Studying Grammar and the Contextual Flow of The Olivet Discourse to Disprove the Doctrine of Dispensationalism

Michael F. Blume

© 2010 Michael F. Blume

All Rights Reserved

Let us summarize so far the facts that refute the ridiculous claim by futurists that Matt 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 present two totally different conversations.
  • An antecedent for any given account's pronouns (in this case, for the pronoun "these" in the disciples' first question to Jesus in all three accounts) must be included in the writing itself without forcing the reader to look elsewhere in another book. When a dispensationalist whom I know stated that the antecedent for THESE THINGS in Matt 24 and Mark 13 is missing and must be found in Luke 21:27, he showed rife violation of the rules of common reading and grammar. Hermeneutics (manner of interpretation) requires one to not abandon the rules of grammar. He attempted at one point to say the original writings were in Greek so that means it is not a matter of English grammar but Greek grammar. That is a bloating red herring. In Greek grammar or any other language's grammar there are pronouns preceded by antecedents as well. No language would refer you to something indicated by a pronoun without having first stated what that pronoun actually was by way of an antecedent. Languages would make no sense if they presented thoughts the way he is implying the Greek does. 
  • Since there is no other antecedent mentioned between the first question the disciples asked and the next one, then the next question's reference to the SIGN must likewise be the same as for the pronoun "these" in the first. As Matthew speaks of the SIGN of His coming, Luke and mark both speak of the SIGN when "these things" shall come to pass. Nothing indicates more than one conversation, but rather the same conversation recounted by the three writers using variation of terms. I repeated this many times, but this is the case for any given common account found in all three gospels. If one example of ANOTHER ACCOUNT that is SIMILAR in pattern and layout can be proved to be speaking of MORE THAN ONE EVENT, as futurists claim is the case with this issue, then futurists might have a case. But to say all the accounts that are similar in layout and pattern in the three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) all are accounts of one and the same story in all cases except Matt 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21, is suspicious to say the least!
  • The pronouns "ye," "your" and "your" are indicated by futurists to refer to the people actually hearing Jesus in Luke 21, but not referring to the same people in Matt 24 and Mark 13, since they think Matt 24 and Mark 13 are about people who would not even be born and live for another two thousand years. No writer is that inept to refer to people who have nothing to do with the audience to whom words are spoken such as "Ye," "you" and "your". A child could recognize this!

But alas, recently a dispensationalist whom I know has violated his own argument that formerly said the statement about "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord" was not the topic of his second discussion on the mount of Olives, but rather the first discussion at the temple grounds. He formerly claimed that the long distance from the temple to the Mount of Olives brought a pause in the overall context, and the questions the disciples asked on the Mount of Olives are recorded in Mark 13 and Matt 24, but the discussion at the temple grounds is only recorded in Luke 21. Anything said at the temple grounds was what was asked about in Luke 21's series of questions. And although the same series of questions are found in Mark 13, he declared those questions were not from the same conversation, and did not refer to anything said at the temple grounds. Because Luke 21 did not say they asked those questions on the Mount of Olives, he contends this is evidence that they were not asked there. But he then argued that Luke 21:24 ends the conversation at the temple grounds and begins the second conversation in verse 25. But he said only the last half of the second conversation is recounted in Luke. Meanwhile, if you look at the whole record in Luke (where futurists claim are two conversations), the whole record matches the overall single conversation related in Mark and Matthew!




© Copyright 2010 Rightly Dividing the Word - All Rights Reserved

Please assume that all materials on this website are copyrighted by Rightly Dividing the Word.  For permission and details see our terms and conditions.  For problems with this website, please contact webmaster1@rightlydividingtheword.com.