New Testament Nations in Eschatology

[Jerusalem Blade]

Calvin does not contradict himself. He allows for different abominations. In the Commentary on Matthew 24 he identifies the abomination spoken by Daniel as the one which was connected with the abolition of the service of the law. Given Steve's insistence on synchronising variations into a "consensus view," it is far more likely that he is misusing Calvin than that Calvin has contradicted himself.

I think my specific quotes have shown otherwise, Matthew – many are the claims made in a court of law, but only those which are substantiated are accepted as evidence. I didn't spend five days collating his stated views to make a slipshod assertion.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

I do make a distinction between partial preterist and full; the former I think legitimate; the more men tend toward the latter the worse it is. I can appreciate views of men with whom I disagree in some particulars (such as Wm Hendriksen, who favors the Critical Text, yet he is my favorite NT commentator; when he goes CT I pass that by). But to hold to sound exegetes and their primary hermeneutic methods when these very methods oppose one’s own hermeneutic principles is self-defeating, and taking their names and reputations in vain. Such is the case when a “consistent idealist” in the vein of Wm Milligan seeks support in the work of a “modified idealist” – or eclectic – such as Vos or Hendriksen. Neither of these two were working toward full idealism, but away from it, and they in great measure laid the conceptual foundations the amil school of today stands upon. Yes, William Milligan did indeed blaze a new hermeneutic trail with his idealist method, and all subsequent amils are indebted – while not limited – to him.

The modified / eclectic idealist school of contemporary Amillennialism cannot be stopped by a reactionary, retrograde tendency enamored of the past, however learned it may be, for exegesis is self-justifying if it shows itself true to text and context, bringing new understanding through scholarly investigation and light from related Scripture.

Eschatology is one of the few theological areas that may legitimately break new ground as the times become apparent to us. I recently learned in studying Calvin on Daniel how much he treasured God’s merciful prophecies alerting the saints of old to terrible troubles coming their way so they would not lose heart upon their arrival, but be enabled to stay upon their God when everything went black. Such a time was Antiochus Epiphanes’ desecrating the temple, slaughtering the godly, forbidding obedience to Jehovah’s Law and to His worship, on pain of death. Thanks to God’s warnings through Daniel the saints endured, knowing God oversaw it all, and was sovereign, and they deserved what came because of their sins. Calvin took these lessons to heart for his own day, and so may we, and with particular reference to foretellings in the NT prophetic Scripture.

I keep in mind the words of Geerhardus Vos,

[The prophecy of Antichrist] “belongs among the many prophecies, whose best and final exegete will be the eschatological fulfillment, and in regard to which it behooves the saints to exercise a peculiar kind of eschatological patience.” (The Pauline Eschatology, p. 133)​

O.T. Allis in his book, Prophecy and the Church, wrote similarly to Vos when he said,

The usual view on this subject [“the intelligibility of prophecy”] has been that prophecy is not intended to be fully understood before its fulfilment, that it is only when God “establishes the word of his servants and fulfills the counsel of his messengers,” that the meaning and import of their words become fully manifest. (p 25)​

The LORD will guide our way in the days that are to come upon us (as they are upon our brethren in other parts of the world), and such wisdom as Vos and Allis share will be of great help.

As we see the violence of the suffering church today, we may be alerted as to what we may expect, we the privileged “white, wise, and wealthy West”. Our mettle will be tested, and that commensurate with how we have been pampered with ease and pleasure, unlike those who have had hard lives even before their present sufferings. It is upon pastors and elders to prepare the flocks for stormy weather.

 

[MW]

Calvin: "Christ confirms both by the testimony of Daniel. As if he had said, That you may not be too strongly attached to the temple and to the ceremonies of the Law, God has limited them to a fixed time, and has long ago declared, that when the Redeemer should come, sacrifices would cease; and that it may not give you uneasiness to be cut off from your own nation, God has also forewarned his people, that in due time it would be rejected."

This is Calvin's interpretation of our Lord's use of Daniel. Through Daniel God has "long ago declared" the cessation of sacrifices at the coming of the Redeemer.

Calvin: "it is certain that the angel does not there speak of the final destruction which Christ now mentions, but of the temporary dispersion which was brought about by the tyranny of Antiochus. But in the twelfth chapter the angel predicts what is called the final abrogation of the services of the Law, which was to take place at the coming of Christ."

This is Calvin's summary of Daniel itself. Calvin taught there was more than one abomination foretold in Daniel, not multiple fulfilments of the one abomination. The abomination under "Antiochus" is clearly distinguished from the abomination relative to the cessation of sacrifices.

Calvin: "Now Christ selects only what suited his purpose, namely, that the termination of sacrifices was at hand, and that the abomination, which was the sign of the final desolation, would be placed in the temple.

This is Calvin's identification of which abomination our Lord was speaking of. It is not the other abomination relative to "Antiochus," but the abomination relative to the cessation of sacrifices at the coming of the Redeemer.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Thank you for trying to resolve this, Matthew! Yes, I pondered this for quite a while. What brings clarifying light to the matter are Calvin’s comments in Daniel, where, on 9:27 he says of both it and of 12:11, “these two passages refer to the same abomination” – i.e. the final desolation – and on the next page, “Without the slightest doubt, this prophecy was fulfilled when the city was captured and overthrown, and the temple utterly destroyed by Titus the son of Vespasian.” [I cited the sources in my post #59]

Okay, this refers to the non-Antiochus desolation, which was the final destruction of the Jewish temple and state. On Matt 24:15 Calvin says this:

But before I proceed farther, I must examine the passage which is quoted by Christ. Those commentators are, I think, mistaken, who think that this quotation is made from the ninth chapter of the Book of Daniel [SUP]137[/SUP].​

The editor’s footnote says this:

[SUP]137[/SUP] The passage here referred to, and from which CALVIN thinks that the quotation is not made, is Daniel 9:27, And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week; and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifices and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading or abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. The other passage, from which he supposes the quotation to have been actually made, is Daniel 12:11, And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. We have given both passages, as they stand in the authorized version. — Ed. [Emphases in original]​

Calvin continues:

For there we do not literally find the words, abomination of desolation; and it is certain that the angel does not there [in the ninth chapter, i.e. Dan 9:27 -SMR] speak of the final destruction which Christ now mentions, but of the temporary dispersion which was brought about by the tyranny of Antiochus. But in the twelfth chapter the angel predicts what is called the final abrogation of the services of the Law, which was to take place at the coming of Christ.​

Here in Matthew he says it is not taken from Dan 9:27 (and the editor concurs in his note), while in the Daniel commentary he specifically says, “Without the slightest doubt, this prophecy was fulfilled when the city was captured and overthrown, and the temple utterly destroyed by Titus” and he further says both 9:27 and 12:11 “refer to the same abomination”.

In Daniel Dan 9:27 is said to refer to Titus, as does Dan 12:11, while in Matthew 9:27 is said to refer to “the temporary dispersion which was brought about by the tyranny of Antiochus” but the 12[SUP]th[/SUP] chapter speaks of Titus.

This is a clear discrepancy. I understand that the commentary on Daniel was transcribed from notes taken of a lecture (it being too time-consuming in Calvin’s busy life to write it out as he did other parts of his commentaries), while the NT commentaries were written by him as books. This may be the genesis of the problem.

I was not prepared to say the commentaries contradict one another, but after some days of examination could not avoid that conclusion.

 

[MW]

The "discrepancy" would be owing to the fact that the Harmony of the Gospels was published a few years before Daniel, which intimates Calvin had not thoroughly gone through Daniel when he made the comments in the Harmony. Calvin wrote the preface of Daniel in 1561 and regarded the Messianic interpretation of chapter 9 important for the consolation of the suffering Christians in France. What Calvin might have done with our current knowledge of symbolism, recapitulation, and eschatological development is a matter of speculation, but I tend to think he would have gravitated to the Messianic view of the book as a whole. His preterism was not far away from it.

But this discrepancy on the interpretation of chapter 9 is not a contradiction with regards to identifying the abomination of desolation in the Olivet Discourse and its source in Daniel. In both the Harmony and the Commentary on Daniel Calvin identified more than one abomination and specifically distinguished between the abomination of Antiochus and the abomination leading to the final abrogation of the sacrifices at the coming of the Redeemer, and he identified the latter as the point of reference in the saying of our Lord. This means that the attempt to call in Calvin for support of multiple fulfiments is misplaced.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

This means that the attempt to call in Calvin for support of multiple fulfiments is misplaced.

Matthew, I think on this you are correct.