Tremper's tirade

I don't know if it's really worthwhile for me to comment on Tremper Longman's tirade in response to Lillback's reply. Longman is planning a series of responses. This may be my only comment. But for now I'll offer an initial comment:

I am writing this time because I am thinking of posting the transcript (or part thereof) of a conversation that you had with Van Til about forty years ago. In one sense it is old news, but in another it shows a trajectory of thought of trying to undermine the Seminary in the eighties that I and others think lead to your actions today. 
Also, I should point out that if you use my friend Bruce Waltke for political reasons I will expand my efforts to expose you. Yes I am seeking to undermine the present Westminster. The difference between you and me is that I am transparent in my efforts and you and Carl and others work in secrecy and with misdirection.
Since you all have chosen not to respond to our public and private approaches to you, I will give you till Thursday to respond or I will assume that you accept my assessment of this situation and will proceed with my post.

i) I think Longman comes across as sophistical, egostical, and delusional. To a great extent, Longman is just a purveyor of gossip. 

ii) I don't think Longman is putting all his cards on the table. I expect he's so invested in this issue because he views the position of the current regime at WTS as a repudiation of the position he and Dillard took in the OT introduction they coauthored. So he may well view the current policy change as an tacit, implicit attack on his own views. That's why he takes it so personally. There's also the question of whether he thinks Enns is out of bounds. Although, from what I can tell, Longman is to the right of Enns, he teaches at Westmont and Fuller, so he may feel that even if he disagrees with Enns, the position taken by Enns falls within permissible diversity.

iii) He also acts like Waltke is a senile old fool who's being manipulated by others. Now, admittedly, Waltke's about 84, so perhaps he's losing his marbles. But is there any evidence that he is, in fact, becoming feebleminded? 

iv) Then he lays down an ultimatum, and pretends that if Lillback doesn't respond by his dictatorial deadline, that means Lillback agrees with Tremper's assessement of the situation. Pure sophistry! 

v) He spins an elaborate conspiracy theory out of his fervid imagination. The Van Til interview was part of a long-term plot. The Waltke retirement gig was a diversionary tactic. The ghost of S. Lewis Johnson is behind this hostile takeover. 

First, I cannot speak to all three instances where Dr. Lillback was passed over for a faculty position, but I can for the first two and they were nothing analogous to the Fantuzzo situation. He was interviewed and the faculty agreed he was not the right person to fill that position.

That's not self-explanatory. Does he mean the history dept. thought he was the right person to fill that position, but when it came to a full faculty vote, it went against him? For unless it got to that stage, I don't see that a member of the OT dept. would be involved in the deliberations of the history dept. But maybe I'm missing something.

Second, I knew Al Groves very well, having hired him and worked with him for over fifteen years (and considering him one of my very best friends), and let me just say he deeply loved Doug Green and he would be distraught over Doug Green’s situation. To invoke his name in this context is a travesty.

It's easy to speak on behalf of the dead, since they are in no position to take issue with the words you put in their mouth.

And as far as that goes, E. J. Young (as well as Oswald Allis, Robert Dick Wilson, and Alan MacRae) would be distraught over the OT introduction which Longman coauthored with Dillard. Not to mention that E. J. Young would be distraught over Peter Enns teaching there. So ventriloquizing for the dead is cuts both ways. 

And yes, Iain Duguid, is a respected former student of mine. He also knows that I am deeply disappointed that he accepted the position in the manner that it was offered to him.

As far as that goes, Duguid might be deeply disappointed with Longman's antics and tactics. 

And finally, I did not know Lillback had to hire a senior Old Testament professor to lead the department since they had a senior Old Testament professor, Doug Green, who had not yet been forced to retire.

Of course, that's disingenuous. That represents Longman's viewpoint, not Lillback's. 

But what is most egregious about Lillback’s statement is that it misrepresents the circumstances of Fantuzzo’s departure. For that reason, I asked Chris if he was willing to comment on the situation.

Which becomes a he said/she said situation.

I don’t recall the board’s vote, but I wasn’t passed over; I was appointed as a full-time faculty member, and the search was closed. The idea that once hired I was still competing for the position is absurd.

But in a previous letter, Fantuzzo indicates that he was simply given a 3-year contract:

The only difficulty I faced during the interview process came in a phone interview with Greg Beale, which I thought inappropriate because he wasn’t a Westminster faculty member. He mainly voiced objections to Longman and Dillard’s An Introduction to the Old Testament, expressing disagreement with their views on Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, authorship of Isaiah, and the composition and date of Daniel. We disagreed about his reading of Longman/Dillard, but nothing more came of it. Though ST Prof Lane Tipton told me that Beale recommended that the WTS faculty limit my contract to one year rather than three.

So it wasn't a permanent job. Rather, the seminary was free to renew or not renew his contract when it expired. That's how it looks to me. 

The truth is the OT department, the faculty, President Lillback, the administration, and the board all welcomed me, making it plain that I had safely secured the post and would be promoted once my dissertation was finished. That was not a promise put in writing, but I was told to expect advancement as I met the benchmarks published in the faculty manual.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that that's correct:

i) If so, I can understand why he'd feel that after receiving the red carpet treatment, the rug was pulled out from under him. 

ii) Why would the current regime change its mind about Fantuzzo? In his previous letter, he said a student was recording his lectures, which he interprets as surveillance. If, as a result, the current regime acquired more information about his views, that, might in turn, cause Lillback et al. to reconsider. Keep in mind, too, that during this period there was some change in the composition of the faculty (e.g. adding Beale) as well as the board. So the ground may indeed, have shifted. 

When competent administrations make decisions affecting the future of OT studies at a seminary—of all departments—do they leave the OT department out of the process? Wouldn’t responsible leadership give special consideration to the members of faculty with expertise in the field? So, why did the Lillback administration snub Doug Green and Mike Kelly?

If the current regime deemed the OT dept. to be the source of the problem, then you're not going to consult the very people you intend to replace. 

And why did they keep my other WTS colleagues in the dark? Is it because plans to eliminate Doug were already in the works?

That raises a logistical question. If the current regime planned to cashier the OT faculty, it would be quite maladroit to begin ousting OT profs. unless they had replacements lined up. But timing that is tricky. So it wouldn't surprise me of there were overlapping negotiations with overlapping timelines. It's like selling your house to finance the purchase of a new house. Unless you coordinate the closing dates, you will end up nowhere to live during the interim.

(5) If a fair and open competition were being held, why was Peter’s “presidential constitutional prerogative” required both to block my promotion and to appoint Iain Duguid?(6) And when Peter finally announced Iain’s “nomination” to faculty, why did Jeff insist that there would be no discussion of the matter? Don’t public and fair competitions welcome frank and open conversations?The truth is I wasn’t passed over: Peter Lillback treated my colleagues and me with contempt because I was being eliminated. His actions in my case were simply the next phase in what’s amounting to a ‘totalitarian purge’ of the WTS OT faculty.

Why must there be competing applicants for an open position? I could see a problem of Lillback appointed Duguid, and unilaterally imposed him on the roster. But what's the problem with Lillback nominating Duguid, subject to the approval of the full faculty and board? 

Keep in mind, too, that Duguid is clearly more qualified that Fantuzzo. He's a seasoned Reformed OT scholar who's published several commentaries or expository sermon series. He has extensive pastoral as well as teaching experience. 

Trial balloon

To understand the current discussion, the key point to emphasize is the indissolubility of a valid Christian marriage. The Catechism states: 

Thus the marriage bond has been established by God himself in such a way that a marriage concluded and consummated between baptized persons can never be dissolved. This bond, which results from the free human act of the spouses and their consummation of the marriage, is a reality, henceforth irrevocable, and gives rise to a covenant guaranteed by God’s fidelity. The Church does not have the power to contravene this disposition of divine wisdom. (CCC 1640) 

The Church has no power to change this teaching, because it is the teaching of Christ. (Matthew 19:11-12) This is something the non-Catholic media often misunderstand. The Church’s dogma on marriage is not a “policy” that can be changed, any more than the Nicene Creed is a “policy.” In this regard, the Church’s Magisterium is a servant of the truth, not its master. The Catechism says, “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it.” (CCC 86) 

Because marriage is indissoluble, a validly married Catholic who obtains a civil divorce from a judge and then contracts another civil marriage is objectively in the state of ongoing adultery. Jesus said, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.” (Mark 10:11-12) Again, following the teaching of Christ and the words of Sacred Scripture, the Church has no choice but to withhold communion from those deemed to be in grave sin. (1 Corinthians 5:5; 1 Corinthians 11:27-29; Matthew 18:17) 

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/09/marriage-divorce-communion-the-upcoming-synod-of-bishops/

i)This nicely illustrates the circular logic of the Catholic convert/apologist. Who determines what is dogma in the first place if not the Magisterium? Hence, Anders can't very well go behind the back of the Magisterium by direct appeal to Scripture. That's the Catholic dilemma: if you have independent access to the authoritative teaching of Scripture, that moots the Magisterium. 

ii) Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Pope Francis did want to change dogma. How would a savvy pontiff go about that? Would he simply abrogate the Catechism? To begin with, how can one pope pull rank on another pope? It's like one 5-star-general pulling rank on another 5-star general. If a pope invoked his authority to trump what previous popes officially taught, that would call his own authority into question. Popes need to seem to agree with each other. 

So a savvy pontiff would float a trial balloon. You avoid the appearance of reversing dogma. Instead of a full-frontal assault, you back into the change. An incremental change.

I'm not claiming for a fact that Francis is trying to change "dogma." I'm just saying it's naive to suppose that if a pope were so inclined, he'd go about it in a brazen fashion. Rome values the appearance of continuity.

iii) Catholic apologists like to lecture Protestants on how we just don't understand. Unless certain magic words are used, like "ex cathedra," "de fide," or "by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma," it doesn't stick. 

Yes, we understand that face-saving distinction. It doesn't matter what the Magisterium says or does as long as that is technically distinguished from "dogma." Dogma could be locked away in a secret vault. The pope forgot the combination. The pope could preach heresy, but as long as dogma is contained in that safe, the infallibility of the church is untarnished by whatever is said or done outside the secret vault.   

iv) There are, however, problems with that technical distinction. To begin with, it illustrates another Catholic dilemma. When Catholic apologists are making a case for Rome, they make great claims about how the Magisterium furnishes the ethical and doctrinal certainty which sola Scriptura can never provide. 

When, however, Catholic apologists are defending Rome against the charge of ethical and doctrinal inconsistencies in its teaching, they suddenly issue disclaimers about the uncertainty of Catholic teaching unless it meets an elusive technical definition. To make certainty unfalsifiable, they must make certainty unverifiable. 

v) In addition, the "progressive" wing doesn't need an outright win. Take Vatican II. That represents a compromise between the modernists and the traditionalists. But for the modernists, a compromise is a win. The only policy change they require is permission. Relaxation of the status quo ante. 

There are two ways a policy can change:

a) We used to oppose X, but now we support X. 

b) We no longer oppose X.

Progressives don't need (i). (ii) is enough. They now have the freedom to teach and practice what they believe. All they need is a wedge. A concession. 

You don't need to change "dogma." A policy change will give you all the advantages of a dogmatic change without the logical or historical disadvantages.  

vi) This synod wasn't a case where the pope appointed an ad hoc committee to study an issue, then report back to him. Francis was front and center. You can't blame it on the subordinates. He's the fall guy. 

vii) Why, moreover, would Francis convene this extraordinary synod unless he intended to change the status quo? All by itself, convening this very public synod fosters an enormous expectation that there will be some sort of policy change. If that was not his intention, then he's incompetent. 

I suppose a Catholic apologist could always say the Holy Spirit prompted the cardinals to elect an incompetent pontiff. (Wouldn't be the first time.) 

“The Influence of Patristic Literature upon the Reformation”, Part 2

Nathan Rinne has just published Part 2 of a series with the rough title of “The Influence of Patristic Literature upon the Reformation”:

“In his groundbreaking work on the Italian monk and theologian Ambrose Traversari (1386-1439) Charles L Stinger, professor of history at Buffalo University, describes the revival of patristic studies at the beginning of the 15th century.

According to Stinger, significant catalyst for that revival was the desire on the part of humanists to confront Aristotelian scholastic theology with what they considered to be a superior alternative.

While Stinger’s treatment of the topic ends with the Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence (1431-47), he makes the somewhat startling claim that a revival in patristic studies would continue all the way into the 17th century as a discernable conflict between patristic and scholastic theology, a conflict that would only come to an end when Protestant theologians “began to return to [Aristotelian] dialectics to analyze the orthodox creedal formulations of the Augsburg Confession and Heidelberg Catechism.”…

Read the entire piece here.

Here is Part 1: “Was a significant aspect of the Reformation a revival of patristic theology?”

The Quadriga, Medieval Exegesis, and the Rising Need to Know Hebrew and Greek

There was what we’d call “good sense” in Medieval exegesis, and also some nonsense. Separating the two wasn’t always possible, but some clear thinkers, even in the middle ages, could find their way through to what was important:

George Whitefield

Not only was Whitefield a peerless evangelist, he was a saintly Christian:

http://www.sbts.edu/resources/category/journal-of-theology/sbjt-182-summer-2014/

The liberal coalition

I'd like to say a little more about the ups and downs of the culture wars. The liberal coalition is fragile. Liberal activists are fairly successful when they are united by a common cause, united by a common aim, and united behind a common foe.

Ironically, however, their success can be their very undoing. For instance, as long as they can focus on Christians as "the enemy," that's a galvanizing influence. 

To the extent, however, that they succeed in disenfranchising Christians, Christians cease to be as threatening to them. At that point they begin to turn on each other. 

For instance, feminism is a driving force in liberalism. That also requires an enemy: men. Liberal policies are increasingly anti-male. Take California's recent "affirmative consent" law. Not surprisingly, Harvard has followed suit. Or take liberal animosity towards male-oriented sports.

Problem is, this strategy requires liberals to antagonize about one half of the population. And not just white men or social conservatives. But men en masse–including men who are otherwise disposed to be liberal. What happens when men get fed up with being pushed around?

Another example is the civil warfare within organized atheism. Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins v. the feminists and apologists for Islam. 

In this respect, liberals are like Muslims. Muslims have two perceived enemies: the infidel, and fellow Muslims. To some extent, killing the infidel is a temporary distraction from their favorite pastime: killing each other. Islam is so factionalized, with murderous tribal and theological animosities. 

That's also an occupational hazard for liberals. Liberals are never safe from fellow liberals, for liberal orthodoxy can change on a dime. 

Duty is ours, consequences are God's

i) It may feel like we're losing the culture wars. Perhaps we are. Even if that's the case, remember the epigram attributed to Stonewall Jackson: "Duty is ours, consequences are God's."

That's good advice for Christian culture warriors. 

ii) That said, the future is unpredictable. That's because the winners die. Every three generations or so, the human race undergoes a complete turnover. Every few generation you have a whole new cast of characters. So the past is no guide to the future. 

In that respect, no one ever wins or loses the "war." We only win or lose battles. The war is out of our hands. For the cause outlives both sides of the battle. Both winners and losers die. Others take their place. That's why, for better or worse, nothing is etched in stone. The status quo is inherently unstable. 

iii) In addition, unbelievers are sore winners. If you keep abusing your power, you can provoke a backlash. If you abuse your power too often, you lose your power. Even military dictators can be toppled. 

iv) Keep in mind, too, that in the culture wars, the liberals lost many battles before they began to win. Liberals win because they never give up. They keep agitating until they win a precedent. Doesn't matter how many times they lose. They only need to win once to get a foothold. Once they get a foothold, they build on that.

And two can play that game. That strategy is available to conservatives as well. 

v) The liberal power base is the media, judiciary, and academia. These are all quite vulnerable. The liberal establishment no longer have a lock on the media. Newspapers and network news are moribund. Cable TV, talk radio, and the Internet have created tremendous ideological competition.

For many people, a college degree is no longer cost effective. That will weaken academia. Liberal economic policies which destroy wealth creation will also result in cuts to state universities. 

And, of course, you now have online eduction. That, too, weakens the academic establishment. 

That leaves the judiciary. But the judiciary is always up for grabs. 

Rome's blueprint for anarchy

http://www.dennyburk.com/when-popes-and-councils-contradict-each-other/#more-29041

Parsing the Olivet Discourse

I'm going to say a bit more about my interpretation of the Olivet Discourse. My interpretation is provisional.

1) One complication is the fact that this discourse is recorded, with variations, in all three Synoptic Gospels. So one question is how to correlate them.

2) Some scholars, based on the assumption of Markan priority, as well as the further assumption that Mark's version is more "authentic" (because it's earlier and less subject to embellishment than Matthew and Luke), take Mark's version as the standard of comparison.

Although I think Markan priority is plausible, I don't think that makes his version more authentic than the other two.

3) Other scholars center their analysis on Matthew's version because that's the most detailed. And I think that's logical, although it's important to qualify that by comparing Matthew with Mark and Luke.

4) There are roughly three basic interpretive approaches one can take to the Olivet Discourse:

i) Interpret the text preteristically throughout.

ii) Interpret the text futuristically throughout.

iii) Interpret the first part preteristically and the second part futuristically. 

All three approaches can appeal to some verses which support their approach. All three approaches must square their interpretation with problem passages that seem to be at odds with their approach. It's difficult to consistently carry through any of the three approaches. 

5) I myself incline to 4(iii). What about difficulties with that approach?

i) One source of ambiguity is due to the fact that we're dealing with a prediction that is, in some measure, modeled on OT exemplars. So the language is, to that extent, allusive and impressionistic rather than precisely descriptive. 

ii) In Biblical typology, an earlier event can foreshadow a later event. But that's a two-way street. Typology assumes similarity between type and antitype. But in that case, just as an earlier event can foreshadow a later event, a later event can backshadow an earlier event. Even if the Olivet discourse is predicting an event in the near future (the First Jewish Revolt) as well as another event in the distant future (the Parousia), it wouldn't be surprising if it sometimes uses similar language for both, inasmuch as type and antitype are, in fact, similar to some degree. Typology involves repetitive historical patterns.

iii) I'm inclined to say the first part of the text emphasizes the First Jewish Revolt while the second part emphasizes the Return of Christ, which has yet to eventuate. 

Let's also consider some specific verses:

6) Who are the Messianic pretenders? In principle, this could refer to two different kinds of claimants:

i) These could be men who claim to be the real Messiah, in contrast to Jesus. That claim would be more likely to mislead some Jews or Jewish-Christians. 

ii) These could be men who claim to be Jesus. They are Jesus come back. That claim would be more likely to mislead some Gentile Christians. 

iii) Preterists identify these claimants with some 1C candidates. One problem with that identification is that Jesus says at least some of the claimants gain a following by performing miracles. So that sets the bar pretty high, even for impostors. 

7) There's some difficulty correlating the "abomination of desolation" with a 1C event. Considered in isolation, the best candidate for that identification would be the Roman desecration of the temple, after the Romans sacked Jerusalem and invaded the city. But in context, that's much too late to serve as advance warning to get out while the getting is good. 

Some preterists correlate the "abomination of desolation" with the Zealot desecration of the temple. That's probably their best bet. But whether that's how the disciples, or the original readers of the Synoptic Gospels, would construe the reference, is a different question.

8) Even if, taken in isolation, it's possible to interpret the "coming Son of Man" imagery in Mt 24 preteristically, doesn't that commit the preterist to interpreting Mt 25 preteristically as well? 

9) There's the question of what "the end" refers to. In context, does that denote fall of Jerusalem or the Parousia?

10) What does the phrase "wars and rumors of wars" refer to? Was there ever a time in human history when you didn't have wars and rumors of war? That makes even less sense on a global, purely futuristic interpretation. 

If, however, this alludes to the ramp up to the First Jewish Revolt, then that makes a lot of sense. When you hear about insurrection in Jerusalem and Judea, now is the time to get out of Dodge, for once the Roman armies occupy the countryside and surround the city, you're trapped. 

11) What about earthquakes? These are so random that they don't seem to be advance warning. Perhaps, though, the point is not the occurrence of these signs in isolation, but an unusual conjunction of independent signs.

12) The imagery of someone on the rooftop having to leave everything behind naturally suggests an elevated vantage-point from which the observer could see the advancing Roman armies. Had he heeded the preliminary signs, that would have given him sufficient lead-time to make his escape with provisions, at a good time of year for travel. But if you wait until you can see the whites of their eyes, than you waited too long. You are likely to be overtaken. Your escape route cut off. Weather may be rotten for travel by foot. You're lack provisions. I think this section is clearly concerned with location conditions in and around Jerusalem. If you wait until the Roman counterattack is imminent, you just ran out of time. 

13) On a global, futurist interpretation, it's hard to see how leaving town would protect you from end-of-the-world events. Surely there's nowhere to run under that scenario. And the time of year would be irrelevant. 

14) I don't see how the futurist interpretation of Mt 24:33 makes sense in light of vv30-31. If, at that point, you are actually witnessing the return of Christ, then the signs have surely outlived their usefulness. For what they signify is now evident to all. 

15) I take the "whole world" (Mt 24:14) to be an idiomatic designation for the Roman Empire. 

16) Some futurists cite Mt 24:29 to prove that we're not dealing with two different events, widely separately in time. There are, however, two problems with that appeal:

i) The Greek adverb (eutheos) is often used as a transitional device to segue from one scene to another. A syntactical convention. It allows for narrative compression. Indefinite intervals. The implied duration must be supplied by context or other clues. 

ii) And it's only used in Matthew's version of the Discourse. 

17) Apropos (16), The disciples ask Jesus about two events. Since one event is actually earlier (indeed, much earlier!) than the other, that's the order in which he answered them. First the fall of Jerusalem-related events, then Parousia-related events. First and second. 

One is earlier, one is later. They seem close together because he's responding to a two-part question. But the fact that they're close together in the sequence of the answer doesn't mean they're close together in the sequence of time. 

18) Some futurists appeal to Mt 24:21. However, I take that to be a warning to get out of Dodge before the Romans besiege Jerusalem, for once Jerusalem is surrounded by Roman armies, and the countryside occupied, there's no exit. 

In other words, a reference to the First Jewish Revolt, expressed in hyperbolic, end-of-the-world jargon, for which there's OT precedent.  

A warning, decades ahead of time, for true believers in Jerusalem, to evacuate when the signs of that particular catastrophe were coming to pass. And that's distinct from the Parousia. 

Some might object that it's artificial to take the first part as referring to the near future (1C events) and the second part as referring to the distant future (the Parousia), but the disciples asked a two-part question, so Jesus is, to some extent, answering them on their own terms. That's how they framed the question. So it's a part 1, part 2 answer. But in reality, these are separate events. 

Of course, if they ask the wrong question, he's free to reformulate the question. But there's nothing to indicate that he recast the question. 

The star and Shekinah

Scholars debate the identity of the Star of Bethlehem. Some think it's a natural astronomical phenomenon. One problem with that identification is that the "star" doesn't behave like an inanimate object. There's a specificity to its behavior. Its localized appearance. It's intermittent appearance. The "star" acts like a personal agent on a mission. Liberals think it's mythical. 

I'd like to conjecture that the "star" might be the Shekinah. The Shekinah seems to be a good candidate for the "star":

i) As a visible manifestation of God's presence, the movements of the Shekinah reflect personal discretion, unlike a naturally occurring or naturally intermittent phenomenon.

ii) The Shekinah is luminous at night.

iii) Matthew refers to the Shekinah in the Transfiguration account.

iv) In OT and NT accounts, the Shekinah appears and disappears at will. 

v) The Shekinah has a guiding function in the OT, leading the Israelites in the wilderness. Guiding the Magi would be another case in kind.

vi) The Shekinah positioning itself over the home of the Holy Family would have emblematic theological significance. A divine witness to the person inside.

The coming of the Son of Man in Mark's Gospel

http://www.tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/library/TynBull_2005_56_2_04_Adams_SonOfMan_Mark.pdf

The State Of The Culture War

Bill Scher recently wrote an article for Politico about how Republicans allegedly have lost the culture war. Here's a reply by David Harsanyi that makes some good points.

The Nuremberg Defense

i) One objection to the OT holy war command I sometimes run across is the assertion that "just following orders" is no excuse. This is sometimes dubbed the Nuremberg Defense. What about that?

ii) It's true that just following orders is no excuse. However, in that case the adjective does all the work. Surely though there are situations where there's more at stake than just following orders. There are situations in which it's costly to disobey orders. You pay a steep price for insubordination.  

iii) Apropos (ii), what about a situation in which a subordinate is acting under duress? "That's a direct command. Do it or else!"

In other words, is there an implied threat behind the order? If you disobey the order, what are the consequences for you? Suppose we have a dialogue like this:

Commander: Shoot the POW.

Subordinate: I refuse, sir.

Commander: Either you shoot him or I shoot you!

If he complies, that's more than just following orders. His action was coerced. He's literally acting at the point of a gun. In that situation, surely he does have some excuse for following orders, whether or not we think his action was morally justifiable. At the very least, it's a mitigating factor.

In addition, it's trivially easy to make the dilemma more egregious: "Unless you shoot the POW, I will shoot your wife (or mother, or child). 

Again, we might still debate whether it's morally permissible to shoot the POW in order to save his wife (or mother, or child). But he's clearly in a bind. That's a very tough call. Even if you think he made the wrong call, would you punish him? If I were a juror, I wouldn't feel it was my place to punish a defendant who had to face that dilemma. 

Or would you say the commander is to blame? If so, that's a different argument. That transfers blame from agent who carried out the order to the agent who gave the order. 

iv) Of course, I don't think Yahweh is morally equivalent to a commander who issues an abhorrent command which his subordinate is in no realistic position to defy. I'm just responding to a facile, thoughtless objection for the sake of argument. 

Rome's new policy

http://www.dennyburk.com/did-the-roman-catholic-church-just-change-its-position-on-divorce-and-gay-marriage/

The Long Branch Saloon

I rarely post comments at the Secular Web. Last week Jeff Lowder made reference to me on a post by Keith Parsons. I responded. Then other commenters responded to me. This devolved into a very lengthy impromptu debate. At the moment, that's died down, so I will be reposting my comments here. I may updated it if there's any further point/counterpoint.

I'll first make a preliminary observation about atheist blogs. Some atheist blogs (e.g. Debunking Christianity, r/Atheism - Reddit, Richard Dawkins Foundation archive) are like the Long Branch Saloon in Dodge City. Lots of drunken brawlers and shoot 'em ups. By contrast, Jeff Lowder tries to run a more respectable establishment at The Secular Outpost–like Bond Rogers' boarding house in The Shootist. Jeff is very PR conscious about the photogenic image of atheism he wants to project. Mind you, there are some regulars from the Long Branch Saloon who show up at his establishment. They are best ignored.  

Blomberg reviews Schreiner

http://www.denverseminary.edu/resources/news-and-articles/the-king-in-his-beauty-a-biblical-theology-of-the-old-and-new-testaments/

The Text and Interpretation of Scripture in the Middle Ages

Here’s more from Richard Muller, with some scintillating and not-well-known commentary from John Bugay:

The issue of text and interpretation was further complicated by the many popular Bibles of the Middle Ages, both Latin and vernacular, prose and verse, and by the interrelationship of Scripture, tradition, and legend with the medieval identification of the literal meaning of the text and the temporal sojourn of the people of God as historia.

Note that even the most famous Medieval writer, Thomas Aquinas, blended very much “legend” with his theology and philosophy. For example, the “global influence of Dionysius on the metaphysic of Aquinas”, according to Francis O’Rourke, “extends to such central questions as the very nature of existence, the hierarchy of beings, the nature of God, and the theory of creation” (O’Rourke, “Pseudo-Dionysius and the Metaphyics of Aquinas”, Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, © 1992, 2005, pg xvi).

This is even though Aquinas (and others of his era) mistakenly thought that the fifth-century writer “Pseudo-Dionysius” was actually the companion of Paul from Acts 17.

Similarly, Aquinas’s Contra errors Graecorum, written in 1263, (commissioned by the Curia for Pope Urban IV), relied very heavily on the Symmachan forgeries, the forged “Donation of Constantine”, and the “Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals”.

You don’t find many loose copies of that major work of Aquinas lying around – a testimony to Rome’s tidiness in the face of its own profound embarrassments.

Works like the Speculum historiale of Vincent of Beauvais and the Speculum humanae salvationis of Ludolph of Saxony functioned as biblical paraphrases that mediated the sacred history of the Scriptures together with legendary additions and augmentations, some of which, in the case of the latter work, come from ancient secular history, and virtually all of which serve the underlying hermeneutical purpose of manifesting the movement through history from obscurely promised salvation under the Old Testament to clearly offered redemption under the New.

The typological interpretation of the entirety of history by means of the New Testament fulfillment is not only characteristic of these works and others of their type, it is also the basis, by way of these popular Bibles, of much of the art of the Middle Ages.

This gradual accommodation of the text to its interpretation and the “corruption” of the text through scribal errors did not pass unnoticed during the scholastic era. Virtually at the same point that the Paris text, the Glossa ordinaria, and Lombard’s Sententia became standard components of a highly organized and interrelated program of theological study, the text of the Vulgate itself became the subject of debate.

Even in the twelfth century a few theologians had raised questions about the relationship of the Vulgate to the Hebrew Old Testament: at the beginning of the century (1109), Stephen Harding, abbot of Citeaux, had excised, with the help of a convert from Judaism, passages in the Vulgate not found in the original Hebrew.

Similar efforts characterize the work of another Cistercian of the twelfth century, Nicholas Manjacoria. Nicholas had studied Hebrew and worked to remove additions that had been made to the text of the Vulgate. He specifically singled out for criticism the idea that the most elaborate version of a text was the best, and he spelled out his approach to the text at length in a treatise, the Libellus de corruptione et correptione Psalmorum (ca. 1145). Hugh of St. Victor (d. 1141) had also noted textual corruptions in the Vulgate.

In the thirteenth century, particularly in the great teaching orders, there was a concerted effort to disentangle text and gloss and even to correct the text on the basis of the Hebrew and Greek originals.

Thus, Hugh of St. Cher tested the text of the Vulgate against Jerome’s commentaries, several pre-Carolingian codices, and the Hebrew text.

So extensive was this effort that Hugh and his associates produced a supplement to the gloss—in effect, “a new apparatus to the whole Bible.”

On the one hand, Hugh superintended the production of a massive concordance organized alphabetically; on the other, he developed a new set of postils or annotations on the entire Bible in which he emphasized parallels between texts and stressed, as did his contemporaries Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas, the priority of the literal sense as the basis for the examination of the other three senses of Scripture.

The thirteenth century was, moreover, responsible for the standardization of the text and its chapter divisions in the so-called Paris text, begun by Stephen Langton and carried forward in the corrections of Hugh of St. Cher and in the adept edition of William de la Mare, who knew both Hebrew and Greek.

Muller, R. A. (2003). Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise And Development Of Reformed Orthodoxy; Volume 2: The Cognitive Foundation Of Theology (2nd ed., pp. 33–35). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

I’ve been publishing selections from Richard Muller’s Volume 2, dealing with the doctrine of Scripture through the Middle Ages, here at Triablogue, at the following links:


Richard Muller, “Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics”, Volume 2: Scripture, September 25, 2014

“Scripture interprets Scripture” through the centuries, October 2, 2014

The Medieval Biblical Canon Revisited, October 3, 2014

How Scripture and Tradition Became Conflated in the Middle Ages, October 13, 2014

Platonic marriage

A friend recently drew my attention to a spat between lay Catholic  pop apologist Dave Armstrong and a more prominent Catholic apologist. In case you're interested, here's some background:

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2014/10/tim-staples-says-apologists-make.html

I'll make a few brief comments of my own. The entire tactic is ludicrous, unscrupulous, and self-defeating:

i) Dave is trying to use the alleged position of the Protestant Reformers as a wedge issue. But even if they believed what he imputes them, a wedge splits a log in two. So which side does it prove?

Suppose the Protestant Reformers agree with Rome on this issue. If that's an argument from authority in support of Rome, then by converse logic, when they disagree with Rome, that's an argument from authority in opposition to Rome. The argument from authority cuts both ways. 

ii) The people who were in a position to know firsthand (or even secondhand) whether Mary and Joseph had conjugal relations constitute a very very small circle. Calvin isn't in that circle. Luther isn't in that circle. Zwingli isn't in that circle. Aquinas isn't in that circle. Nor church fathers. 

Quoting the opinion of people who have no source of knowledge concerning the claim in question is utter make-believe. 

It's like a medieval map of the world. Would you consult that to find out if the Bahamas existed? 

iii) It's pointless in another respect, too. It comes as no revelation that the Protestant Reformers agreed with the Latin Church and (some) church fathers on a number of issues. There's continuity as well as discontinuity. So it wouldn't be some great coup to discover points of agreement between Luther or Calvin with the Latin Church or some church fathers. That was never in dispute. 

At best, this would just be one more minor point of agreement. And that's no more or less significant than all the major disagreements. 

iv) Finally, there's a substantive theological issue. If Mary and Joseph never consummated their marriage, then it was never a real marriage (by Jewish standards). In that event, Jesus is not the legal stepson of Joseph, in which case he can't trace his family tree through either the Matthean or Lucan genealogies. 

ISIS recruiting pool

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/foreign-fighters-flow-to-syria/2014/10/11/3d2549fa-5195-11e4-8c24-487e92bc997b_graphic.html

Divine action

http://www.craigkeener.com/divine-action-presentation-at-oxford-video/

Literal or figurative?

In his new book on the Olivet Discourse, Robert Stein lays down an interesting hermeneutical principle:

One problem involves the issue of determining when we are dealing with something meant to be interpreted figuratively and when it is meant to be interpreted literally. In the OT examples given above, the cosmic language used should be interpreted figuratively; the material following, however, is best interpreted in a more literal manner: Isa 13:10 figuratively, but Isa 13:11 more literally; Jer 4:23-24 figuratively, but Jer 4:25-26 more literally; Ezk 32:7-8 figuratively, but Ezk 32:9-10 more literally; Amos 8:9 figuratively, but Amos 8:10-11 more literally; and Acts 2:19-20 figuratively, but Acts 2:18,21 more literally. Jesus, The Temple and the Coming Son of Man: A Commentary on Mark 13 (IVP 2014), 115.

To better evaluate his claim, I'm going to quote the passages, putting the allegedly more literal sentences in italics, to compare and/or contrast with the allegedly figurative sentences:

10 For the stars of the heavens and their constellations
    will not give their light;
the sun will be dark at its rising,
    and the moon will not shed its light.

11 I will punish the world for its evil,
    and the wicked for their iniquity;
I will put an end to the pomp of the arrogant,
    and lay low the pompous pride of the ruthless.

(Isa 13:10-11)

23 I looked on the earth, and behold, it was without form and void;
    and to the heavens, and they had no light.

24 I looked on the mountains, and behold, they were quaking,
    and all the hills moved to and fro.

25 I looked, and behold, there was no man,
    and all the birds of the air had fled.

26 I looked, and behold, the fruitful land was a desert,
    and all its cities were laid in ruins
    before the Lord, before his fierce anger.

(Jer 4:23-26)

7 When I blot you out, I will cover the heavens
    and make their stars dark;
I will cover the sun with a cloud,
    and the moon shall not give its light.

8 All the bright lights of heaven
    will I make dark over you,
    and put darkness on your land,
declares the Lord God.

9 “I will trouble the hearts of many peoples, when I bring your destruction among the nations, into the countries that you have not known. 10 I will make many peoples appalled at you, and the hair of their kings shall bristle with horror because of you, when I brandish my sword before them. They shall tremble every moment, every one for his own life, on the day of your downfall (Ezk 32:7-10).

9 “And on that day,” declares the Lord God,
    “I will make the sun go down at noon
    and darken the earth in broad daylight.

10 I will turn your feasts into mourning
    and all your songs into lamentation;
I will bring sackcloth on every waist
    and baldness on every head;
I will make it like the mourning for an only son
    and the end of it like a bitter day.

11 “Behold, the days are coming,” declares the Lord God,
    “when I will send a famine on the land—
not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water,
    but of hearing the words of the Lord.

(Amos 8:9-11)

18 even on my male servants and female servants
    in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.

19 And I will show wonders in the heavens above
    and signs on the earth below,
    blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke;

20 the sun shall be turned to darkness
    and the moon to blood,
    before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day.

21 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.’

(Acts 2:18-21.

Foresight and insight

This is related to some other recent posts of mine. Should NT commentators emulate apostolic exegesis? Did OT prophets understand what they were predicting? Did OT prophets really foresee the future? Do NT writers rip OT passages out of context? This also has some bearing on the current debate over christotelism. 

I. Hindsight

Although we tend to think of OT prophets as forward-looking, a basic function of OT prophets was to be backward-looking. They reminded OT Jews of their duties under the Mosaic covenant. They remind OT Jews of what God had done for his people in the past, especially the Exodus, but also guiding and guarding the patriarchs, providing for the Israelites in the wilderness, and protecting Israel from her enemies. 

By itself, hindsight doesn't require supernatural knowledge. It is, however, possible that just as Moses saw the tabernacle in a vision, which was the model for the earthly tabernacle, so the early chapters of Genesis were based on direct visionary revelation. 

II. Foresight and insight

i) We most associate prophets with inspired foresight, in part because that's clearly supernatural. In that regard it's important to distinguish between foresight and insight. These can be combined or be separated. Revelatory dreams are a good example. 

ii) Take Joseph's two related dreams (Gen 37:5-11). These are predictive dreams. However, Joseph didn't know how they'd be fulfilled. He had to discover how they'd be fulfilled by experience. The dream was prospective, but his understanding was retrospective. The correct interpretation was based on the context of fulfillment.

In what sense did Joseph understand the dream? He could describe what he saw. The dream used recognizable images. And he caught the drift of its allegorical import. His father and brothers would be subordinate to him. But he was in the dark regarding what, precisely, was the literal counterpart to the allegory. What would be the concrete circumstances?

iii) Take the dreams of the baker and cupbearer (Gen 40). In this case, Joseph was not the dreamer, but the interpreter. In this situation he was given insight rather than foresight. 

Their dreams are predictive. However, a dreamer wouldn't necessarily know that a dream was predictive ahead of time. Absent inspired interpretation, for all he knows it might just be an ordinary dream. It's only if and when the dream comes true that its predictive nature becomes evident. 

The baker and cupbearer seemed to think their dreams were predictive. That might be because they were naturally nervous about their fate. They'd fallen out of favor with Pharaoh. Would they be restored or executed? Were these dreams an omen? 

In fact, they were right to sense that their dreams were predictive. However, there's nothing in the dreams themselves that contains unmistakably predictive clues. And, of course, the allegorical nature of the dreams compounded the ambiguity. That's why they required interpretation. 

If, by contrast, a revelatory dream or vision employs literal, representational imagery, then that simplifies the interpretation. And that makes it clearer at the outset if the revelation is predictive. 

iv) Then you have Pharaoh's two related dreams (Gen 41). Once again, these are predictive, allegorical dreams. Considered in isolation, the dreams aren't clearly predictive. Of course, with the passage of time, their predictive nature would become evident. 

So there are two ways of knowing whether a dream is predictive. You can find out after the fact. Wait and see. But to know that in advance requires inspired interpretation. 

v) Then you have the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 2; 4). One pressing issue in dream interpretation is whether the interpreter has any actual insight. Or does he just pretend to be insightful? How can you tell if his interpretation is correct? 

Nebuchadnezzar is shrewd in that respect. He has a simple test. Instead of telling the interpreter what he dreamt, he requires the interpreter to tell him what he dreamt. Obviously, that's not something an interpreter can fake. He can't do that unless he has supernatural knowledge. That, in turn, corroborates his interpretation. If he has the supernatural ability to recount what the dreamer dreamt, then he presumably has the supernatural ability to explain what it signifies. Nebuchadnezzar's tactic is a way of smoking out the charlatans. 

vi) In principle, God can give a prophet foresight without insight, insight without foresight, or give him both. God can give a prophet advance knowledge. The prophet knows what he saw, and what he saw is a future event. In that sense, the prophet knows the future.

Yet a prophet may or may not understand what he saw. That depends, in part, on whether God gave him the interpretation of what he saw. In some biblical visions there's an interpreting angel. The seer asks the angel questions, and the angel explains the imagery. 

He's able to grasp what he sees in the sense that he can describe it. The imagery is familiar. But he may not know what it represents–assuming it uses symbolic imagery. If it uses prosaic imagery, then what it points to may be self-explanatory. 

In principle, the relationship between OT prophecy and NT interpretation might be the relation between foresight and insight. A distinction between advance knowledge and interpretation.

I'm not claiming that's the norm. I just use that as a limiting case. Even within the OT, you have that distinction. Therefore, if you had that distinction between the OT and the NT, that wouldn't be a new distinction. Rather, that would be a preexisting principle. Something already in play in OT times. 

New: Dr. Carl Trueman Lectures: “The Reformation”

Westminster Theological Seminary (WTS) has just recently released a new series of iTunesU Lectures on The Reformation. The upload date on the series was 9/29/14, so this is pretty recent.

For anyone who’s interested in learning more on the Reformation at a seminary level, this is a great—and free—resource that you can take advantage of.

How Scripture and Tradition Became Conflated in the Middle Ages

The word “tradition” has been a wax nose throughout church history, used in various ways at various times, as described here: Four different kinds of “tradition”.

Today, Rome claims that “Scripture and Tradition” together form “one common source” of divine revelation, with “two distinct modes of transmission”. Its official teaching from the CCC states it this way:

Lillback responds to Longman

Here is part of Lillback's response to Longman:

Like Chris Fantuzzo, I was passed over for a faculty position. In fact, this happened for three positions that I was asked to interview for at WTS. However, unlike Dr. Fantuzzo I had not had the privilege of competing for these positions with a three year written and mutually agreed upon contract behind me. In regard to this matter, I’m sure you know that I believed we needed to hire an experienced senior scholar to lead our OT department. To that end, I used my presidential constitutional prerogative to nominate Dr. Iain Duguid, one of your former students here at Westminster and a Cambridge PhD with many years of seminary and college teaching experience. This nomination was next supported by a faculty vote with no negative votes and two abstentions. This then became the faculty nomination that went to the Board where it unanimously carried. I am grateful that Westminster is now strengthened with an OT scholar who studied under you and has achieved his doctorate from such a world renowned institution as Cambridge. I believe Dr. Duguid is also your successor as senior editor of an OT commentary series that you helped launched with our distinguished deceased professor, Al Groves. As you know, the world famous Westminster Hebrew Institute that Al started still operates here on our campus and has been named in honor of Professor Groves.

So given my experience through these many years, I never could have imagined I would serve as President of WTS. But I was asked to do so, and when I accepted the call of the Board of Trustees, I had no awareness of the massive theological challenges that confronted WTS when I came. My desire had only been to restore a campus plagued by years of deferred maintenance and a reputation of functioning at too large a distance from the ministries of the local church. And these circumstances were complicated by a board that was deeply divided in the midst of an administration and presidential transition.

Tremper, in the spirit of Christian brotherhood I wish to let you know that I am praying for you. My prayer is that God will spare you from a bitter spirit that forgets or overlooks the cross and grace of Jesus Christ. And along with these prayers, I am praying that our Professor Waltke event will not be used for political ends. Perhaps you did not know, but Dr. Waltke has been a personal friend for many years. He preached at all three of the churches I pastored. I had him speak at a men’s retreat. He taught with you at my church for the “Streams in the Desert” seminar. I asked him to deliver my presidential inaugural keynote address here at WTS, which he did. I asked him to deliver the first Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. lecture, which he did. I’ve visited him several times after he left RTS and moved to Knox Seminary in Fort Lauderdale. I’ve actually been close enough to him that he discussed with me his decision years ago to leave WTS, as well as his difficult media experience that prompted his leaving RTS, and then even his decision to retire from teaching so he could better care for his wife. I’ve also republished several of his articles in recent months. My gratitude to Dr. Waltke is due in large measure to his trenchant teaching many years ago as well as his ongoing writing and teaching, that delivered me from a descent into the unbelief that too often seems to follow the embracing of higher critical methods.

You apparently are so concerned about our honoring of Dr. Waltke that you claim to know my very motives even though we have not communicated for many years. Dr. Waltke was invited by me to come to WTS, as the above recitation shows, out of a career long love that a student has for a godly and significant professor. It is the same kind of love that motivated me to interview Dr. Van Til so long ago when he was deeply distressed in the final years of his long and fruitful life in the aftermath and uncertainty of the Seminary’s long theological battle. I saw the same sort of wounds in my esteemed professor Bruce Waltke in the aftermath of the Biologos interview, particularly given the fact that his dear wife could no longer fully support him due to her challenging condition.

The plan to honor him emerged when I met with Bruce and his wife many months ago, long before there was any awareness of what would ultimately become Professor Doug Green’s decision to take an early retirement from the faculty, rather than confront the weighty and likely personally painful public theological battle that so many seem to wish to have. The idea to have some of Bruce’s cherished friends and former students from Dallas came to me early on as well. This was because I believed that Dallas Seminary, due to its dispensational commitments, would not celebrate Dr. Waltke’s career and retirement even though his contributions to the study of the OT and the Scriptures are immense. In this context, I encourage you and others to set aside what to me seems to be an apparent and/or expressly published “disappointment” with Dr. Waltke and seek to honor him as a father in the faith and a giant in your discipline. Your criticisms of Westminster in this context, whether intended or not, seem to have the tendency to dishonor him. To honor Dr. Waltke, even if he’s controversial to many in your circles even as he is in mine, clearly is the right thing to do. So I did not invite Bruce to WTS to use as a political football. Dr. Van Til and Dr. Waltke will be remembered for their positive contributions to the study of Scripture and the defense of the Christian faith. It is my prayer that this will be what you will be most remembered for as well.

Although you profoundly disagree, it is my desire to treat Doug Green with utmost respect. He was and continues to be a valued person and professor. He is still teaching Aramaic with us. Although he could not in good conscience support the commitments of Westminster’s faculty and board and thus chose early retirement instead of entering a process of theological review or taking the route of a reconsideration of his exceptions to the Seminary’s views, we endeavored to honor him in several ways. The first was by allowing him to co-write the announcement of his retirement, supported by clarifying FAQ’s that he approved. We honored him by posting his Psalm 23 paper at his request, a paper that had never been judged by the board or faculty. We have provided him a fully negotiated and thoughtful severance contract drafted and reviewed by his own legal counsel that honors him and protects his family. We are pleased that he has secured a new position in his homeland of Australia. In fact, members of our faculty that you have criticized in your posts helped him secure this position. And so we will steadfastly continue to honor him by keeping our mutual legally binding agreement with him. Theology, of course, deeply matters to us. We will continue to teach, declare and defend our historic biblical and theological beliefs in many positive ways in the days ahead.

https://www.facebook.com/tremper.longman/posts/839220956097200

What should be the role of the US military in the world today?

"Don't bluster, don't threaten, but quietly and severely punish bad behavior"

As we continue to see more stories about Isis and what to do about it, and as the debate revs up to suggest that we need to send ground troops in, I think it will be well-worth remembering some history.

I think that in a cold-war environment, that the US’s role absolutely was necessary in securing peace (in the US-vs-USSR rivalry) for 50-odd years in Europe.

This is a different environment, however, and I don’t think that the US can “finish” the Iraq war (and shouldn’t have started -- George Bush 41 was correct to have extracted us from the 1991 conflict as he did).

I was a big fan of Robert Kaplan’s “Supremacy by Stealth” article in 2003, I’m of the opinion that (as he stated) “Our recent effort in Iraq, with its large-scale mobilization of troops and immense concentration of risk, is not indicative of how we will want to act in the future.”

Here is just a small selection from that piece. Kaplan’s recommendations seem relevant today:

The historian Erich S. Gruen has observed that Rome's expansion throughout the Mediterranean littoral may well have been motivated not by an appetite for conquest per se but because it was thought necessary for the security of the core homeland. The same is true for the United States worldwide, in an age of collapsed distances. This American imperium is without colonies, designed for a jet-and-information age in which mass movements of people and capital dilute the traditional meaning of sovereignty. Although we don't establish ourselves permanently on the ground in many locations, as the British did, reliance on our military equipment and the training and maintenance that go along with it (for which the international arms bazaar is no substitute) helps to bind regimes to us nonetheless. Rather than the mass conscription army that fought World War II, we now have professional armed forces, which enjoy the soldiering life for its own sake: a defining attribute of an imperial military, as the historian Byron Farwell noted in Mr. Kipling's Army (1981).

As it was in the days of Noah

i) I'm going to make a few brief observations about the Olivet Discourse. I'm not going to discuss all the exegetical twists and turns of this complex text.

I take the traditional position that this refers to two distinct events: the fall of Jerusalem and the return of Christ. I view the former as past and the latter as future.

ii) One objection to the traditional interpretation is that it allegedly inserts a large temporal gap between the two events. To that objection I'd say several things:

a) It's inaccurate to say the traditional interpretation inserts a temporal gap. Rather, the text itself is indefinite on the duration of the interval. 

b) Apropos (b), at the time Jesus spoke, both events were future in relation to the disciples. And assuming a pre-70 date for the Gospels, both events were still future in relation to the original reader. 

But obviously there's a shift in the viewpoint of a modern reader. At least one of the events is past in relation to the modern reader. So there's a sense in which we're bound to see it somewhat differently than the original audience. 

c) There's an unspecified interval between Christ's prediction and the fall of Jerusalem. The disciples had no idea how soon that would take place. To make allowance for a temporal gap between the fall of Jerusalem and the return of Christ is no more ad hoc than making allowance for a temporal gap between the prediction of Jerusalem's downfall and the fulfillment. One way or another, the disciples, the original reader, and later readers must all take a wait-and-see attitude. We find out when they will happen after they happen. 

d) The objection to a temporal gap presumes that if, in fact, there were such a gap Jesus or the Gospel writer would give some indication, perhaps by filling the gap with intervening events.

However, ever so many things happened in the decades between the prediction and the fall of Jerusalem which Jesus and/or the Gospel writers don't bother to detail. If, therefore, there was a gap between the fall of Jerusalem and the return of Christ, there's no reason to expect Christ or the Gospel writers to spell out a series of intervening events. 

e) This also goes to the nature of Biblical priorities. From a theological or eschatological perspective, after the fall of Jerusalem, what's the next big event? Sure, lots of things may happen between then and now–things which you and I may think are important–but do they rise to the level of the next big event? If we're waiting for the coin to drop, that's the Parousia. Nothing in-between measures up.

iii) Why do the Gospel writers record both predictions? How does the general reader benefit from having that information? 

Let's put if this way: why should the reader believe Christ's prediction about the end of the world? Well, for one thing, because he accurately predicted the fall of Jerusalem. 

In fact, in the Olivet Discourse itself, we have a similar principle concerning Noah's flood, where a past event sets the precedent for a future event (Mt 24:37-39). Likewise, Christ's ability to predict the fall of Jerusalem attests his ability to predict the end of the world. If the former came to pass, we can expect the latter to eventuate as well. We can't directly verify the future. But if he made a verifiable prediction about what is now a past event, then that corroborates his foreknowledge. 

Vigilante movies

http://godawa.com/movieblog/equalizer-cathartic-justice-unjust-america/