Social Media Food Fight in Biblical Studies: Inspiring Philosophy vs. Data Over Dogma (where you learn nothing) Part 1

About a month ago, I stumbled upon a few videos between Dan McClellan (of “Data Over Dogma”) and Michael Jones (of “Inspiring Philosophy”)—a veritable video spat that spanned (to my count) four videos. It was so incredibly frustrating to watch these videos, I felt I had to write a post on the topic, just so I would not have to say that the hour or so I spent watching them was a complete waste of time.

The alleged main topic of the video-spat had to do with Jesus’ prophecy in the Olivet Discourse (found in Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21). McClellan posted a clip of Jones in an interview, where he was asked how one could respond to the charge that Jesus was a failed prophet, because what he prophesied in the Olivet Discourse (namely his second coming and the end of the age would happen within a generation) did not, in fact, happen. Jones’ response boiled down this: (A) most people assume Jesus was claiming his second coming would happen within a generation; but (B) his prophecy (like many prophecies in the Bible) was conditional—therefore, since the stipulations he laid out in that prophecy weren’t fulfilled, that is the reason for the delay of his second coming.

McClellan blasted this explanation and said: (A) the consensus view among critical scholars [i.e. Bart Ehrman and those in his camp] about the Olivet Discourse is that yes, Jesus was saying his second coming would happen within a generation, no, it did not happen, therefore, Jesus was a failed prophet; and (B) any other alternative interpretation of the Olivet Discourse was just “motivated by dogmatism” and trying to sidestep the plain meaning of the text in order to preserve certain dogmatic claims (like inspiration, inerrancy, etc.).

What proceeded in the videos, though, was no detailed, specific arguments by either Jones or McClellan concerning what was actually going on in the Olivet Discourse. Instead, they got into a verbal food fight over whether or not certain prophecies were “fatalistic” or “conditional.” They jumped around from certain prophecies in Jeremiah, to Jonah, to Daniel 2 (Nebuchadnezzar’s dream) and resorted to the standard ploy that happens within so many mindless “academic” debates on social media—hurling accusations of ad hominem, poisoning the well, and other fallacies at each other.

The result was that there was more name-calling and accusations regarding certain fallacies and dogmatism than any substantive argument about the Olivet Discourse. After all those videos, the “arguments” basically boiled down to this: (A) the Olivet Discourse is a conditional prophecy and McClellan is poisoning the well and engaging in ad hominem; (B) the Olivet is not conditional; Jesus said his second coming would happen within a generation and it didn’t, so he’s a failed prophet…and Jones’ argument sucks and can’t stand up in a critical environment.

Or more simply: “You’re a poopy head!” “No, you’re a poopy head!”

Hey, anyone think it might be a good idea to actually make a coherent argument regarding the Olivet Discourse instead? Call me crazy, but claiming it is a conditional prophecy and just appealing to “consensus” and calling each other dunderheads doesn’t strike me as impressive.

Now, it’s true, McClellan is right to say that Jones’ claim that the Olivet Discourse is a conditional prophecy is really weak. It is weak. It is a really lame explanation. That being said, McClellan (in usual McClellan fashion) completely sidestepped any attempt to make a convincing argument for his claim either. As always, he just said, “Consensus says…” and then got off in the weeds, and (like many academics) spouted off impressive sounding words that amount to saying absolutely nothing of value. Bottom line: Jones is wrong to claim the Olivet Discourse is a conditional prophecy, but McClellan is wrong to claim that Jesus is a failed prophet because what he prophesied in the Olivet Discourse didn’t happen within a generation. Anyone with a basic literary competency should see this, and it is clear from these videos that neither Jones nor McClellan possesses it.

That being said, allow me to make an argument regarding what is going on in the Olivet Discourse. Here’s my main argument:

1. Jesus was prophesying about the destruction of the Temple, and that did happen within a generation.
2. Jesus was equating the “coming of the Son of Man” with the destruction of the Temple.
3. Jesus clearly told his disciples that while that would happen within a generation, that the end wouldn’t happen yet.
4. What we know about when Mark, Matthew, and Luke were written testifies to the fact that they clearly would have seen what Jesus said in the Olivet Discourse as having been fulfilled and thus vindicating him as both prophet and Messiah. Simply put, they wouldn’t have included it if they thought that what he prophesied had not come true. (For that matter, if it had not come true, they wouldn’t have passed down what he said or written their works to begin with).
5. The testimony of the early Church (as we see in Eusebius of Caesarea’s History of the Church) shows that they looked at the Olivet Discourse has having been fulfilled with the destruction of the Temple and the Jewish War of AD 66-70.

Let’s Look at the Olivet Discourse
Having stated that, let me first just lay out what Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21 say in their respective passages of the Olivet Discourse. You task as the reader is to consider everything here and think about how the Olivet Discourse would have been understood in the mid-first century. In other words, if Mark, Matthew, and Luke were all written somewhere between AD 60-80, what would people’s reaction be to what Jesus said in the Olivet Discourse?

The Situation:

Jesus and the disciples are coming out of the Temple after confronting the Temple priesthood in the Temple and are now on the Mount of Olives. This is mere days before the Sanhedrin arrests Jesus at night and then takes him to Pilate the next morning. Jesus tells his disciples that the Temple is going to be destroyed.

The Disciples’ Question:

• Mark: “Tell us when these things are going to happen. When these things are about to happen, what sign will consummate everything?”
• Matthew: “Tell us when these things will happen. What will be the sign of your Coming [Parousia] and the consummation of the age?”
• Luke: “Teacher, when will these things happen? What will be the sign when these things are about to happen?”

Jesus’ Response (Part 1):

• Mark 13:5-12: Don’t freak out! There will be a lot of false messiahs! There will be wars and rumors of wars. “This has to happen, but the end won’t happen yet” (13:7). Nation vs. nation; kingdom vs. kingdom; earthquakes; famines—all these are “birth pangs.” You’re going to get the crap beaten out of you—but this has to happen so that the Gospel can be preached to all nations. Everyone will hate you because of me, but if you persevere to the end, you’ll be saved (13:12).
• Matthew 24:4-14: Pretty much says the same thing as Mark 13:5-12. In 24:14, though, Jesus says that after the Gospel is preached to all nations, then the consummation will come.
• Luke 21:8-18: Also has pretty much the same thing as Mark and Matthew, except that in Luke 21:18, Jesus says that those who persevere to the end will gain their souls.

Jesus’ Response (Part 2):

• Mark 13:13-20: Jesus tells the disciples that when they see the Abomination of Desolation “standing where it shouldn’t” (then Mark adds, “The reader should understand!”), they should get out of Jerusalem and “flee to the hills.” It will be the worst tribulation ever (then Mark adds another note saying that God “shortened those days” for the sake of His elect).
• Matthew 24:15-22: Pretty much the same thing as Mark 13:13-20. The only major difference is that when Jesus speaks about the Abomination of Desolation, Matthew includes “as spoken by the prophet Daniel,” and instead of saying, “standing where it should not,” Matthew has “standing in the holy place.”
• Luke 21:19-23: Luke really changes things up. Instead of talking about the Abomination of Desolation at all, Luke has Jesus say, “When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, you’ll know her destruction is near” …so you’d better leave! Luke then has Jesus say that wrath is coming upon the land.

Jesus’ Response (Part 3)

• Mark 13:21-27: Don’t be led astray! I’m telling you this ahead of time. But when that tribulation comes, “the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give her light! The stars will fall out of Heaven, and the powers in Heaven will be shaken! Then they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds with great power and glory!” Then the Son of Man will send out his “angels” to gather His elect from throughout the world.
• Matthew 24:23-31: Mostly the same thing as Mark 13:21-27.
• Luke 21:24-28: Jesus tells his disciples many will fall by the sword, many will be taken captive to the nation, and Jerusalem will be trampled by the nations. In Luke he references the sun, moon, and stars being shaken, and says there will be a lot of fear regarding what is coming upon the world. And he also mentions the Son of Man coming on a cloud with power and glory—and that is when Jesus says, “your deliverance is near.”

Jesus’ Response (Part 4)

• Mark 13:28-37: Jesus uses the example of a fig tree and tells his disciples that when they see these things starting to happen, that “it is near, at the gates.” At this time, Jesus says, “this generation can never pass away until all these things have happened” (Mark 13:30). He then says no one knows exactly when all this will happen, but they should stay alert, they do not know when “the Lord of the house is coming.”
• Matthew 24:32-51: Matthew largely has the same thing as Mark. There are two differences. First, in 24:38-39, he compares the prophesied destruction of Jerusalem (the coming of the Son of Man) to Noah’s flood that came suddenly. Second, in 24:40-41, he says that when it happens, “one will be taken, and one will be left,” whether they are in the field or grinding at the mill. And third, in 24:45-51, he includes an example of wicked servants who beat the other servants because they don’t think the Lord of the house will return soon. When he does, those wicked servants are going to be cast out into the region of the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
• Luke 21:29-36: Luke echoes Mark and Matthew. He mentions the fig tree example, says the Kingdom of God is near, and says “this generation” will not pass away will it all happens.

Until Next Time…
I like to keep my posts roughly to around 2,000 words. Therefore, it will take me a second post to fully tease out and make my argument regarding how we are to understand the Olivet Discourse. As I said earlier, Michael Jones is completely wrong to claim it is a “conditional prophecy.” McClellan is right in saying that by claiming it was a conditional prophecy, Jones is trying to sidestep what the prophecy is clearly saying—wait! No! …rather, what both he and McClellan THINK the prophecy is clearly saying. They are both wrong in thinking that Jesus is saying that his “second coming” (as understood in a “coming down from heaven at some point in the future” kind of way) would happen within a generation of his disciples. McClellan might try to claim that the “only reason” why anyone would go against the “consensus” of scholars like Bart Ehrman and McClellan is because he is trying to cling to some kind of uncritical dogma—but the fact is he (and many others) simply are literarily incompetent when it comes to passages like the Olivet Discourse. Simply put, if you claim that Jesus is predicting his “second coming down from the clouds and the end of the world” in the Olivet Discourse, you are the one injecting your own assumed dogma into the text.

And so, “Mr. Data over Dogma” is letting his biased dogma show. Check back in a day or so for Part 2.