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 8:10-12. He/she is unaware of the verbal gender changes between vv. 10-12:  feminine verbs in verse 10; masculine verbs in verse 11 and back to feminine verbs in verse 12. This needs explanation. AB commentary suggested that Daniel’s mind “fluctuated”.

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.