (Rev. 1:3). These “time” words cannot be ignored or “spiritualized.” Philip Mauro, who once held to the prophetic system advocated by Tim LaHaye, but later abandoned it after a thorough study of the Bible, said this: “The very first verse [in Revelation] states that God’s purpose in giving the revelation to Jesus Christ was that he might ‘show unto His servants things which must shortly come to pass.’ These words are not at all ambiguous, and the simple minded would never suspect that they could have been intended to convey any other than their ordinary and apparent meaning, namely, that the things foretold in ‘this prophecy’ were to happen in the era that was just then beginning. The word here rendered ‘shortly’ means just that. It is variously translated in other Scriptures by the words quickly, speedily, soon. Thus in Acts 25:4, Festus, after commanding that Paul be kept at Caesarea, said that ‘he himself would depart shortly thither.’ In Philippians 2:19 Paul writes, “I trust to send Timotheus unto you shortly.’ And so also in I Timothy 3:14; Hebrews 13:23; and 2 Peter 1:14. In Galatians 1:6 we have, ‘so soon removed’; in Philippians 2:33, ‘so soon as I shall see how it will go with’; and in 2 Thessalonians 2:2, ‘That ye be not soon shaken in mind.’” [Taken from Things Which Soon Must Come to Pass: A Commentary on the Book of Revelation by Philip Mauro, (Swengel,PA: Reiner Publications, 1925) pages 24-25] As Philip Mauro has shown by comparing Scripture with Scripture, this word (Greek word -tachos translated as “soon” in the NAS) places the prophecy in a certain time frame, one that was about to occur.
Another issue “left behind” by Tim LaHaye and others, who hold to this dispensationalistic view of prophecy, are the “time frame reference” passages. This are the prophetic passages were Jesus, or others state that certain events will occur within a certain “time frame.” For instance, Jesus said that his disciples “would not finish going through all the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes” (Matt. 10:23). Elsewhere, Jesus said: ”Truly, I say to you, there are some of those standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom” (Matt. 16:28). In the Olivet discourse, that section of Scripture many Christians build there understanding of Bible prophecy around, Jesus says; “This generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (Matt. 24:34). All of these point to a certain time frame in which these prophecies must be fulfilled, in order to be shown to be true. It is passages such as these, which cause the critics of the Bible to charge that Jesus was wrong. The critics, like many believers, mistakenly think that Jesus was speaking of the "Second Coming.” If it was the Second Coming that Jesus was referring to then He is a “false prophet,” which He most certainly is not.
Jesus was not prophesying His return at the end of history in these passages. Instead, He was prophesying His coming in judgment on Jerusalem, which occurred 40 years later in A.D. 70. This significant event, which included the destruction of the temple (Matt.24:2), brought an end to the Old Testament sacrifices and the Levitical priesthood. The Lord gave Israel one generation (40 years) in which to repent and accept their Messiah, before judgment would fall. This judgment plays a prominent place in the prophecies of our Lord, yet seemingly many Christians are not aware of that fact. It was the major focus of the Olivet discourse (Matt. 24:3-34), and Jesus referred to this event quite often (Matt. 10:23, 16:27-28, 23:36-38, 26:63-64; Mark 13:3-37; Luke 21:8-28, 23:31). His “coming “ was a coming in judgment, and His use of the phrase “coming on the clouds” (Matt. 24:30) was Old Testament prophetic imagery for His presence, judgment, and salvation (Ps.104:3; Isa. 19:1; Nahum 1:3).
Matthew 24:1-34 is not about a future event for us living in the 21st century, it is about a past event, which occurred in A.D. 70. Gary DeMar in his book entitled Last Days Madness says this, “Of course, a first-century, in contrast to a yet future, fulfillment changes the entire prophetic landscape cultivated by numerous contemporary date setters. Much of contemporary last days madness would be eliminated if Christians could be convinced, through a thorough study of Scripture, that Matthew 24:1-34 is a prophecy that was fulfilled in A.D. 70.”
If all this sounds strange to you, I suggest you read what such men as Matthew Henry, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley, and Charles Spurgeon had to say about Matthew 24:1-34. You will find it much different than what Tim LaHaye has to say on the matter. You will find that Brother Tim is expressing a view that these historical theologians and Bible commentators know nothing about.
Eusebius, one of the earliest historians in the Church, in his Ecclesiastical History, quotes from Matthew 24:19-21 and states: “These things took place under Vespasian in accordance with the prophecies of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who by divine power saw them beforehand as if they were already present, and wept and mourned according to the statement of the holy evangelists.” What statement of the holy evangelists? Eusebius quotes from Luke’s description of the destruction of Jerusalem (Luke 19:42-44, 21:20, 23-24). The passages in Luke 21 parallel those in Matthew 24:1-34.
It has been my purpose in this edition to show that there is an alternate view to the one presented in the Left Behind novels. Allow me to recommend some books that will enable you to examine more deeply this subject:
The Last Days According to Jesus by R.C. Sproul (ISBN: 0-8010-1171-X)
Last Days Madness by Gary DeMar (ISBN: 1-56121-081-1)
An Eschatology of Victory by J. Marcellus Kik (ISBN: 0-87552-313-7)
Originally written in 2002
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment