by Sam Waldron | Oct 17, 2018 | Eschatology
Conclusion
If Owen was indeed wrong as we have seen, what can we learn from this fact? It is to answer this question that I have taken so much time to firmly disagree with the properly revered John Owen. I believe there is something to be learned from the serious exegetical mistake he makes with 2 Peter 3. I think there are important lessons to be learned.
First, this shows that no one—not even the man who is probably the greatest of the Puritan and Reformed Scholastics—may be given an almost infallible status by us. The fact is that in some places—it has appeared to me—that if Owen said it, that was the end of all discussion. That is certainly not true with regard to his preterist interpretation of 2 Peter 3. It may not be true in other places.
Second, this shows that we may not fix one period of church history, and one group of theologians in that history, as the standard of orthodoxy for all times. The Bible teaches a developmental or progressivist view of church history. That means that, not only was there progressive revelation in the Bible, there is progressive enlightenment of the church during this inter-adventual period. This is the straightforward implication of the parables of Jesus regarding the wheat and weeds, the mustard seed, the leaven, and the seed growing by itself.
As much as we love the Puritans and as much as we love our Baptist forefathers, church history did not end with them. Nor did the church’s insight into the Scriptures cease developing. Valuable as is our honored confession of faith, it is a human document which reflects the best understanding of the Scriptures by the church at a certain point in time in that development. Personally, I do not think that we have come to the place where it is good to think of attempting an expansion or refinement of that great document. But in principle we must admit that such a place could come in a future era of the church.
Third, let me finally express my view that it is particularly in the doctrinal area where Owen goes wrong that we must be ready for further light upon Scripture to have been given to the church since the 17th century. There have been vast and important developments in eschatological thought since Owen wrote. There was the prevalence of postmillennialism for a time, followed by the rise of historic premillennialism and dispensational premillennialism in reaction to postmillennialism. There has been the long critique of Dispensationalism by Amillennialism, the splintering of Dispensationalism as a result, and the rise of a new and wiser form of Amillennialism. I think this history is significant. I think it has presented us with an alternative to Owen’s preterism which is vastly to be preferred.
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 | Oct 15, 2018 | Eschatology
So far, I have covered seven points in my case against John Owen’s preterist view of 2 Peter 3. Let me add another argument in this post. Here is my eighth objection to Owen’s exegesis.
The Conclusive Case against Owen’s Interpretation Continued
The whole Olivet Discourse speaks (according to Owen) only of the coming of Jesus for the destruction of Jerusalem. Peter’s words allude to Matthew 24. We have repeatedly noted the insistence of Owen on this fact.
My objection is that this straightforwardly and directly implies that the account of the judgment found in Matthew 25:31-46 must refer to the coming of Jesus at the destruction of Jerusalem. There is a seamless web of references to Christ’s coming between Matthew 24 and 25. Thus, Matthew 25:31-46 must refer to the coming of Jesus at the destruction of Jerusalem. But this requires a preterist understanding of the words of Matthew 25:31-32: “But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. 32 “All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.” It also requires that Matthew 25:46 be a reference to an event that happened at the destruction of Jerusalem: “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” Not only is such an understanding of Matthew 25:31-46 unlikely to the point of impossibility, it is also dangerous in a broader way
Upon Owen’s interpretation, what are we to think of the other references to the coming of Christ throughout 1 and 2 Peter? Must they not be thought of as references to the coming of Christ at the destruction of Jerusalem? It would seem so. Thus, for instance, are we to take a preterist interpretation on 1 Peter 5:4? “And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.”
This brings us, then, to the most serious challenge and difficulty for orthodox preterists like Owen. They have to show how their views can be held without leading directly down a slippery slope to Hyper-preterism? Upon Owen’s interpretation, it seems to me, it is difficult to find any clear text in the New Testament that teaches the Second Coming of Christ in glory at the end of the age.
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 CBTSeminary | Oct 11, 2018 | Eschatology
So far, I have covered six points in my case against John Owen’s preterist view of 2 Peter 3. Let me add another argument in this post. Here is my seventh objection to Owen’s exegesis.
The Conclusive Case against Owen’s Interpretation Continued
Owen assumes that the false teachers of 2 Peter are a reference to the Jews who clung to the Old Testament institutions and the legalism that had grown up around them. Here is Owen once more: “He speaks of that wherein both the profane scoffers and those scoffed at were concerned, and that as Jews; —some of them believing, others opposing the faith. Now, there was no particular concernment of that generation in that sin, nor in that scoffing, as to the day of judgment in general; but there was a peculiar relief for the one and a peculiar dread of the other at hand, in the destruction of the Jewish nation; and, besides, an ample testimony, both to the one and the other, of the power and dominion of the Lord Jesus Christ; —which was the thing in question between them.” (Works, 9:134)
This account of the false teachers with whom Peter was contending is out of sync with the whole presentation of them in 2 Peter. These men were not legalistic defenders of the Old Judaism. Peter makes clear that they had been and perhaps still were professing Christians (2 Peter 2:1-2, 20-22) who distorted the teaching of the Apostle Paul (2 Peter 3:16) and (far from being legalists) were antinomians in their views and practice (2 Peter 2:12-18).
To sum up: the false teachers of 2 Peter 2 and 3 were not Jews opposing Christ, but antinomians who had professed Christ and followed Paul, but who had distorted Christian truth to their own destruction. Cf. Matthew 24:48 for the background of Peter’s thought which predicts every feature of these false teachers.
CBTS Faculty fully subscribe to the 1689 Confession of Faith, hold an advanced
degree in their field of instruction, and possess significant pastoral experience.
by Sam Waldron | Oct 9, 2018 | Eschatology
So far, I have covered five points in my case against John Owen’s preterist view of 2 Peter 3. Let me add another argument in this post. Here is my sixth objection to Owen’s exegesis.
The Conclusive Case against Owen’s Interpretation Continued
Owen takes 2 Peter 3:4 as concerning Jews only and only relevant to the men of that generation (page 134). The words of Owen are: “Because whatever is here mentioned was to have its peculiar influence on the men of that generation. He speaks of that wherein both the profane scoffers and those scoffed at were concerned, and that as Jews;—some of them believing, others opposing the faith. Now, there was no particular concernment of that generation in that sin, nor in that scoffing, as to the day of judgment in general; but there was a peculiar relief for the one and a peculiar dread of the other at hand, in the destruction of the Jewish nation; and, besides, an ample testimony, both to the one and the other, of the power and dominion of the Lord Jesus Christ; —which was the thing in question between them.” (Works, 9:134)
To state the problem briefly, such an approach to the imminence of Christ’s return suggests that Christ’s Second Coming in glory is not relevant for this early generation of the Christian era. The problem is that, if there is any evidence for the Second Coming in the New Testament, it is always accompanied by exhortations that it is near and that we are to stay awake, be alert, not fall asleep. However we explain the imminence and relevance of Christ’s long awaited return for that generation, it is clearly relevant to them. This doubt arises in light of Owen’s exegesis: how could any passage which speaks of a coming of Christ that is relevant for that generation of Jews, actually be a reference to His future return in glory?
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 | Oct 5, 2018 | Eschatology
So far, I have covered three points in my case against John Owen’s preterist view of 2 Peter 3. Let me add a fourth in this post.
The Conclusive Case against Owen’s Interpretation Continued
Owen takes Isaiah 65:17f. as a reference to the present gospel age exclusively (page 135). Let me quote what he says again: “this is a prophecy of gospel times only; and that the planting of these new heavens is nothing but the creation of gospel ordinances…” It would be one thing if Owen maintained that this was a promise anticipated or even partly fulfilled in the gospel age. His words, however, are clear. They are exclusively fulfilled in the gospel age— “nothing but the creation of gospel ordinances.”
Owen here takes what seems to me to be an indefensibly one-sided view of Old Testament prophecy. Jesus makes clear in Matthew 13 that the mystery of the coming of the kingdom is that it comes in two stages. The grand prophecies of the return of the kingdom of God to our world are fulfilled both in the events of Christ’s first advent but fully and finally in the events that accompany and follow Christ’s Second Advent in glory. This matter of the already and not yet is really a matter of settled perspective among most Reformed exegetes today. While I am not saying that Owen would have been wholly unaware of such a perspective, I am saying that he chooses to adopt a totally preterist view of the New Heavens and New Earth in his exegesis of 2 Peter 3.
This is questionable enough in itself, but it is even more questionable in light of the way in which the other passage in the New Testament which alludes to Isaiah 65:17f. does so. There are clear allusions to the language of Isaiah 65:17f. in Revelation 21:1-4. Look at that passage: “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, 4 and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.”
There are multiple allusions to Isaiah 65:17f. in these verses. First, there is the reference to the new heavens and new earth which is a clear quotation of Isaiah 65:17f. and Isaiah 66:22f. Second, there is the reference to the holy city which is also mentioned in Isaiah 65:18-19. Third, there is the affirmation of the end of weeping and crying in Isaiah 65:17f. Kraugei in the LXX of Isaiah 65:19 is translated crying in the NASB and is used in Revelation 21:4. Ponos, the word translated pain in Revelation 21:4 is used in the LXX of Isaiah 65:22. The closing words of Revelation 21:4 (the first things have passed away.) also appear to allude to the words of Isaiah 65:17 “And the former things will not be remembered or come to mind.” Fourth, the condition of which Isaiah speaks is eternal (Isaiah 65:17-18). This means that it is the eternal state that is in view. Fifth, the condition contemplated in Isaiah 65:17f. is one in which there is an absence of evil. “The wolf and the lamb will graze together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox; and dust will be the serpent’s food. They will do no evil or harm in all My holy mountain,” says the LORD.” This is parallel to the assertions of Revelation 21:8 and 27.
There is an indisputable reference to Isaiah 65:17f. in Revelation 21:1-4. I understand that some preterists even take Revelation 21:1-14 as a reference to the gospel age. I can only say that, if they do refer to this, I do not know how to understand their significance. Personally, I think such an interpretation of Revelation lacks credibility.
But something more needs to be said about the phrase, new heavens and new earth. While I admit that an already/not yet grid has to be applied to Old Testament prophecy. I believe that this particular phrase and these particular passages show that the emphasis if not the exclusive meaning of these phrases is on the eternal state. Certainly, Isaiah 66:22-24 seems to emphasize the eternal state. I have also argued elsewhere against Premillennialism that Isaiah 65:17f. must be understood as a prophecy of the eternal state, and the language which suggests death in the state contemplated is to be taken as a promise of the end of calamity and figuratively speaking of what Revelation 21:4 calls “no longer any death.” See my End Times Made Simple and my critique of Matt Waymeyer published in JIRBS.
Something else must be considered. It is that the phrase in verse 13 which is descriptive of the new heavens and new earth, “in which righteousness dwells,” alludes to other prophecies in later Isaiah which appear to speak of the eternal state. Cf. Isaiah 11:9; 52:1; 54:13-14; 60:21.
The notion that 2 Peter 3:13 refers only to the gospel age simply lacks credibility.
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.
