As an interpretive framework in Eschatology, some people provide an understanding of the passage, Matthew 24:15-22, through a specific lens. According to “pop-eschatology,” this passage refers to a future event known as the "Great Tribulation,” or what some refer to as the "time of Jacob's trouble" described in the book of Daniel and other prophetic texts. But does it? And is this even the best light to understand this text? Let us examine the passage today.
Therefore, when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath. For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until now, no, nor ever shall be. And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect’s sake those days will be shortened. (Mt 24:15–22).
From the popular “Left Behind theology” or, as it is known in theological circles, the dispensational Pre-millennial perspective, the "abomination of desolation" mentioned in Matthew 24:15 is believed to be a future event. They claim a figure often associated with the Antichrist will arise to defile the holy place, potentially a rebuilt Jewish temple in Jerusalem. They understand that this event signals the beginning of a period of unprecedented tribulation and suffering. The instructions given by Jesus to "flee to the mountains" and not to take anything from one's house or field emphasize the urgency and severity of the situation. According to Dispensationalism, this is a call for the faithful Jews living in Judea during the Great Tribulation to escape and find refuge in the mountains to avoid the persecution and devastation that would occur.
Those who view this passage as insights into their own personal future believe that the Great Tribulation will be a period of intense global turmoil and suffering, surpassing any previous tribulation in history. They interpret Jesus' statement that "unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved" as an indication of the severity of the tribulation and the necessity for divine intervention to bring it to an end. This perspective views the shortening of those days as God's intervention for the sake of the "elect," referring to the faithful remnant or chosen people during that future period. With this perspective, they must interpret this passage in Matthew 24:15-22 as a future prophecy pointing to “the Great Tribulation”, a time of unprecedented suffering and divine intervention, focusing primarily on the Jewish people and their role in the end-times scenario.
CONTRADICTION BETWEEN TEXT
The discrepancy between the interpretations of Matthew 24:15-22 and Luke 21:20-24 lies in how they are understood in relation to the destruction of Jerusalem. Dispensationalists often interpret Matthew 24 as referring to a future event called the Great Tribulation. At the same time, Luke 21 describes the historical events leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
As we have just stated, the interpretation of Matthew 24, the "abomination of desolation," is seen as a future event. This event is believed to occur after the church’s rapture and is a significant marker in a seven-year period of intense tribulation.
Armies surrounded Jerusalem
On the other hand, Luke 21 is typically understood by the dispensationalists to describe the events leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. It reads:
“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. And they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. (Lk 21:20–24).
Dispensationalists may view this passage as a historical fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy concerning the fall of Jerusalem and the judgment upon the Jewish people. And here, we find certain agreements.
However, the discrepancy arises from the differing interpretations of the timing, context, and specific wording of the events described in these passages. Some proponents of the rapture theory resolve these differences by proposing that Jesus' prophecies have dual fulfillments, with an initial fulfillment in 70 AD and a future ultimate fulfillment. On the other hand, some strictly separate the two passages, attributing them to distinct time periods. Essentially, this viewpoint suggests that Matthew 24 and Mark 13 represent Jesus discussing events in the distant future, while Luke's account pertains specifically to the impending fate of Jerusalem.
Refuting the notion of two different conversations
While we respect the general interpretive approach, we must maintain intellectual integrity and point out the difficulties with the latter perspective. The plain reading of the synoptic Gospels supports a different understanding. These passages, commonly known as the "Olivet Discourse," contain Jesus' teachings on future events and the signs of the end times.
According to the biblical narrative, Jesus delivered this discourse to his disciples on the Mount of Olives shortly before his crucifixion. The disciples had inquired about the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem and the signs indicating his coming and the end of the age. In response, Jesus provided them with prophecies and warnings regarding future occurrences, including the temple's destruction, the emergence of false messiahs, wars, famines, and persecutions. Although there may be slight variations in the wording and emphasis among the Gospel accounts, these passages' general content and themes align.
The overarching theme of the Olivet Discourse, as presented in Mark 13, Luke 21, and Matthew 24, is eschatological. Therefore, it suggests that the passage in Luke pertains to the imminent destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, with Jesus addressing the city's immediate fate. Conversely, Mark and Matthew describe a future fate, which, in our opinion, contradicts the perspective we mentioned earlier and appears untenable, despite acknowledging the differing viewpoints with due respect.
The problems with a dual fulfillment
Therefore, the only serious contender left (within this perspective) is the concept of dual fulfillment, where certain biblical prophecies have historical fulfillment but are also believed to have a future ultimate fulfillment. While different interpretations exist, here are some prophecies often cited by dispensationalists as having dual fulfillment:
The Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks (Daniel 9:24-27): This prophecy in Daniel is seen as having a historical fulfillment in the rebuilding of Jerusalem after the Babylonian exile, as well as a future fulfillment related to the end times and the coming of the Antichrist.
The Abomination of Desolation (Daniel 9:27; Matthew 24:15): This prophecy refers to an event where the Antichrist defiles the temple. It is believed to have been partially fulfilled historically during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the second century BC. Still, dispensationalists also anticipate a future fulfillment during the Great Tribulation.
The Restoration of Israel (Ezekiel 37:1-14): This prophecy of the valley of dry bones is seen as having a historical fulfillment in the return of the Jewish people to the land of Israel after the Babylonian exile. However, it is also interpreted as having a future fulfillment in Israel's spiritual restoration and national revival in the end times.
The Destruction of Jerusalem (Matthew 24:1-2): This prophecy by Jesus regarding the temple’s destruction in Jerusalem is believed to have been fulfilled historically in 70 AD when the Romans destroyed the city and the temple. However, dispensationalists often see this event as a foreshadowing of the future destruction of a rebuilt temple during the end times.
The Return of Israel's Messiah (Zechariah 12:10): This prophecy speaks of the Jewish people mourning for the one they pierced. Dispensationalists see a historical fulfillment in Jesus' crucifixion but also anticipate a future completion when the Jewish people collectively recognize Jesus as their Messiah during the end times.
The concept of a prophecy having dual fulfillment, viewed from a dispensational pre-millennial perspective, is challenging. Here are some problems that arise from both a biblical and logical standpoint.
Biblical Problems with Dual Fulfillment:
Lack of Scriptural Support: While proponents may argue for dual fulfillment, the Bible does not explicitly teach or support this concept. Dual fulfillment requires assumptions and interpretations that may surpass the biblical text.
Contextual Integrity: Dual fulfillment can sometimes undermine the prophecies' original context and intended meaning. Prophecies often have specific historical contexts and were given to address situations or events. Assigning a future fulfillment to these prophecies may distort their original significance.
Violation of Prophetic Timing: Dual fulfillment suggests that the timing of prophecies can be spread over long periods, making it difficult to ascertain the accuracy and specificity of the original prophecy. This can raise questions about the reliability and precision of biblical prophecy.
Logical Problems with Dual Fulfillment:
Non-Predictive Nature: Dual fulfillment allows prophecies to be seen as retrospectively fulfilled rather than genuine predictions of future events. This raises questions about the prophetic nature of the texts and the role of the prophets in conveying divine revelation. Suppose prophecies can be seen as fulfilled retrospectively. In that case, it challenges the idea that they were accurately foretelling specific future events and undermines the perception of the prophets as conduits of divine knowledge.
Arbitrary Application: Dual fulfillment can lead to subjective interpretations and cherry-picking of prophecies to fit specific beliefs or agendas. Determining which prophecies should have dual fulfillments and which should be easy, as it often relies on personal discretion rather than clear criteria.
Ambiguity and Uncertainty: Dual fulfillment can create ambiguity and uncertainty regarding interpreting prophecies. Different interpreters may come to conflicting conclusions without clear guidelines or principles for identifying dual fulfillments, leading to theological confusion.
An alternate view
Considering the issues raised regarding the concept of dual fulfillment, it is reasonable to consider alternative interpretations for the passages mentioned. With the lack of explicit scriptural support and the potential undermining of the prophecies' original context and intended meaning, it is valid to hold that these passages speak primarily of the judgment that came upon Jerusalem in 70 AD without necessitating a future ultimate fulfillment. The historical fulfillment of these prophecies aligns with the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Romans in 70 AD. This interpretation maintains the contextual integrity of the prophecies and recognizes their significance within their historical context.
The issue of violating prophetic timing is also addressed by attributing a singular fulfillment to these prophecies. The accuracy and specificity of the original prophecy can be understood within the framework of the historical events that unfolded during the time of Jesus and the early Christian community. Moreover, the alternative interpretation avoids the potential challenges of viewing prophecies as retrospectively fulfilled rather than genuine predictions of future events. This perspective acknowledges the texts' prophetic nature and the prophets' role in conveying divine revelation within their contemporary context.
Additionally, by focusing on a singular historical fulfillment, the arbitrary application of dual fulfillment and the subjective interpretations that may result from it can be avoided. This allows for a more consistent and coherent approach to understanding and interpreting biblical prophecies.
By adopting the view that these passages primarily speak of the judgment that came upon Jerusalem in 70 AD, we maintain scriptural support based on the historical context and events surrounding the time of Jesus. This interpretation clarifies the prophecies and avoids the potential ambiguity and uncertainty that may arise from assigning dual fulfillments.
While different interpretations exist regarding the concept of dual fulfillment, the challenges raised from both a biblical and logical standpoint suggest that understanding these passages as speaking of the judgment that came upon Jerusalem in 70 AD is a valid and well-supported perspective. By focusing on the historical fulfillment of these prophecies, we can maintain contextual integrity, avoid potential pitfalls, and achieve a clearer understanding of the texts.
Comments