Some Notes on Luke 21:20 and Mark 13:14 and Ford’s
take on it The two statements in Luke 21:20 and the other
in Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14 are not identical as the author and all his
scholars cited, except Shea et al, indicated. If one makes this error of
identifying the 70 AD statement of Mark with Luke one is in for majorly errors
in interpretation, sensibility, logic and strange conclusions. l Jesus is not speaking with a forked
tongue. l He is not saying that something
particular [one event] is meant to happen in time x and in time y separated by
ages that set them apart. One event was not supposed to happen in 70 AD. and
later hundreds of years after. l Christ did not have a misunderstanding of
His own coming and neither did the apostles. They did not think he would come
soon. Luke spoke negatively of those who thought Jesus coming was soon at hand
(Luke 19:11). “Occupy till I come”. Christ cited again in Luke 19:43-44 from
Daniel 9:26 to say that Roman armies would destroy Jerusalem in 70-73 AD. Raymond
Cottrell in Spectrum 1973 is wrong on this as is Albert Schweitzer
suggesting that Christ first thought He will come soon but then changed His
mind, and so is G. Berkhouwer (the Vatican II attending “ecumenical” Doktor
Vater of Hans La Rondelle) in his treatment of the subject. l They did not mistakenly thought Christ
would come soon [Schweitzer, Berkhouwer, Cottrell, Johnston etc.] The “delay
theology” is well-ingrained in both the Old and New Testaments, see the “How
long?…” statements in the Old Testament. The ten virgins, the call by the
apostles to be patient and ready. The prophetic program in succession outlined
in both the Old and New Testaments. Ford is trying to amalgamate preterism and
historicism into a hybrid with his interpretations on the matter. l Jesus cited from two verses in Daniel
9:26 and Daniel 9:27. He originally presented two synonymous parallel phrases
of which the phrase One cites Daniel 9:26 and answered the question of the
disciples supra in this Olivet discussion. Only Luke remembered this Phrase One
and cited it. It refers to the Roman army war of Jerusalem in 70-73 A.D. The
Phrase Two is cited only by Matthew and Mark and is a paraphrase of Daniel 9:27.
It refers directly to the Little Horn actions between 538-1798. l It is wrong to superimpose or fuse the
two separated verses into one hybrid and then to try to suggest dual
applications for one item as Ford mistakenly designed in his Commentary on
Daniel dissertation employing and leaning strongly to preterism for which he
was heavily criticized during 1977-1980 from many classrooms, pulpits, table
talks, papers, books, letters, etc. Because of this very hybrid, fused
“misrepresentation” Ford created his apotelesmatic principle = One thing was
to happen twice. l If Ford did not go wrong on the interpretation
of Mark 13:14, the heretic discourse during the turbulent years of 1977-1980
would have taken a different course. Ford was unable to see his own error on
this matter. This article should deal with the content data more carefully. l The solution: Phrase
I: Daniel 9:26 Roman armies as wings …. When you shall see the Roman armies
surrounding … Luke 21. Luke omitted Phrase II. Phrase
II: Daniel 9:27 Little Horn actions 538-1798… When you shall see the
Abomination of Desolation….Matthew 24, Mark 13. Matthew and Mark omitted Phrase
I. Thus:
Luke 21:20 is not the same as Matthew 24:15 which is the same as Mark 13:14 Daniel 9:26 is not the same as Daniel
9:27 which is the same as Daniel 9:27 I 70-73 AD is not the same as II 538-1798
which is the same as II 538-1798 First
statement [When you shall see armies …..] (Luke only) Second
parallel statement [When you shall see the Abomination of Desolation….]
(Matthew and Mark only) l 1 Maccabees 1:54 is using an Aorist Past
whereas Mark and Jesus is using a Future. More should be said about the form of
the Greek verbs in both texts. All preterists are wrong here majorly. This
author missed this important point. l Ford is wrong so is everyone who fused
the two statements into one. Just as Daniel is separating Daniel 9:26 happening
in 70 AD and Daniel 9:27 happening in 538-1798 so did Jesus and so did the gospels,
albeit with omissions of either the first [Matthew and Mark] and second
statement [Luke]. In this way Jesus do not speak with a forked tongue or
apotelesmatic principle. He answered properly the first question of the
disciples and also the second question. The missing of the omissions had all
interpreters on a flat spin and is crucial for proper Adventist interpretation
and demonstrates that the Word of God is a sure and reliable Word with no
contradictions or sidestepping of issues. Multiple applications of one prophecy
is not part of Christ’s preaching or that of the Spirit of God either in the
Old or New Testaments. l Speaking of an Event of the First coming
in the Old Testament was not seen as an Event at the Second Coming. They were
kept apart but could land next to each other in the prophets’ description in
the Old Testament. Yet they were referring to two different events in two
different time zones. The same here in the synoptic gospels. l The preteristic commentators’ statements
are taken too seriously by this author. I will point out the errors of these
commentators if this author would rewrite the article by looking carefully to
what I have said here and submit it again for reading. At that time the article
will be fully analyzed in minute detail. l The author should not be discouraged by
these comments but take a deep breath and pay attention to the proper approach
suggested here for the crux interpretatum. Ford did not solve the
problem. He created it already in his Daniel Commentary in the 1970’s
and his dissertation listening too much to his preteristic Doctor Vaters. l Although I saw the problem in the 1970’s
already, I was too young and inexperienced to deal with it in a proper answer.
This was the most thorny part of Ford’s argument for me at that time, until I
found the solution while studying for my doctorate. Now it is no longer a
problem and Ford et al, preterists et al, are all wrong. Adventists were and
are right. There is no need for a “New Transformational Orthodoxy.” l The author did not properly analyzed the
textual data of Daniel Solution: v. 10Little Horn/papacy 538 because Horn is
feminine v. 11 Satan/Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12-14
for same/similar masculine verbal forms. Why? Satan is the motivational core of
the Little Horn’s actions v. 12 Back to the Little Horn/Papacy Summary: The author is trying to utilize Ford’s
preteristic carpet solution for the interpretation of the data in the gospels
on the matter. This brings inevitably with it a change of parts of the
interpretation engine of historicism by replacing Daniel 9:27, Daniel 8:11,
Thessalonians and Revelation 13 by a dual (local, distant) application. The interpretation
is marred by major confusions and largely because the author wants to play with
preteristic commentaries on the issue. A more detailed analysis of the problems
of Ford et al will be made once the author reworked the article on these major
issues and came to grips with the proper textual analysis. If Ford is right, historicism has to replace
historicism with preterism on many texts related to this issue. If I am right, historicism is status quo
and preterism is deviating from the course.