Response to Elton Hollon’s Critique of Full Preterism- #2-#10– My Final Installment
Response to Elton Hollon’s Critique of Full Preterism– #2-#10– Final
The Tribulation and the Eschaton
Be sure to read Elton Hollon’s Critique of Full Preterism
Be sure to read all of my previous articles in this exchange.
I have promised to share a critical, and I think probative, study that in my estimation reveals a major lacuna in the views presented by Hollon. He and the sources that he cites draw a sharp distinction between the judgment on Jerusalem and the parousia of the Son of Man. However, in the Tanakh, and even in the well attested Jewish concept of the end times time-line that dichotomization is untenable. It is well known that in the Jewish eschatological time line, it followed (broadly speaking, and in condensed form), the following:
The Appearance of Elijah who was to come before the Great Day of the Lord (Malachi 4:5-6). Elijah would also be, “The Voice of one crying in the wilderness” (Isaiah 40:1-3: Mark 1:1-3) and the Messenger of Malachi 3:1-3: Mark 1:1-3). As I state in my Elijah Has Come: A Solution for Romans 11:25-27, John the Baptizer, as Elijah, the Voice, the Messenger was, apart from Jesus and Paul, the most significant eschatological figure in the NT. Yet, as Scott McKnight says: “No significant prophet-like figure in Jewish history has been more neglected than John.” (Scott McKnight, A New Vision for Israel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 3).
The appearance of the Abomination of Desolation that would bring in the Great Tribulation. Brant Pitre makes an important observation. Not only would the Abomination of Desolation be the direct cause of the Great Tribulation, he says that the Abomination, “always refers to a profanation of the Jerusalem Temple” (Jesus, Tribulation and the End of Exile, 2005, 304- his emphasis).
The Great Tribulation would befall Israel in the last days. That Tribulation was to take place immediately before the Great Day of the Lord (cf. Matthew 24:29).
The Great Day of the Lord at which the resurrection would take place, the kingdom would be established, the New Creation would arrive.
Scholarship is widely in agreement on this time line.
Emile Schurer says that in Jesus’ day, “Reference to the last things is almost always accompanied by the notion, recurring in various forms, that a period of special distress and affliction must precede the dawn of salvation…In Rabbinic teaching, the doctrine therefore developed of the birth pangs of Messiah which must precede His appearance (the expression is from Hosea 13:13; cf. Matthew 24:8).” ( Emile Schurer, History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, Vol. II (London: T and T Clark, 1979), 514).
The doctrine of what is known as the Messianic Woes, sometimes called The Footsteps of Messiah, (Cf. Brant Pitre: https://www.thesacredpage.com/2007/06/footsteps-of-messiah-and-davidic.html), is critical to the eschatological story. And if anything is certain it is that Jesus posited that Tribulation for the first century (Matthew 24:8). Hollon concurs. (Dale Allison, cited by Hollon, also agrees with the time line of events outlined here: Dale Allison Jr., The End of the Ages Has Come (Philadelphia: Fortress), 1985). Allison claims that since the Jews had the expectation of a physical parousia / kingdom etc. this demands that Jesus and the Biblical writers held to the same view. That is not true as I am showing.
Craig Keener commenting on Acts 14:22 says:
Many scholars suggest that the passage uses the image of the final eschatological tribulation that was to precede Messiah’s coming. (The idea of suffering immediately preceding the end is frequent in early Jewish literature; sometimes even call birth pangs). This would fit Luke’s eschatology borrowed from the Jesus tradition (Luke 17:31-18:8; 21:12-24). Some claims in the Pauline corpus also present the eschatological tribulation as preceding the kingdom (1 Thessalonians 3:3; 2 Thess. 1:5-7; cf. Revelation 6:9-11), even describing the suffering as part of Messiah’s suffering, and as prerequisite for the end (Colossians 1:24;; cf. Rev. 6:9-11). For Paul, however, the eschatological suffering is already present (Romans 8:22; 2 Thes. 1:4; cf. 1 Timothy 4:1-2; 2 Timothy 3:1-6), as with other’ portrayal of the tribulation (Matthew 24:6-8; Rev. 1:9; 12:1-6) and the last days (Hebrews 1:2; 2 Peter 3:3); see comments on Acts 2:17). (Luke also applies the term for ‘tribulation’ here to the Jerusalem believers’ persecution in Acts 11:19 and to Paul’s own experiences in20:23). (Craig Keener, Acts An Exegetical Commentary, Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 2182).
So, on the one hand scholars seemingly recognize the linkage between the Tribulation and the final consummation. They admit that the Tribulation ushers in the resurrection and the Kingdom, the New Creation. This fits perfectly Matthew’s, “immediately after the tribulation of those days…they will see the Son of Man coming…”. Yet, in Hollon’s paradigm, shared by the sources that he cites, he suggests that Mark divorced the Tribulation from the parousia. That is neither traditional Judaism or Biblical.
The important thing to observe is that in Jesus’ eschatological teaching he follows the traditional Jewish time line of events. (The fact that he rejected the traditional view of the nature of fulfillment is beside the point here). With this in mind I wish to establish that the Biblical story links the Great Tribulation, (which, remember, Hollon and others acknowledge belonged to the first century), to the parousia and the resurrection. (See my The Resurrection of Daniel 12: Future or Fulfilled?, in which I adduce many such examples in both the OT and the New. (Don K. Preston (D. Div.), Ardmore, OK: Jadon Management, 2016), 159ff).
I will only look at three foundational OT texts, although there are many that could be presented.
☛ Daniel 7
Daniel’s vision of the Little Horn of the fourth empire who persecutes the saints in the last days is paradigmatic for much of the NT doctrine of the tribulation, the coming of the Son of Man and the kingdom.
I will only note a couple of important elements.
1. The fulfillment of the prophecy cannot extend beyond the days of Rome, the fourth beast. Daniel’s vision spans four beasts / kingdoms, the last being Rome. (Just as in Daniel 2). Jesus’ application of the Son of Man prophecies to himself and his generation should be determinate on this issue. So, Daniel’s prophecy posits the Tribulation and the resurrection at the coming of the Son of Man, in the days of Rome. (It is commonly insisted that Daniel was written in the second century BC and spoke, ex eventu, of Antiochus Epiphanes and his attempted pogrom against the Jews. However, Jesus clearly applied Daniel 7 to his coming to the first century judgment of Jerusalem. This would suggest that even if one admitted to some typological or analogous application of Daniel to the time of Antiochus, Jesus’ application must be considered as definitive).
2. Daniel has the outline of suffering – vindication – kingdom in mind. Wright says, “The Danielic story always was one of vindication and exaltation and was retold as such in the first century” (Jesus and the Victory of God, 1996, 361). The saints are given into the hands of the “little horn” and persecuted for, “a time, times and half a time” (7:25), until the judgment is set. Then, the Little Horn is destroyed and the eternal kingdom given to the saints. This agrees perfectly with Jesus’ teaching on the vindication of the blood of all the martyrs in the judgment of Jerusalem (Matthew 23). This is the traditionally accepted eschatological time line noted above. Gregory Beale, (Theology, 2011, 937, n. 79) says Revelation 20 and the opening of the books, “are based on Daniel 7:10f.” The implications of this are powerful: Revelation 20 is Daniel 7. But Daniel 7 cannot be extended beyond the days of the Roman empire (the fourth beast). Thus, Revelation 20 cannot be extended beyond the days of Rome.
3. Unless one can divorce the coming of the one like the Son of Man from the days of the Roman empire, the tribulation -suffering – parousia – vindication – kingdom / resurrection was to take place during that time. Since Jesus said the vindication of all the martyrs and the arrival of the kingdom (Luke 21:28-32) would be at his coming as the Son of Man in the judgment of Jerusalem in the first century, this connects the Great Tribulation, the parousia and resurrection at the judgment of Jerusalem. (See my We Shall Meet Him In The Air, The Wedding of the King of kings, for an in-depth study of how Daniel is employed by the NT writers, especially Paul in Thessalonians).
☛ Daniel 9
While many commentators seem to miss it, the goal of the six elements to be achieved at the end of the seventy weeks in Daniel 9:24 included the resurrection. (See my Seventy Weeks Are Determined…For the Resurrection, in which I carefully examine the promised blessings and show that they are indeed related to the resurrection and New Creation).
Notice that the end of the seventy weeks would be the time of the “overwhelming flood” (The Great Tribulation) caused by the appearance of the Abomination of Desolation (v. 26-27). (One should not overlook the fact that the destruction of the city would be tied directly to the death of Messiah in verse 26. We thus have the New Creation at the end of the seventy weeks tied to the vindication of the martyrs anticipated by Jesus in Matthew 23-24.)
What we have in Daniel 9 is the Abomination of Desolation leading directly to the Tribulation which in turn reaches its climax in the arrival of the New Creation wherein dwells the “everlasting righteousness” of the Kingdom of Messiah. While many scholars posit Daniel 9 as being fulfilled under Antiochus, Jesus’ references and application of Daniel and the Abomination, the Tribulation, to his generation in the coming total destruction of the city and temple, etc. seems to invalidate the Antiochan posit. In fact, the actual text of Daniel 9 – and history – seem to run counter to that claim. As Pitre points out: “While the destruction of both the Temple and city is quite explicit in the text of Daniel, it is routinely downplayed by proponents of the ‘Antiochus Epiphanes’ interpretation of Daniel 9 (since, I would suggest, it is the Achilles heel of that interpretation).” (Tribulation, 2005), 304, n. 188).
I have shown earlier that many rabbis posited the end of the seventieth week at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. I have also shown that there was a strong sense of disappointment that the kingdom did not come at that time. (I suggest again that the strong sense of discouragement stemmed from the false concepts of the nature of the expected kingdom. The Jews desired the restoration of the nationalistic polity and a conquering king. Jesus had flatly refused to be that kind of king, leading to his rejection by the nation. So, while the Jewish timing for the kingdom was correct, their concept of the nature of the kingdom was wrong. They failed to “see” what had actually happened).
Lloyd Gaston documents this disappointment among the Jews following the catastrophe of AD 70: “The coming of the final redemption depended no longer on an apocalyptic plan but only on the repentance of Israel,” Likewise, some of the Rabbis said: “All dates for the end have expired and the matter now depends solely on repentance and good works.” (Lloyd Gaston, No Stone Upon Another, (Brill Academic, 1970), 464).
So, in (some) Jewish thought, AD 70 was supposed to have been the fulfillment of Daniel 9. Messiah, the kingdom and resurrection were linked with that time and event not to a period far removed from it. The question is entirely appropriate to ask therefore: Were they wrong in their “calculations” of the end? One thing is certain, Jesus and John the Baptizer came saying, “the time is fulfilled, the kingdom of heaven has drawn near” (Mark 1:15; cf. 4:17).
Thus, Jesus and the Jews agreed on the last days time line of the kingdom. Before that kingdom could arrive, Daniel foretold the suffering of Messiah (See Luke 17:25), the destruction of the city and the sanctuary (26-27). This was the outline contained in Daniel 9: Death of Messiah –> Abomination –> Desolation of the City and Temple –> kingdom of everlasting righteousness. (Even though Daniel clearly speaks of Messiah being “cut off”, the idea of a martyred Messiah seems to have been a foreign – and abhorrent – idea to the Jews. Paul could speak of the “offense of the cross.” Jesus was crucified. This was proof positive, it was thought, that he was a sinner and cursed by YHVH. After all, Torah itself said: “Cursed is everyone that hangs on a tree” (Deuteronomy 21:23).
The martyrdom of Messiah is part of the reason for the Tribulation, the destruction of the City and the Temple. That destruction must be seen as the vindication of Jesus’ suffering.
While he is commenting on Matthew 16:27f, I think Wright’s comments are apropos to Daniel 9:24f as well:
The whole of the story, of judgement for those who had not followed Jesus and the vindication for those who had, is summed up in the cryptic but frequently repeated saying ‘the first shall be last, the last first.’ In other words, when the great tribulation came on Israel, those who had followed Jesus would be delivered; and that would be the sign that Jesus had been in the right and that in consequence they had been in the right in following him. The destruction of Jerusalem on the one hand and the rescue of the disciples on the other, would be the vindication of what Jesus had been saying throughout his ministry. (1996, 338).
So, in Daniel 9 we have the Abomination, the Tribulation and yet, the coming anointing of the Most Holy and the world of everlasting righteousness. (Daniel 9 posited the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem and the fulfillment of the constituent elements as the time when all vision and all prophecy would be fulfilled. The seventy weeks were determined to “seal vision and prophecy.” There is broad consensus that this language is comprehensive of all vision and all prophecy. This agrees perfectly with the Olivet Discourse in which Jesus said that in the coming catastrophe “all things written must be fulfilled” (Luke 21:22). See my book: Seal Up Vision and Prophecy, for an in-depth vindication of this claim. (Ardmore, Ok.: JaDon Management, 2021).
Daniel 12:1-2:
At that time Michael shall stand up, the great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people; and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation, even to that time. And at that time your people shall be delivered, every one who is found written in the book. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, some to shame and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament and those who turn many to righteousness like the stars forever and ever.
As Pitre observes: “The most explicit Old Testament reference to the resurrection of the dead is preceded by the most explicit Old Testament reference to the tribulation of the last days” (2005, 187). I would add the comment of Scott McKnight, who effectively shows that to remove Jesus’ ministry and message from one centered on the “restoration of Israel” is to ignore the Biblical data. Commenting on Luke 19:41-44 and Jesus’ lament over the coming judgment of his beloved city, McKnight says: “In his vision of human history, Jesus saw no further than AD 70 and to this date he attached visions of the final salvation, the final judgment and the consummation of the kingdom of God in all its glory.” ( Scott McKnight, A New Vision for Israel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 12).
Regrettably, McKnight believes that Jesus’ vision failed: “That history took another course does not at all mean that Jesus was in error; rather, like the Hebrew prophets before him, he saw the next event as the end event, but that next event resulted in a series of unfolding events.” (This is the “failed futurism” presented as one of Hollon’s alternatives to the full preterist view. To suggest that it is “okay” to say that Jesus’ prophetic expectation failed and that this somehow, “does not mean that he was in error” is misguided. Jesus himself said: “If I do not do the things that the Father has given me, do not believe me” (John 10:35f; see also John 5:21-23). Jesus staked his very identity on the fulfillment of his words.
(Hollon’s suggestion that the fulfillment of a prophet’s predictions was not critical for identifying a “true prophet” is not valid. For instance, In Isaiah 41:23, 26, YHVH and Isaiah challenged the pagan prophets: “Show the things that are to come hereafter, That we may know that you are gods.” To suggest that YHVH was positing failure of prophecy as acceptable in this challenge is illogical. Hollon’s appeal to Deuteronomy 13 to reject the requirement of fulfillment does not work either. To the contrary, it simply shows that in addition to the criteria of fulfillment, a “prophet” had to also be obedient to Torah. Deuteronomy 13 does not in any way mitigate the requirement of Deuteronomy 18. Jesus’ “challenge of Christ” in John 10:37f shows, to repeat: Jesus staked his very identity on the fulfillment of his words. Paul was emphatic that the entire Christian faith is based on fulfilled prophecy (1 Corinthians 15:12-19).
Daniel, and many other texts, follows the Biblical outline of the unparalleled tribulation as the climax of Israel’s exilic sufferings that would precede the final restoration in the resurrection of the dead (Cf. Pitre, 2005, 321). In other words, if the Tribulation is not supposed to be seen by Bible students as directly connected to the resurrection, why is it that in the OT prophecies of the resurrection, we find the Tribulation preceding it? And why do we not find some indication of a temporal disconnect between those two phenomenon of, as Hollon suggests, the consummation follows long after the Tribulation? (The linkage between the Tribulation and the eschaton / resurrection is pervasive in prophetic scripture, found in Isaiah 2-4; 25:1-9; 26:9-21; 27:9ff; 65-66; Jeremiah 30:5f – the time of Jacob’s trouble; Hosea 13; Zechariah 11-14; Malachi 3-4, etc. Explication of each of these texts is clearly beyond the scope of this post, but I discuss them in my The Resurrection of Daniel 12:2: Fulfilled or Future?)
In Daniel 12 the Tribulation is inextricably tied to the resurrection to eternal life at the end of the age. In fact, virtually every tenet of “traditional” eschatology is found in Daniel 12. We also find the emphatic temporal delimitation of when that resurrection was to take place: “When the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all of these things must be fulfilled” (v. 7).
What we find then, in the three texts examined, is an unbreakable bond between the Great Tribulation and the resurrection / parousia. Since Jesus posited the time of the Tribulation for his generation, inseparably linked with the judgment on Jerusalem – which Hollon admits- this means that in the mind of Jesus there is no temporal disconnect between the Tribulation and his parousia.
The point here should be clear. Since the argument is made that prior to Mark 13:24 the predicted events pertained to the impending judgment on Jerusalem, including the Great Tribulation, it is therefore dubious to say that in verse 24 he was now speaking of an event temporally divorced from that time and those events. This would mean that Mark was either unaware of the OT prophecies – and even Jesus’ very recent parabolic predictions of the coming judgment on Jerusalem as the coming of the Lord – that linked the tribulation with the resurrection. Or it would mean that he was incorrectly relating Jesus’ words. Or, he was rejecting that connection, without any contextual indication of doing so.
All three of Hollon’s arguments against the preterist paradigm, I. E. proleptic futurism, interwoven futurism, failed futurism, are thus based on #1 – The assumption of a literalistic end of time parousia. And, #2 – The claim that the Tribulation and parousia are temporally disconnected. Yet the consistent and oft repeated scriptural linkage between the Great Tribulation and the parousia effectively negates those arguments. Unless one can counter the consistent linkage between the Tribulation and the resurrection found throughout scripture, showing that this consistent picture is wrong, then that patterned linkage effectively counters Hollon’s three fold argument. It likewise counters his suggestion that the apostles were mistaken to make that connection between the coming judgment on Jerusalem and the Lord’s parousia at the end of the age.
I have attempted to address each of Hollon’s most salient points. I believe I have done so effectively.
I want to express my deep appreciation to my friend Elton Hollon for inviting me to share my thoughts in response to his critique of the full preterist paradigm. It is my sincere hope that this exchange will be helpful to the readers.
Response to Elton Hollon’s Critique of Full Preterism- #2-#10– My Final Installment