My journey through Matthew has brought me today to the Olivet Discourse, one of the primary eschatological passages in the New Testament that has been the subject of intense intra-mural debate among Christians. I am going to briefly sketch three different categories of interpretation:
Extreme Futurism:
The first theological system that I learned growing up in the fundamentalist movement was the Classical Dispensationalism of C.I. Schofield (rooted in the 19th century theology of the Plymouth Brethren leader J.N. Darby) which differentiates Matthew 24 from its synoptic parallel in Luke, viewing the former as the fulfillment of Daniel's seventieth week (cf. Daniel 9:24-27) and the latter as a reference to the historic destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D. This 'seventieth week' which will be seven years long is often called the 'Great Tribulation' which will follow a 'secret rapture' of the predominately Gentile Church. Dispensationalists differ on the exact timing of this rapture - some beliving that it will occur at the beginning of the tribulation period, and others holding that it will occur at the half-way mark. They effectively split the return of Christ into two phases: Christ's return for the Church which is imminent (understood as 'any moment') and will not be preceded by any signs, and the second coming of Jesus (parousia) which will occur at the end of the Great Tribulation when he will return to earth to reign in a literally reconstructed temple in Jerusalem. Because Matthew 24 is full of signs that point to the Lord's second coming, Dispensationalists reason according to their theological system, that it cannot possibly be a text about the rapture of the Church. All eschatological texts in the NT are divided into 'rapture texts' and 'parousia texts' depending on whether or not there are signs which precede the event. For Classical Dispensationalists, Matt 24 is strictly a 'parousia' text (including vv.36-44 which is sometimes understood (wrongly they say) as a reference to the 'secret rapture' of the Church.
The Classical Dispensationalist interpretation of Matt 24 is that the Olivet Discourse pertains exclusively to the final generation of Jewish believers who are alive during the Great Tribulation. It may be an interesting passage for Christians to read, but it is not really that important for the current dispensation. It is a view that sees no historic fulfillment in Matthew 24 in spite of the fact that the entire discourse was occasioned by the disciples question regarding the destructon of the temple (v.2). According to Dispensationalists, Jesus simply ignores this first question posed by the disciples and focuses exclusively on their second question about the close of the age and events of the future (v.3).
Preterism:
Preterism is the view that Revelation and Matthew must be understood in light of the historic events of A.D. 70 when the temple was destroyed by the Roman general Titus. Preterism is broken into two views, viz. Full Preterism which views Matthew 24 and Revelation as being completely fulfilled in the first century, and Partial Preterism which views much of Matthew 24 and Revelation as already fulfilled, and some which is yet to be fulfilled in the Eschaton. The distinction between Full and Partial Preterism is a very important one. Full Preterism is not an orthodox position because it denies the future, bodily return of the Lord Jesus. Partial Preterism, on the other hand is a very live option for Evangelicals and has been promoted by R.C. Sproul, R.V.G. Tasker and others.
Partial Preterists break Matthew 24 into two sections. Verses 1-28 deal exclusively with the historical destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The mysterious 'Abomination of Desolation' (v. 15) is a reference to the desecration of the Temple by Titus (who actually offered a pagan sacrifice in the temple court), and not a reference to the eschatological Antichrist of the Great Tribulation. Partial Preterists interpret vv. 29-44 as the future bodily return of Christ at the end of the age, while Full Preterists erroneously contend that these verses were fulfilled historically in the first century.
I came across a passage in the City of God recently that seems to indicate that St. Augustine can also be categorized as a Partial Preterist: "I pass over many other passages which seem to refer to the last judgment but which, on more careful condideration, are found to be ambiguous, or to refer more pertinently to something else. They may refer, for example, to the 'coming' of the Saviour which is going on throughout this present age in His Church: that is, in His members. In this sense, He comes part by part and little by little, since the whole Church is His body. Again the reference may be to the destruction of the earthly Jerusalem. For when Christ speaks of that destruction He often does so as if He were speakign of the end of the world and of the last and great day of judment." (XX.5)
Moderate Futurism:
While I see the Partial Preterist position as a possibility and a better option that the Dispensationalist view, I do not think it is the best way to understand Matthew 24. In my own understanding, Matthew 24 refers to two different events in one single prophecy, and must be interpreted as a prophecy having multiple layers of fulfillment that are not easy to separate in a simplistic way. We ought to interpret Matthew 24 just as we interpret Old Testament prophecy - there are usually multiple levels of fulfillment, both historical and eschatological.
There is little doubt in my mind that Jesus is talking in Matthew 24 about events that were fulfilled in A.D. 70 and also that the language is heightened in such a way that he is also describing events that will happen just prior to his return (which I understand to be a single event that will occur at the end of the Tribulation). The Abomination of Desolation mentioned by Daniel in the OT and used again here by our Lord, is an event that has numerous historical fulfillments. It was fulfilled in the Maccabean period when Antiochus Ephiphanes sacrificed a pig in the temple (surely the backdrop of Jesus words). It was fulfilled again in A.D. 70 when Titus offered sacrifice in the temple courts. It will be fulfilled again in the future by the Antichrist - although not in a literal temple since the Church itself is the temple of God! Although we do not understand what exactly will happen, Jesus indicates in a parenthetical statement in v. 15 that Christians alive during that future time of firey persecution and martyrdom will understand what this passage means when the event actually occurs.
No comments:
Post a Comment