Is the "Mountain Peaks of Prophecy" Interpretation correct?
If we read into Matthew 24:1-51, we come across many things that Jesus spoke to the disciples about such as "foretelling the destruction of the Temple", "signs of the End of the Age", "the abomination of desolation", "the coming of the Son of Man", and "nobody knowing the day or the hour of the coming of the Son of Man".
Many of these words or prophecies spoken by Jesus were in their future, but about 200 years ago, many theologians have came to the theory that the future events spoken by Jesus were not only in their future but in our future by using the principle of "mountain peaks of prophecy" interpretation.
Q: So what is this "mountain peaks of prophecy" interpretation?
A: This theory was made popular by Clarence Larkin (1850-1924) who also promoted the dispensationalism theory.
In a gist, it means that a person is standing on the left and looking towards the right. The scene is a timeline, which represents the progress of time. And this person, a prophet, can only tell you what he saw in the peaks because the valleys are hidden away. They cannot tell you what lies in between the peaks. And because the mountains are so far away (in the future), he cannot tell you which mountain is nearer and which is farther. So when the prophet speaks, he describes prophecies that are in the immediate future and some of them are hundreds or even thousands of years in the future.
This method of interpretation is very subjective and you can force verses to come into a particular set of presumed timeline that had been pre-conceived. This method will fail if you read the scriptures within its Context. For example, the disciples asked Jesus a question in Mat 24:3, and if you use this method of interpretation, then the whole timeline will go haywire, and you will be bombarded with several prophets with very diverse and different types of interpretations.
Jesus was never haphazard in answering his disciples. He never jumped from place to place in His answers and provide more confusion to His message.
This "mountain peaks of prophecy" was originally started by a German Lutheran theologian called John Albert Bengel (1687-1752).
See a write up on Johann Albrecht Bengel:
It may be interesting to note that Bengel calculated the date of 18th June 1836 to be the exact date for the second coming of Jesus Christ, which of course is incorrect and in grave error.
Bengel wrote in his book "Bengel's New Testament Commentary" and introduced the "mountain range/peak of prophecy" theory in his commentary on Matthew 24:29, on biblical interpretation. This is what he said:
[ The English has "immediately". You will say it is a great leap from the destruction of Jerusalem to the end of the world which is sub-joined to it "immediately". I reply a prophecy resembles a landscape painting wich represents distinctly the houses, paths and bridges in the foreground but brings together into a narrow space most widely severed valleys and mountains in the distance.
Such a view, should they who studied prophecy have of the future to which the prophecy refers. And the eyes of the disciples, who in their question had connected the end of the Temple with that of the world, are left somewhat in the dark, (for it was not yet time to know). Hence, they afterwards with entire harmony imitated the Lord's language and declared that the end was at hand. ]
Bengel said that the disciples believed that the fall of the Temple and the end of the world were the same event and they were left somewhat in the dark since it wasn't the time for them to know. And thus from that time onward, they imitated the Lord's language and say the end is at hand.
This interpretation is contextually wrong. It means Jesus spoke out ahead of the disciples and then did not even tell them that He was speaking out ahead of them, and it ignores the word "immediately" in Mat 24:29.
Mat 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
Let us look at this word "immediately". The Greek word for "immediately" is the word "eutheos" meaning "at once", "soon", "as soon as", "forthwith", "immediately", "shortly", "straightway".
It has never meant to be a far off amount of time in the future or someday.
To compare see how the word "immediately" or "eutheos" is used in many other verses.
Mat 3:16 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately (eutheos) he went up from the water.
Mat 8:3 And Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, “I will; be clean.” And immediately (eutheos) his leprosy was cleansed.
Mat 20:34 And Jesus in pity touched their eyes, and immediately (eutheos) they recovered their sight.
Mar 1:31 And he came and took her by the hand, and lifted her up; and immediately (eutheos) the fever left her, and she ministered unto them.
Mar 2:12 And immediately (eutheos) he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all.
and many more verses. In these verses, does it mean that it took many years for their healing, when Jesus said immediately? No, it was straightaway.
See Milton Terry's Biblical Hermeneutics (1898) on what he wrote about Matthew 24:29.
[ But we can find no word or sentence which appears designed to impress anyone with the idea that the destruction in question and the Parousia would be far separate as to time. The one, it is said, will immediately follow the other, and all will take place before that generation shall pass away.
On what valid hermeneutical principles, then, can it be fairly claimed that this discourse of Jesus comprehends all futurity? Why should we look for the revelations of far distant ages and millenniums of human history in a prophecy expressly limited to the generation in which it was uttered?
We are driven, then, by every sound principle of hermeneutics, to conclude that Matthew 24:29-31, must be included within the time-limits of the discourse of which it forms an essential part, and cannot be legitimately applied to events far separate from the final catastrophe of the Jewish state. ]
Question: What is the purpose of this "mountain peak of prophecy" interpretation theory?
Answer: There is no purpose and we do not need it unless we have a pre-conceived idea of the "end times", and we try to fit in the words of Jesus into the different "peaks" of the interpretation. In that case, you will have to ignore the Context of the whole chapter and put in their own interpretation in the timeline that fits their theory of prophecy interpretation. This is called making the scriptures work within their own theory.
Let us look at another extra-biblical author called Ezra P Gould who wrote "Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Mark's Gospel" in 1896, who commented on Mark 13, which is a parallel passage to Matthew 24:29.
[ We come now to the coming of the Son of Man with its accompanying portents. It is placed after the destruction of Jerusalem but in the same general period in those days after the affliction. The portents, the darkening of the sun and moon, the falling of the stars belong to that event and not to the destruction of Jerusalem. This separation of the two events which might seem to belong together, means that the fall of Jerusalem was a preparation for the Advent, which cannot take place without it. It is the end of the old order which might precede the beginning of the new. This does not discount the possibility of anything happening in our future. ]
See a write up on E P Gould:
