by Sam Waldron | May 9, 2017 | Book Reviews, Eschatology
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
First Criticism: Prophetic foreshortening must not be applied to New Testament prophecy.
We have already seen Waymeyer’s assertion that hermeneutics is primary in the debate between Amillennialists and Premillennialists. (8) I agree and will give first place in my criticisms to my disagreement with Waymeyer’s hermeneutical principles. My first criticism has to do with his notion that we may attribute the double fulfillment or prophetic foreshortening characteristic of Old Testament prophecy to New Testament prophecy. (11, 13, 91, 111)
It is a commonly recognized hermeneutical principle with regard to Old Testament prophecy that it has a kind of flat perspective about the future. Often events that differ vastly in time are predicted together or next to each other in Old Testament prophecy. Waymeyer describes this principle as follows: “As most biblical interpreters recognize, sometimes a given prophecy will predict two or more future events and present them in such a way that it appears they will occur simultaneously, and yet later revelation clarifies that a significant gap of time separates them. Commonly referred to as “telescoping,” “prophetic perspective,” or “prophetic foreshortening,” this phenomenon is often compared to seeing two mountain peaks off in the distance—initially they appear to be right next to each other, but a closer look reveals that they are separated by a valley.” (13) Waymeyer is correct when he goes on to assert: “Most amillennialists recognize this use of prophetic perspective.” (13)
Waymeyer proceeds to apply this principle of prophetic foreshortening to New Testament prophecy. He applies it to the New Testament doctrine of the kingdom to argue for a gap in some prophecies which allows for a millennial kingdom in the age to come. (92) He also applies it to passages which seem to predict that the resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous occur at the same time in order to argue that progressive revelation reveals a telescoping of two far separated events into one. (111)
In my view the application of the prophetic foreshortening or flat perspective of Old Testament prophecy to New Testament prophecy is misguided and has serious consequences. Here I have to admit, however, that some of my fellow amillennialists have not seen the fallacy of applying the principle of prophetic foreshortening to New Testament prophecy. For instance, I have documented in my interpretation of Matthew 24 (in More of the End Times Made Simple) the serious difficulties and even (in my opinion) incomprehensibilities produced by an application of this principle to the Olivet Discourse by some of my amillennial friends.
Thus, though I have no wish to entangle myself in a dispute with both premillennialists and amillennialists, I must insist that the application of prophetic foreshortening to New Testament prophecy is simply wrong. In my next post, I will set before my readers two conclusive arguments for this assertion and against the idea that prophetic foreshortening is characteristic of New Testament prophecy.
Part 5
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.
by Sam Waldron | May 5, 2017 | Book Reviews, Eschatology
Part 1, Part 2
Overview
In my first two posts, I have attempted to introduce and express appreciation for Waymeyer’s Amillennialism and the Age to Come. Here I want to provide an overview of the book and its argument.
Chapter 1 is introductory. An overview of the entire book may be provided by an analysis of that chapter. The headings found in that chapter usefully summarize it.
The Two-Age Model of Amillennialism speaks of it as “one of the strongest arguments for the amillennial view. It also notes the importance of Riddlebarger’s A Case for Amillennialism in presenting it as an argument against Premillennialism.
The Two-Age Model of Amillennialism presents a summary of biblical evidence for the two-age model.
The Two-Age Model as an Interpretive Grid makes the point that “amillennialists have increasingly regarded this model as the hermeneutical lens through which the rest of Scripture, including Revelation 20, should be viewed.” (4)
The Two-Age Model as an Amillennial Argument affirms that amillennialism views it “as a decisive refutation of the kingdom of premillennialism.” (6)
The Need for a Premillennial Response draws the conclusion that Premillennialists must respond to this argumentation. Waymeyer says: “Because any compelling defense of premillennialism must respond to the strongest and most recent argumentation of its theological opponents, a premillennial critique of the two-age model is long overdue.” (7)
Revisiting the Hermeneutical Foundation argues that “Such a critique must begin in the realm of hermeneutics. Waymeyer finds two hermeneutical problems with the two-age argument for amillennialism. “The first problem concerns identifying Revelation 20 as an unclear passage.” (8) “The second problem concerns the use of the two-age model as an interpretive grid.” (9) He warns that such a use of the two-age model “silences the contribution of those passages by forcing them to conform to his theological system.” He adds: “In this way, systematic theology is used to determine exegesis rather than vice versa.” (9)
Reconsidering the Starting Point states that the best way to approach this issue is “to trace the doctrine of the coming kingdom throughout biblical revelation. …. In the process, it must be recognized that later revelation often supplements and thereby clarifies previous revelation by providing broader context or additional detail, but it never changes the meaning of earlier passages in the process.” (11)
The Clarifying Role of Revelation 20 leads Waymeyer finally to say that Revelation 20 “as the fullest and most comprehensive presentation of the eschatological events surrounding the Second Coming … should be allowed to clarify previous revelation about the coming kingdom.” (12)
The Approach of the Critique provides, then, an overview of Waymeyer’s book after the introductory chapter. “The first section (chapters 2-5) focuses on the Old Testament, with an exegesis of several prophetic passages which predict a period of time that is distinct from the present age and the eternal state. …. The second section (chapters 6-10) transitions to the New Testament and responds directly to the three ways that the two-age model is used as an argument against premillennialism. …. The final section of his critique (chapters 11-14) focuses on Revelation 20:1-6.” (14-15) Waymeyer then states the conclusion of his argument: “If Revelation 20 clearly teaches an earthly reign of Christ between the present age and the eternal state, there must be some way to harmonize this intermediate kingdom with the two ages in the New Testament.” (15)
Part 4
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.
by Sam Waldron | May 1, 2017 | Book Reviews, Eschatology
Part 1
Appreciation
In my last post, I mentioned that there are a number of things for which I can express genuine appreciation in Waymeyer’s book. Here are some of them:
First, I agree with Waymeyer’s rejection of eschatological agnosticism. In his preface, he condemns those who avoid the topic of eschatology and “even seem proud of their agnosticism” (vii). He avers that “Scripture reveals too much about the subject of eschatology for Christians to be content to be in the dark, especially those who preach the Word and shepherd the flock.” I could not agree more. In fact, I do agree more! For me, as I will argue, eschatology is even more central to Christianity and the gospel than it is for Waymeyer. Still, I have heard too many jokes making light of eschatology and too many people teasing about being “Pan-millennialists” (because everything will “pan” out alright in the end). Such humor misses, I think, the importance of eschatology in the Bible. The Bible is a story—yes, a true story—but a story nonetheless. Everything in a story depends on how the story ends. Eschatology tells us how the biblical story ends. That is how important eschatology is!
Second, and in his Preface again, Waymeyer expresses his foundational commitment to the doctrine of “sola scriptura at the heart of reformed theology” and goes on to say that it “should drive us to a careful exegesis of the relevant biblical passages … about the end times” (viii). Well said! My disagreement with Waymeyer is not about this fundamental principle, but about what constitutes the “careful exegesis” of which he speaks.
In the third place by way of appreciation let me compliment Waymeyer on his identification of what he calls “the Two-Age Model” as at the heart of the modern Amillennial polemic against Premillennialism. He says: “One of the strongest arguments for the amillennial view involves what is known as the “two-age model,” an eschatological framework high-lighted by Geerhardus Vos in the early twentieth century” (1). Waymeyer actually notes this by way of a quotation from my book. As he quotes me, I do believe that Vos’ contributions are “epochal” in their importance. I congratulate him on seeing the importance of this point in the debate clearly. Later he notes that “none of the major premillennial works in recent years has directly and substantially addressed this amillennial argument” and that “a premillennial critique of the two-age model is long overdue” (7). Once more, I think Waymeyer is seeing the contours of the argument clearly in this assertion.
In the fourth place, I believe that Waymeyer is to be thanked for his attempt to present fairly and at some length Amillennial arguments on the above point and on other points throughout his book (2-7, 34-40, 50-51, 78-79, 88-90, 107-110 etc.). It seems to me that Waymeyer has made a commendable attempt to treat his adversaries’ arguments fairly and thoroughly. It is, of course, a different thing to suggest that he has been wholly successful in this attempt. I will point out in my critique deficiencies in his attempt. Yet he has made a serious attempt to treat our arguments accurately. This is very good and much better than previous Premillennial polemics. All this leads me, however, to my last commendation.
In the fifth place, Waymeyer has maintained an objective and Christian tone in his argument. That is to say, he treats his Amillennial opponents as serious, Bible-believing Christians and refrains from the kind of disrespectful and frankly un-Christian tone of too many prophetic polemics in the past. As I have said elsewhere[1], however seriously we may disagree with Dispensationalism or Premillennialism, and however consequential we may think the logical and practical implications of their positions are, the argument between the four major views of eschatology held by Christians (Postmillennialism, Amillennialism, Historic Premillennialism, and Dispensational Premillennialism) is historically an argument among Christians. It is, in other words, an argument among those who hold the doctrinal core of beliefs necessary for historic orthodoxy. It is those professed “Christians” who have denied the doctrines of the future judgment, the future resurrection of the flesh (body), and the future, visible, bodily Second Coming of Christ that have denied (and departed from) the faith once delivered to all the saints. It is not Amillennialism, Premillennialism, or Postmillennialism that has departed in radical error from the faith once delivered to all the saints.
Part 3
[1]See both my MacArthurs’s Millennial Manifesto (Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2008), 1-4; More of the End Times Made Simple (Calvary Press, 2009), 13-31.
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.
