Final Thoughts on the Revelation Symposium

by Sam Waldron | Mar 8, 2013 | Eschatology, New Testament, Systematic Theology

I thought I would conclude these blog posts with a few stray comments on the Revelation Symposium.

First, I wanted to say more, but had no opportunity at the Symposium, about the danger of Partial Preterism. But let me first qualify what I want to say.

I admit the difference between partial and full preterism. It is important to acknowledge that partial preterism lies within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy, while full or hyper-preterism does not. It is important to make clear that Gary Demar and many others reject hyper-preterism as heresy. He said so at the Symposium. That is all good. I think he is right about hyper-preterism.

But now let me give my worry. To put my concern in a nutshell, it is this. The same hermeneutic which can ascribe everything in Matthew 24 to the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and can understand Revelation 1:7 (BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.) of the same event must lead, it seems to me, to full preterism. Yes, I know that Gary and others do not want it to go there, but I think it does. They have probably have attempted it, but they need to explain why it does not. If these passages can apply to AD 70, why not 1 and 2 Thessalonians and every other reference to the parousia of Christ in the New Testament? Partial Preterism is responsible for the logic of its hermeneutic.

And along this line I have another worry. The assumption that the language of shortness and nearness necessarily implies an event within the generation of those living at the time of Christ’s first advent is the very logic that full preterism uses to teach its views. An examination of the uses of “near” and its relatives in the New Testament show that it is used of Christ’s Second Coming bodily and visibly in glory, I think. Look them up, and if you can take all of the events described as near as a reference to AD 70, you will be on well on your way to hyper-preterism!

I have responded to this assumption about nearness in the essay: “A Reply to the Hyper-Preterist Argument from Imminence.”  Though the linked essay is addressed against full preterism, its reasoning applies to the partial preterist argument as wells.

Second, wanting to be an equal opportunity offender, let me say that one thing that Jim Hamilton said also worried me. Before I tell you my worry, I do want to say that I do deeply appreciate Jim and his labors. Having said that, however, and before I come to my deepest worry, I have to say that I think it is mislabeling to call Jim’s position, futurism. He thinks that the seven seals refer to events characteristic of the entire inter-adventual period. He thinks that the 1260 days of Revelation 11 refers to the church age and the two witnesses to the church. He is correct, I think. But this is not futurism. He should have made clear at the symposium that he was defending a highly modified form of futurism.

But here is my worry. Jim said in the roundtable q&a that every ethnic Jew alive at Christ’s coming would be converted by seeing Christ’s return. My response at the time was, “Wow, really?!” I am really surprised that Jim believes this and hope that I misunderstood him, but I do not think I did. Again, I do not want to make Jim responsible for actually holding what I believe are the logical implications of his position. He is responsible, however, for the good and necessary consequences of what he believes.

What are they? First, being converted by seeing Christ return is not salvation by faith, it is salvation by sight. Sight and faith are two different things (2 Cor. 5:7). Second, the Bible teaches that people must repent before Christ’s return. Christ delays His return so that people can be repent before He comes (2 Pet. 3:9). No Jew and no Gentile will be saved unless they repent before Christ’s return. Third, if the privilege of being converted by Christ’s Second Coming only applies to the Jews, then you have the return in principle of the Dispensational tendency to teach different ways of salvation for their two peoples of God. Fourth, neither Romans 11, nor Revelation 1:7, requires this interpretation. Even if you think Romans 11 teaches a mass conversion of the Jews–and I doubt it–, you still do not have to say that they are converted by seeing Christ’s Second Coming. In fact, in context you have to say that they are justified by believing in Christ before He comes again. Neither Revelation 1:7, nor Zechariah 12:10-14, requires this kind absolute universalism of the conversion of every ethnic Jew. Nor should they be used to contradict the clear NT teaching that men must be saved by faith prior to the Second Coming of Christ.

But let me conclude by once more congratulating both Jim and Gary on their fine presentations and faithfulness to God’s Word as they understand it!

Sam Waldron

Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.

The Meaning of Matthew 24, Part 2

by Sam Waldron | Mar 6, 2013 | Eschatology, New Testament, Systematic Theology

In their presentations of preterism and futurism both Gary Demar and Jim Hamilton explained their views of Matthew 24. I used my 20 minute response time in the afternoon to address this. I argued that Gary was right about the meaning of generation in Matthew 24:34 and that Jim was right about the Second Coming of Christ in glory at the consummation of the age being in view in Matthew 24:36 and that both were wrong to deny the others’ view of these matters. Here in two parts from More of the End Times Made Simple is my understanding of Matthew 24.

Following the outline specified [previously], let us now examine the teaching of Matthew 24:1-36.

Introduction:  The Disciples’ Questions (vv. 1-3)

Matthew 24:¹ And Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. ² And He answered and said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here shall be left upon another, which will not be torn down.” ³ And as He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

The Olivet Discourse is the answer to the disciples’ questions found in v. 3.  As Murray says, “…we should most probably regard the disciples as thinking of the destruction of  the temple and the coming (parousia) as coincident…”  In other words, it seems clear from their questions that the disciples assumed that destruction of the temple could mean nothing less than the end of the world.  This confusion could not go uncorrected.  As we shall see, it does not.

I.              The Outstanding Features characterizing This Period (vv. 4-14)

Matthew 24:⁴ And Jesus answered and said to them, “See to it that no one misleads you. ⁵ “For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many. ⁶ And you will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars; see that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end. ⁷ For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes. ⁸ But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs. ⁹ Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations on account of My name. ¹⁰ And at that time many will fall away and will deliver up one another and hate one another. ¹¹ And many false prophets will arise, and will mislead many. ¹² And because lawlessness is increased, most people’s love will grow cold. ¹³ But the one who endures to the end, he shall be saved. ¹⁴ “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a witness to all the nations, and then the end shall come.

These verses give an overview of the entire interadventual period (the period between Christ’s first and second advents).  The mention of the end in verses 6, 13, and 14 in comparison with verse 3 shows that Christ’s perspective in these verses reaches out to the very end of the age and His own Second Coming.  It is clear from these verses, therefore, that the gospel age will be characterized by tribulation.  War, famine, earthquake, tribulation, apostasy, persecution, false religions, increased lawlessness, and the waning of affection for Christ will be the age-long experience of the church of Christ.

II.            The Great Tribulation during This Period (vv. 15-28)

Matthew 24:¹⁵ Therefore when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), ¹⁶ then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains; ¹⁷ let him who is on the housetop not go down to get the things out that are in his house; ¹⁸ and let him who is in the field not turn back to get his cloak. ¹⁹ But woe to those who are with child and to those who nurse babes in those days! ²⁰ “But pray that your flight may not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath; ²¹ for then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall. ²² And unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days shall be cut short. ²³ Then if anyone says to you, ‘Behold, here is the Christ,’ or ‘There He is,’ do not believe him. ²⁴ For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. ²⁵ “Behold, I have told you in advance. ²⁶ “If therefore they say to you, ‘Behold, He is in the wilderness,’ do not go forth, or,‘ Behold, He is in the inner rooms, ‘do not believe them. ²⁷ For just as the lightning comes from the east, and flashes even to the west, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be. ²⁸ “Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.

Having given the big picture, verses 15-28 focus on the event of most concern to Jesus’ Jewish disciples, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. Murray notes,  “In verse 15 it is not as apparent as it is in Luke 21:20 that Jesus is dealing with the destruction of Jerusalem.  In the latter the reference is explicit:  “When ye see Jerusalem encompassed by armies, then know ye that its desolation is drawn nigh.”  All the language of the passage clearly describes the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem and gives warnings about it pertinent to Jesus’ first century Jewish disciples.

In particular the warning against believing that an imminent or secret appearance of the Messiah is to be associated with these events must be noticed.  This makes clear that it is not a period just before the consummation of the age that is in view.

Some have found an objection to the interpretation here defended in the strong language of Matthew 21:21 and 22.  Many have felt that such language could only describe the so-called great tribulation at the end of the age.

• This objection presses the language to ridiculous, literal lengths never intended by the Lord and ignores the possibility of the use of legitimate hyperbole by the Lord.  (For examples of hyperbole see Matt. 5:29; 23:24; John 12:19; Luke 14:26; Mark 9:23).
• It also is forced to ignore the plain reference of the rest of the passage to the events of AD 70.
• Unless one adopts a strictly futurist view, one (say a proponent of the double fulfillment view) is forced to allow that some fulfillment of this horrifying prediction must have occurred in AD 70.
• This interpretation also displays ignorance of the massive and horrifying massacre of the Jews at this time.  A reading of Josephus account is recommended.¹
• This objection also fails to appreciate the covenantal ramifications of this event for the Jews.  In this event the wrath of God came upon them to the uttermost (1 Thessalonians 2:16).

III.           The Second Coming ending This Period (vv. 29-33)

Matthew 24:²⁹ But 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 the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken, ³⁰ and then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory. ³¹ And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other. ³² “Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender, and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; ³³ even so you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door.

With this section of Matthew 24 one of the major difficulties with Professor Murray’s view is confronted. Murray recognizes this and says:

When we come to verse 29, we encounter some difficulty.  For ‘the tribulation of those days’ might appear to refer to the ‘great tribulation of verse 21 which is associated particularly with the desolation of Jerusalem.  How could it be said that, immediately after 70 A. D., the events specified in verses 29-31 took place?”

To put the problem in other words, verse 29 seems to say that immediately following the destruction of Jerusalem the coming of Christ in glory occurs.  How then can verses 15-28 refer to a destruction of Jerusalem that took place in 70 A. D. and verse 29 refer to the future coming of Christ in glory?

Very properly Murray once again finds the solution in the parallel passage in Luke 21.  He shows that Luke inserts words of Jesus not recorded by Matthew that wonderfully help to clarify the meaning.  Here are the words that Luke inserts between what is recorded in Matthew 24:28 and what is recorded in Matthew 24:29.

Luke 21:²⁴ and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

These words make very clear that “the tribulation of those days” mentioned in Matthew 24:29 includes not only the Jews’ falling by the edge of the sword, but also their being led into captivity, the times of the Gentiles, and thus, the entire interadventual period.  The comments of Murray at this point are exceedingly helpful:

Luke includes an observation in Jesus’ discourse not included in Matthew’s account, and it belongs to what precedes Matthew 24:29, and must therefore be inserted.  The observation given in Luke 21:24 is that “Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.”  So, in view of this element, it is apparent that our Lord’s delineation extended far beyond the destruction of Jerusalem and the events immediately associated with it.  Hence the period  “those days”, in Matthew 24:29, must be regarded as the days that extend to the threshold of what is specified in verses 29-31.  But, apart from Luke 21:24, it would be reasonable, even on the basis of Matthew’s own account, to take the expression “the tribulation of those days” inclusively and not restrictively, “Those days” could properly be taken to mean the days preceding that of which Jesus now proceeds to speak, the days depicted already in verses 4-14, and “the tribulation” not exclusively the “great tribulation” of verse 21, but the tribulation which, according to the earlier part of the discourse, is represented as characterizing the interadventual period as a whole.²

Conclusion:  The Lord’s Distinction (vv. 34-36)

Matthew 24:³⁴ Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. ³⁵ Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away. ³⁶ But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.

Murray begins his treatment of these verses by a lengthy treatment of the meaning of generation in verse 34.  He argues that it is “wholly untenable” to make this word mean race rather than generation.  He uses three arguments.  First, he argues that in the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament in use at the time of Christ) this Greek word translates a Hebrew word that means generation and not race.  Second, he argues that if Jesus had intended to say race, another and clearer Greek word was available.  Third, he argues that the meaning of the word generation in the New Testament is “clearly that of the living generation, or the generations in succession to one another”.

In particular Murray notes at this point the clearly parallel use of generation in the near context, Matthew 23:36.  Notice this statement in its context.  It seems beyond doubt that this parallel use is meant of the then living generation of Jews.

³⁴ “Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city,  ³⁵ so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.  ³⁶ “Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.  ³⁷ “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.  ³⁸ “Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!

With this understanding of the word, generation, required in verse 34, Murray then addresses the obvious question raised by the verse.

How, then, are we to resolve the question posed by the events specified in the preceding context, especially in verses 29-31, which did not occur in the generation of which our Lord spoke?³

Murray’s reply to this question is to argue that there is a contrast intended in verses 34-36 between the destruction of Jerusalem and the coming of Christ in glory. Matthew 24:34-36 is often misunderstood because people do not appreciate the contrast that Jesus intends in these verses.  Verse 34 must be contrasted with verse 36 or the entire meaning of the passage will be mistaken.

That there is a contrast intended in these verses is plain from three things high-lighted in these verses.  First, the fact that verse 36 begins with the word, but, must not be overlooked.  This conjunction in Greek commonly is used to introduce a contrasting thought.

Second, the contrast in the two different demonstrative pronouns used in verses 34 and 36 respectively must not be overlooked.  “These” is the immediate demonstrative pronoun used to designate something relatively near at hand.  It is appropriately used to describe the relatively near occurrence of all the things associated with the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem.  It is so used throughout the passage (Matt. 23:36; 24:3, 8, 33).  “That” is the remote demonstrative pronoun used to designate something that is relatively distant.  It is appropriately used to designate the day and hour of Christ’s coming in glory. ⁴

Third, the contrast in the matter of time signs also cannot be overlooked.  ”This generation” as Murray shows is clearly a reference to the then living generation of Jews.  Thus, a general time sign is given for the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem.  When Jesus says that “no one knows” including Himself of the day and hour of His return, there is a plain distinction introduced as to time signs between the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Coming of Christ.  No time sign of any kind is given for the Second Coming.  (There are signs, but no time signs of the Second Coming.)

¹For a summary of Josephus’ description and an extended response to the objection in question, cf. J. Marcellus Kik, An Eschatology of Victory (Presbyterian and Reformed,1971), 112-120.

Sam Waldron

Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.

The Meaning of Matthew 24, Part 1

by Sam Waldron | Mar 4, 2013 | Eschatology, New Testament, Systematic Theology

In their presentations of preterism and futurism both Gary Demar and Jim Hamilton explained their views of Matthew 24. I used my 20 minute response time in the afternoon to address this. I argued that Gary was right about the meaning of generation in Matthew 24:34 and that Jim was right about the Second Coming of Christ in glory at the consummation of the age being in view in Matthew 24:36 and that both were wrong to deny the others’ view of these matters. Here in two parts from More of the End Times Made Simple is my understanding of Matthew 24.

So far I have attempted to emphasize much-neglected passages which teach very clearly the growth and expansion of the church promised by Christ.  It is true that there is another side to this story.  There will be tribulation for the church as well.

One passage is often identified with this aspect of the church’s prospects.  This passage is Matthew 24:1-36. The Olivet Discourse of our Lord is found not only in Matthew 24, but also in Mark 13 and Luke 21.  It has been the subject of great debate.  Thus, the exact nature of what it teaches about the tribulation of the church is also debated.

There are at least four major ways in which it has been interpreted.  First and most familiar in our day is the futurist interpretation.  This view sees the great tribulation and coming of Christ spoken of in this passage as future and focused on the Jews during the final, great tribulation before Christ returns.¹  Second and growing today in popularity is the preterist view.²  This view sees the great tribulation and coming of Christ spoken of in this passage as past and fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70.  Often held by postmillennialists, this view sees no reference to any present tribulation of the church in this passage.  It is thought to speak exclusively of the tribulations of the Jews leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem.  Third and also quite popular is the double fulfillment view.  This view sees the great tribulation and coming of Christ as being fulfilled both in the destruction of Jerusalem and in a future tribulation and coming of Christ.  Thus, the tribulation is viewed in its second fulfillment as the tribulation of the church.³  The fourth view is—for lack of a better description—John Murray’s view.  Murray regards the great tribulation mentioned in the passage as fulfilled, but the coming of Christ mentioned as yet future.  He sees these two events as contrasted in the passage.⁴  This is the view I hold.  It locates the tribulation of this passage primarily in the tribulations of the Jews leading up and including the destruction of Jerusalem, but it also finds descriptions in the passage of the troubles which will encompass Christ’s disciples during the entire interadventual period.  It does not see this passage as focused on a great tribulation of the church at the end of the age.

It is not my purpose to attempt any lengthy rebuttal of the three views that I regard as faulty.  Each of them seem, however, to confront immediately certain serious difficulties.  Let me provide a brief rebuttal to each of these competing views of the passage by pointing out the most serious objections to each of them.

The futurist view in applying this passage to the end of this age fails to give due weight to the obvious reference in vv. 15-28 to the historical circumstances of the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70.  It simply cannot be denied that in the parallel passage (Luke 21) the language used describes the events leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.  It is strained in my view to argue that these parallel passages refer to different events.  It also fails to give due weight to Jesus’ teaching that His return is not imminent at the time of this tribulation (Matt. 24:23-27).  The futurist view assumes that the Second Coming has already begun to occur or is about to occur during the future Great Tribulation.

The preterist view  has a similar problem with what appears to be a clear reference to the coming of Christ  in glory in vv. 29-31.  While the preterist view explains this language in terms of similar figurative language used for historical judgments in the Old Testament, it entangles itself in a number of difficulties in doing so.  First, if such language as we have in the Olivet Discourse can be explained so as not to require a Second Coming of the Christ in glory, it seems hard to find any language in the New Testament which would not be capable of such explanation.  Hence, the preterist interpretation endangers the orthodox doctrine of the Second Coming and is in danger of exegetically justifying its evil twin, Hyper-Preterism.  Second, the reference to the end of the age in Matthew 24 clearly refers in a parallel passage to something more than the end of the Jewish dispensation.  When the disciples ask about the coming of the end of the age in verse 3, this question sets the agenda for Jesus’ response to their questions in the rest of the passage.  The language they use is precisely the same which Jesus used in Matthew 13:39, 40, 49 and 28:20.  When he speaks in parallel language of “the end” in verses 6, 13, 14, he is responding to their question about the consummation of the age.  The problem with the preterist interpretation is that Jesus’ comments about the end or consummation of this age cannot be adequately explained short of wholesale Hyper-Preterism.  Once again the preterist interpretation leads directly to Hyper-Preterism (Luke 20:34-36).  Finally, it appears to me that there is a direct refutation of the preterist view in Luke 21.  In Luke 21:24-27 there is a description of the destruction of Jerusalem and the events which follow it including the exile of the Jews into all the nations and the times of the Gentiles.  Only after these events does Christ return.  This cannot be a coming of Christ in AD 70 at the destruction of Jerusalem.

The double fulfillment view compels us to make identical language refer to two completely different events.  This creates impossible exegetical difficulties.   Hendriksen, in fact, admits that it is impossible to disentangle the language and tell which language refers to what event.⁵

The attempt is made by the double fulfillment view to explain this by means of the flat perspective of Old Testament prophecy, which we considered [previously in the book]. This means there is a kind of double fulfillment with regard to many Old Testament prophecies.  I have acknowledged that Old Testament prophets were characterized by a flat prophetic perspective with regard to the coming of the kingdom which is now unfolded in the two-stage coming of Christ and the kingdom.  But I am not convinced that this is at all the same thing as the double fulfillment view of Matthew 24.

First, Christ coming in the clouds of heaven may refer to both His ascension and Second Coming because both are aspects of His (single) exaltation.  This is different than being required to somehow find both a past and future fulfillment of the following passage:

Matthew 24: ¹⁶ then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains.  ¹⁷ “Whoever is on the housetop must not go down to get the things out that are in his house.  ¹⁸ “Whoever is in the field must not turn back to get his cloak.  ¹⁹ “But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days!  ²⁰ “But pray that your flight will not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath.

Second, even if it were the same, we have seen that the flattened prophetic perspective has given way now that the kingdom has come.  The least in the kingdom is now greater than John the Baptist in this regard (Matthew 11:11).  If we allow the double fulfillment view to invade the interpretation of New Testament prophecy, how can we know for sure that there is not a third and fourth coming of Christ to follow the second?

Third, the double fulfillment view runs the risk of overthrowing the hermeneutical good sense of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith that says in Chapter 1, paragraph 9 that the true and full sense of Scripture is not manifold but one.

Fourth, how will the double fulfillment view deal with the straightforward language of Luke 21?  Quite clearly, there is no double fulfillment of the parallel passage there.  Luke 21 in chronological sequence deals with the suffering of Christ’s disciples at the hands of the Jews (vv. 16-19), the surrounding of Jerusalem by armies (v. 20), the necessity of distressing flight from Jerusalem before its destruction (vv. 21-23), the actual conquest and destruction of Jerusalem and its inhabitants (v. 24a), the exile of the Jews into all the nations (v. 24b), the times of the Gentiles (v. 24c), and finally the Second Coming of Christ (vv. 25-27).

But the best rebuttal for deficient views of Matthew 24 is the presentation of the proper view.  These faulty views will be best refuted by simply presenting the interpretation of Professor Murray mentioned above.  The following exposition is deeply indebted to his fine treatment of this passage. Here is the outline of Matthew 24:1-36 which Murray provides.

Theme:  The Interadventual Period and the Advent of Christ (Matthew 24 and 25)
 Introduction:  The Disciples’ Questions (vv. 1-3)

1. I.              The Outstanding Features characterizing This Period (vv. 4-14)
2. II.            The Great Tribulation during This Period (vv. 15-28)
3. III.           The Second Coming ending This Period (vv. 29-33)

Conclusion:  The Lord’s Distinction (vv. 34-36)

Sam Waldron

Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.

Interpretation that takes into account the Structure and Theme of the Revelation

by Sam Waldron | Mar 1, 2013 | Eschatology, New Testament, Systematic Theology

I was recently involved in symposium on the Book of Revelation sponsored by several churches in Reno, Nevada and held at Sierra Bible Church. Gary Demar defended a preterist, Jim Hamilton a futurist, and I an Idealist approach to the Book. The symposium consisted of three major presentations 55 minutes in length in the morning and three 20 minute responses and question and answer time in the afternoon. Here are the final three principles under which I presented the hermeneutical framework of Modified Idealism.

III.      Non-Consecutive Interpretation that takes into account the Recapitulatory Structure of the Book of Revelation

Biblical prophecy often has a non-consecutive structure that recapitulates or repeats different perspectives about the same period of time.¹  After his fine exposition of Matthew 24-25, John Murray carefully underscores this in one of his conclusions:

 1.  The discourse, as to structure, is recapitulatory to a considerable extent.  It is not, therefore, continuously progressive.  We are repeatedly brought to the advent and informed of its various features, concomitants, and consequences (vss. 14, 29-31, 37-41; 25:31-46).  We should expect for this reason, that revelation respecting the future would in other cases follow this pattern.  At least we should be alert to the propriety of this structure in predictive prophecy.²

Murray may be thinking of the Book of Revelation.  At any rate, it is clear that Revelation is not a consecutive, chronological, prophecy of history.  Some interpreters (for example, those of the historicist and futurist schools) have begun with chapter four and assumed that each prophecy occurs in consecutive, chronological order in history right through chapter 22.  The seven seals, seven trumpets, and seven bowls, for instance, occur in consecutive chronological order not just in the visions of Revelation, but in history.  Whatever one’s conclusion on the structure of the Book of Revelation, this view must be rejected.

There are clear instances of repetition or recapitulation in the Book of Revelation.  For instance, Rev. 11:18 speaks of the final judgment, while the immediately following passage (cf. 12:3, 5) returns to the period of Christ’s first advent.  (Even Preterists must admit recapitulation here—even if they think the judgment of Revelation 11 is the destruction of Jerusalem.)  This clearly shows that recapitulation must be taken into account in the interpretation of the Book of Revelation and that systems of interpretation (like that of historicism) which insist on a consecutive, chronological interpretation of the Book cannot be seriously entertained.

We may once more illustrate this principle in terms of Revelation 20.  Simply because Revelation 20 follows the description of what is apparently, though figuratively, the second advent of Christ in chapter 19, this does not demand that the historical fulfillment of the visions in Revelation 20 be chronologically subsequent to the historical fulfillment of the visions in chapter 19.  Just as Revelation 12 takes us back to the beginning of the gospel age, so also may Revelation 20 do the same.

By way of further explanation, let me qualify the recapitulatory character of the Book of Revelation in several ways.  First, I do not think it necessary to my thesis, nor do I claim here, to present an overall schema of the Book of Revelation or to specify how many such recapitulations should be enumerated.

Second, recognizing recapitulation in the structure of Revelation is not contrary to recognizing other literary structures.  For instance, Jim in his book on Revelation has a very interesting and compelling diagram of the chiastic structure of Revelation.  In it he asserts that Revelation 11:15-19 occupies the central position in the entire book.  I think he may be right, but I do not think this is contrary at all to my recognizing that the transition from chapter 11 to chapter 12 is a prime example of recapitulation in the Book of Revelation.

Third and finally, recognizing recapitulation as a fundamental structure of the Book of Revelation does not contradict a kind of progression in the Revelation.  Let me put it this way, the recapitulation of Revelation is not a circle.  It is a spiral.  William Hendriksen affirms this in his More Than Conquerors.  He divides the book into seven cycles:

(1)  The book consists of seven sections.
(2)  These seven sections are parallel.  Each of them spans the entire dispensation from the first to the second coming of Christ…³

Later, however, Hendriksen asserts that each of these parallel sections (or recapitulations) focus more and more attention on the consummation of the gospel age.  He writes,  “The Seven Sections of the Apocalypse are Arranged in an Ascending, Climactic Order.  There Is Progress In Eschatological Emphasis:  The Final Judgment Is First ANNOUNCED; Then INTRODUCED; Finally, DESCRIBED.  Similarly, the New Heavens and Earth Are Described More Fully in the Final Section Than in Those Which Precede.”  On the next page Hendriksen provides a diagram illustrating this thesis.⁴  We may describe this view of Hendriksen as “progressive parallelism.”

IV.     “Analogy of Faith” Interpretation that takes into account the Kingdom-Theme of Revelation

Under a previous head I have already asserted the principle of interpretation affirmed in 1:9 the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith.  Let me remind you of what it says:

The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture interpretation is the Scripture itself; and therefore when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched by other places that speak more clearly.⁵

This principle of interpretation is known by different names:  the analogy of faith, Scripture interprets Scripture, the clear before the obscure, and the literal before the figurative.  I have talked about some of its implications for the Book of Revelation already, but it seemed right to reserve one of its major applications for separate treatment here.

The present reign of Christ before the eternal state is one of the major themes of the Book of Revelation (Rev. 1:5-7, 9; 5:1-14; 11:15-19; 12:1-10; 20:1-10).  In particular, the millennial reign of Christ is clearly the theme of Revelation 20.  The principle of interpretation under discussion, the analogy of faith, insists that the teaching of the rest of Scripture and particularly that of the New Testament about the reign of Christ be regulative for our understanding of the Book of Revelation as a whole and particularly Revelation 20.

When, therefore, we utilize this principle of the analogy of faith what do we discover?  In the entirety of the rest of Scripture there is no reference to a future interim reign of Christ after the Second Coming and before the eternal state.  On the other hand, in many passages in the New Testament there are clear references to a present interim reign of Christ that began with His first advent and lasts until His Second.

Like Matthew 13 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-28 the theme, therefore, of Revelation 20:1-10 is the coming of the kingdom of God already in the interim reign of Christ before the end.  This points us to the normative importance of less figurative passages like Matthew 13 and 1 Corinthians 15:20-28 for the interpretation of Revelation 20:1-10.  When a comparison is made with those passages, the similarities and parallels are striking.  The significance of this observation against premillennialism is obvious.  They demand that the millennial reign be placed prior to Christ’s second coming.  (The following chart attempts to show the striking character and significance of these parallels.)

The fifth and last principle of interpretation of my Relative Idealism is …

V.      Analytical Interpretation that takes into account the Internal Structure of Revelation.

Any proper interpretation of a passage or book of Scripture involves an honest evaluation of its own structure and development.  This evaluation of the structure and development of a passage begins with the identification of its theme.  Great care must be taken to allow God to speak to us in the text.  In particular, we must not impose our own themes and structures on the text.  We must rather allow the theme and development of the text to manifest itself to us.  I am impressed with the attempt Jim has made to do this with regard to the Book of Revelation in the several diagrams in his book.

The need for such an approach is nowhere more important than in Revelation 20.  Thankfully, both the theme and the development of Revelation 20 are in their essential features clear.  The common theme of these verses is the millennial reign of Christ.  The 1000 years both as the period of Satan’s binding and the period of Christ’s reign is mentioned 6 times in the passage:  once each in verses 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.  These verses clearly divide into three paragraphs:  verses 1-3, verses 4-6, and verses 7-10.  From one point of view the arrangement of these verses appears chronological:

Verses 1-3:        The Inauguration of the Reign
Verses 4-6:        The Continuation of the Reign
Verses 7-10:       The Completion of the Reign

From another point of view an ABA structure may be discerned.

Verses 1-3:        The millennial reign on earth
Verses 4-6:        The millennial reign in heaven
Verses 7-10:       The millennial reign on earth

I cannot provide here the full justification for saying that verses 4-6 deal with the millennial reign in heaven.  But this much at least should be clear.  The subject matter of verses 4-6 is clearly distinct from that of verses 1-3 and 7-10.  Verses 4-6 deal with the “souls” who reign with Christ.  Verses 1-3 and 7-10 deal with Satan and the nations.  When I expound the passage, I follow the following outline or analysis of the passage.  I look first at  The Millennial Reign on Earth (vv. 1-3 and 7-10) and then at The Millennial Reign in Heaven (vv. 4-6).

¹Cf. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 974-83, for an extensive defense of the non-consecutive chronological relation of Revelation 19 and 20:1-10.

Sam Waldron

Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.