CBTS Logo
Why is Theonomy Unbiblical?

Why is Theonomy Unbiblical?

by | Apr 12, 2021 | Civil Government, Covenant Theology, Law, New Testament, Old Testament

Before critiquing theonomy, we need a good definition. Some people today who use the word “theonomy” don’t mean anything more than “God’s law” because the etimology of the word theonomy is “theos” which means God, and “nomos” which means law. They only want to affirm that God’s law is supreme over man’s law. And they’re right about that. God’s transcendent moral law is the norm that norms all norms. Governmental laws should always be consistent with God’s law and human law must never violate God’s law.

But in this post, I’ll be using the word “theonomy” in a more technical sense, which is rooted in the historic usage of the term. Theonomy, in the technical sense, teaches that Old Covenant judicial laws are the universal moral standard of civil law for all Gentile nations. The basic presupposition of theonomy is that God gave the judicial law to the nation of Israel as a universal law of perfect justice for all nations because it is a perfect reflection of God’s own moral character. Some of the most prominent early proponents of this kind of theonomy include Greg Bahnsen, Rousas Rushdoony and Gary North. For a discussion of “general equity theonomy,” see here.

I’m convinced that theonomy is unbiblical for a number of reasons.

1. Theonomy has a flawed hermeneutic of Old Testament priority.

Theonomy arrives at its conclusions by insisting that particular Old Testament laws persist, unless they are specifically abrogated by the New Testament. But this reads the Bible improperly. Theonomy’s hermeneutic is consistent with paedobaptism, which says that since the New Testament does not abrogate the Old Testament inclusion of infants, then infants must be given the sign of baptism. Theonomy is also consistent with the Old Testament priority hermeneutic of dispensationalism, which teaches that the promises God made for Israel cannot be typologically fulfilled in Christ and the church, but must be literally fulfilled in national Israel. But theonomy’s hermeneutic isn’t consistent with the hermeneutic of New Testament priority.

It is true that earlier revelation is vital for understanding the context of later revelation. In that sense, earlier revelation is logically prior to later revelation. But sound hermeneutical principles recognize that later revelation has interpretive priority over earlier revelation. Therefore, when later Old Testament texts explain earlier parts of the Old Testament, we should pay close attention to what the later texts say and allow them to explain and draw out implications of earlier Old Testament texts, making explicit what was only previously implicit. Similarly, when the New Testament explains Old Testament passages of Scripture, the New Testament has priority of interpretation over the Old Testament.

If the New Testament says an Old Testament passage has a particular meaning, we should assign that meaning to the Old Testament passage. The same is true of New Testament letters, which explain the earlier life and work of Jesus Christ in the Gospels.

This is nothing other than what Augustine taught when he said, “The New is in the Old concealed; the Old is in the New revealed.” The light of revelation is brighter as we move toward the end of the Bible (Louis Berkhof, Principles of Interpretation, pp. 54, 133, 135, 137). Berkhof says, “The New Testament is implicit in the Old, so the Old is explicit in the new” (135). And “The more perfect revelation of the New Testament illumines the pages of the Old” (137-138).

This isn’t really any different from the way we read any book by a single author. We allow the later parts of a book to interpret the earlier parts of the book. Orthodox theology is rooted in the idea that the one true God authored the whole of the Scriptures. Thus, we should pay close attention to His intended meaning in light of His explanation of His own Word.

2. Theonomy does not account for the fact that Gentile nations are not and never were under the Old Covenant.

The laws peculiar to the Old Covenant do not bind Gentile nations. Gentile nations are under natural law, which is the work of the moral law written on the hearts of all human beings. Romans 2:14 says, “For when the Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature, do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts.”

When God judged the Gentile nations in the Old Testament, He never judged them for violating Old Covenant judicial law. Rather, He judged them for violating His moral law, as summarized in the Ten Commandments (Jerermiah 46-51; Ezekiel 25-32; Amos 1-2; Obadiah; Jonah; Nahum; Habakkuk 2 – a taunt song against the Babylonians for violating God’s moral law; Zephaniah 2).

3. Theonomy doesn’t properly account for the fact that the Old Covenant as a whole, together with all of its laws, has been abolished.

Numerous passages of Scripture teach that the Old Covenant has been fulfilled and abolished with the coming of Christ and the establishment of the New Covenant.

  • Hebrews 7:12 says, “For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.”
  • Hebrews 7:18 says, “A former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness.”
  • Hebrews 8:13 says, “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete.”
  • Hebrews 10:9 says, “He abolishes the first in order to establish the second.”
  • Ephesians 2:14-15 says that Christ “has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances.”

To be clear, the moral law, which is summarized in the Ten Commandments, has not been abolished. The moral law is rooted in God’s own eternal moral character and is part of the image of God in human beings. Moral aspects of Old Covenant law can never be abolished because they are rooted in nature, not merely in a covenant. But the positive laws of the Old Covenant have been abolished. Theonomy does not properly account for this fact.

Rich Barcellos correctly notes, “The New Testament clearly abrogates the whole Old Covenant, including the Decalogue, as it functioned within the Old Covenant, and yet borrows from its documents as the basis for New Covenant ethics (see for instance 1 Cor. 9:9-10; 14:34; 2 Cor 13:1; Eph 6:2-3, and many other texts)” (In Defense of the Decalogue, p. 68).

4. Theonomy doesn’t acknowledge the existence of positive law in contrast to moral or natural law.

This is related to numbers 2 and 3 above. Natural law is law that people know innately. Romans 2:14-15 is clear that God writes the work of His natural law on the hearts of all men, and Romans 2:21-24 shows that natural law is summarized in the Ten Commandments. Natural law is nothing other than the reflection of God’s moral character in human beings who are made in His image.

Positive law, on the other hand, is law that God posited by way of special revelation in a particular covenant. No one would have known that they ought to obey positive law, unless it had been revealed to them in a biblical covenant.

To give you an example of the distinction between natural/moral and positive law, consider Adam in the Garden of Eden. Adam knew by nature not to worship false gods, not to steal, not to murder, etc. He knew these laws because he was made in the image of God. But Adam would never have known not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, if God had not revealed and commanded that positive law to him in the covenant of works.

To give you another example, Abraham knew by nature that it was wrong to lie to Pharoah about Sarah being his wife. God never had to tell Abraham that lying was wrong because all images of God know it’s wrong to lie, even if they suppress that truth in unrighteousness. But Abraham would never have known that he had to be circumcised except for the fact that God revealed that law to him and commanded him to be circumcised in the covenant of circumcision. Natural law is known innately, but positive law would never be known apart from covenantal revelation.

Natural or moral law transcends all covenants. It’s immutably rooted in the nature and character of God and also in human nature. Fallen human beings suppress their knowledge of natural law, which is why we need Scripture to reassert and clarify it. But even fallen human beings are not completely ignorant of natural law. Positive law, on the other hand, is covenantal, must be specially revealed to be known, and serves a particular purpose within the covenant in which it is given. When covenants change, positive laws change, but moral or natural law does not.

Theonomy does not grasp this crucial distinction. The judicial laws of the Old Covenant are not transcendent moral or natural law, but positive laws, which God commanded in the Old Covenant for a particular reason.

5. Theonomy does not account for the fact that the judicial laws of Israel were only to be practiced in the land of Canaan.

It’s impossible to separate Israel’s judicial law from the land of Canaan. The Old Covenant law was given to the Old Covenant people, who were to keep the law in the Old Covenant land. Deuteronomy 4:14 says, “And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statues and rules that you might do them in the land that you are going over to possess.”

To give one example, consider the law of the parapet. Deuteronomy 22:8 says, “When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring the guilt of blood upon your house, if anyone should fall from it.” This judicial law, which is based on blood-guilt, only makes sense because the land of Israel is holy. According to the Old Covenant, blood-guilt defiles the land and results in the expulsion of the people. Deuteronomy 19:10 warns that if blood guilt comes upon the land, the guilt of blood shall be shed upon the people.

While there is certainly an element of perpetual moral law (general equity, “do not murder”) in the law of the parapet, the law itself could only be practiced in the land of Canaan, which is the case for all Old Covenant judicial law.

6. Theonomy misunderstands the reason for the death penalties in Old Covenant judicial law.

Before discussing the death penalty in Old Covenant judicial law, it’s important to understand that the covenant of common grace establishes the death penalty for murder. The death penalty for murder is part of universal moral law. In Genesis 9:6, the Noahic covenant of common grace says, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” That is a transcendent moral principle: the punishment must fit the crime. It is lex talionis, which is the “law of the same,” often expressed as “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” It refers to equal weights and measures in justice. So, the death penalty for murder is moral law.

But other Old Testament death penalties are tied to Old Covenant worship. The term “devoted to destruction” or “devoted to the ban” (Hebrew: cherem) involves the death penalty, and it is connected to the purity of the land, holy war, and Old Covenant worship.

Deuteronomy 13:12-16 says:

“If you hear in one of your cities, which the Lord your God is giving you to dwell there, that certain worthless fellows have gone out among you and have drawn away the inhabitants of their city, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known, then you shall inquire and make search and ask diligently. And behold, if it be true and certain that such an abomination has been done among you, you shall surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, devoting it to destruction, all who are in it and its cattle, with the edge of the sword. You shall gather all its spoil into the midst of its open square and burn the city and all its spoil with fire, as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. It shall be a heap forever. It shall not be built again.”

This is saying that if a city comes under the influence of idolaters, there is to be a careful inquiry, and if it’s found to be true that the city is under the influence of idolaters, then the whole city is to be put to death, together with the cattle.

This law is not simply a matter of moral justice. Verse 16 says that the city becomes a “whole burnt offering to the Lord your God.” It’s an offering to God. This is a law about holy war and Israel’s possession of the holy land. It’s a kind of ceremonial purification.

It also anticipates Judgment Day. The New Testament seems to teach that the death penalties of the Old Covenant are types of eternal condemnation.

Hebrews 10:28 says:

“Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.”

In other words, under the Old Covenant, the penalty for breaking the law was physical death. But the corresponding doctrine of the New Testament is eternal condemnation for those without Christ.

So, the death penalties of the Old Testament are associated with Israel’s unique place in redemptive history. I’m convinced that scholars have shown that all of the death penalties of the Old Covenant are based on the distinctive purposes of the Old Covenant. I recommend Vern Poythress’s book, The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses, which illustrates this very well. I don’t agree with everything in that book, but it is a good resource to have.

Due to their special character, therefore, it would be unjust to apply Old Covenant death penalties in a Gentile nation. It was perfectly just for Israel to put people to death for all sorts of reasons because God has the right to command the death of any sinner, and He commanded the death of many sinners via the Old Covenant for reasons that were unique to that covenant. But we have no right to implement such penalties in Gentile nations.

Furthermore, the death penalties of the Old Covenant are reflective of the fact that it is a “work for the right to inheritance” covenant. Leviticus 18:5 says, “You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them: I am the LORD.” But the new covenant gives the inheritance by grace, not by works. Galatians 3:12-13 denies this works principle under the gospel, “But the law is not of faith, rather, ‘the one who does them shall live by them.’ Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us — for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.’”

7. Theonomy does not account for the fact that the Old Covenant law was intentionally severe to preserve the line of promise.

The nation of Israel was largely an unbelieving nation. The people needed a severe legal system to chasten them and to preserve them as a nation until Christ would come from them. The severity of Old Covenant judicial law is especially evident in the liberal use of the death penalty. The death penalty was prescribed for false-worship and apostasy (Deut 13:6-11; 17:5), blasphemy (Lev 24:10-16, 23), sabbath-breaking (Num 15:31-36), rebellious sons (Deut 21:18-21), fornication (Deut 22:20-23), adultery (Lev 20:10-11), homosexuality (Lev 20:13) and many other sins. These are very heavy penalties.

Galatians 3:19 explains one of the reasons for such laws: “Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made.” Similarly, Galatians 3:24-25 says, “So, then the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.”

Scripture is saying that the severe Old Covenant law was given because of the sins of the people of Israel. It was given to them as a nation, to chasten them, and to act as a deterrent for outward sin, and to keep them from destroying themselves, until Christ came from them.

The Jerusalem council discussed the fact that some wanted the church to practice circumcision. Acts 15:10 says, “Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?” The covenant of circumcision, and the Old Covenant as a whole, was a heavy legal yoke. Those who try to impose it upon Christians or Gentile nations are heaping a heavy burden upon them. Now that Christ has come, there is no reason for it. The yoke of the Old Covenant has been fulfilled and abolished with the coming of Christ.

8. In each case, when the New Testament applies one of the judicial laws of the Old Covenant, it applies the law’s general equity to the church, and never to the government of a Gentile nation.

This is important because of the hermeneutical principle of New Testament priority. The New Testament teaches us how to interpret and use the Old Testament, which means we need to pay attention to how the New Testament applies Old Covenant judicial laws. You will never find a single New Testament example of an Old Covenant judicial law being applied to a Gentile government.

For example, 1 Timothy 5:17-18 says, “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,’ and ‘the laborer deserves his wages.” “Do not muzzle the ox while it treads out the grain” is a judicial law that comes from Deuteronomy 25:4. But here, Paul applies the law’s general equity (do not steal) to paying pastors properly in the church. He does not apply it to a Gentile government.

Another example comes from 1 Corinthians 5:13, where Paul is discussing church discipline, and he says, “Purge the evil person from among you.” That’s a judicial law from Deuteronomy 13:5, 17:7, 12, and many other places. In the Old Covenant, “purging the evil person from among you” referred to the death penalty. But in the New Covenant, that judicial law is applied to church discipline, not to the civil death penalty.

So, if we allow the New Testament to teach us how to interpret Old Covenant judicial laws, then we will think of their general equity first as applying to the church, not primarily to Gentile civil governments.

9. To sum up, theonomy’s central mistake is believing that God gave the judicial law of Israel as a universal norm of societal justice for all nations.

Certainly, the moral law of the Old Covenant is a universal norm for all nations. And we ought to use the Old Testament to help us understand God’s moral law. But the positive laws of the Old Covenant had many different functions according to Scripture, and all of them were bound to the unique objectives of the Old Covenant.

As we have seen, the judicial law was tied to the land, to ceremonial worship, and to the preservation of Christ’s line of promise. Some of the judicial laws were simply designed to create a distinct culture for Israel that separated them from the nations. Others were about preserving family lines for the sake of property and inheritance. But all of the positive laws of the Old Covenant were related to the typological character of the Old Covenant and/or to its unique cultural situation and place in redemptive history.

In conclusion, theonomy, in the technical sense of the term is not a biblical idea. Scripture itself refutes the theonomic position, such that in fact, theonomy is not in favor of God’s law at all, but adds to the good law of God positive covenantal precepts that were designed to expire with the coming of the Lord Jesus.

While this article has been a critique of Theonomy, and I have not outlined a positive biblical theology of civil government, the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, chapter 24, provides a wonderful framework for civil government. I wrote an exposition of that chapter here: What is the role of civil government?

For another good resource on Theonomy see this article by Brandon Adams.

 

A Post-Logue to #DatPostmil? Blog Posts

A Post-Logue to #DatPostmil? Blog Posts

by | Apr 8, 2021 | Civil Government, Eschatology

This post is a follow-up to a 5 part series on “#datpostmil?” View: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5

It is always a humbling and learning experience to read the responses to a blog series on a controversial subject. Iron does sharpen iron, as the Bible says, and I learn much from those responses.

In the case of my posts on Postmillennialism, I have been reminded of something that I already knew but did not make as clear as I should have. A number of the more recent, self-proclaimed postmillennialists have departed from what I think is properly called the older Postmillennialism and adopted the view that the entire inter-adventual period is the millennium. I have observed this view in Gary North’s defense of Postmillennialism. Thus, some postmils have taken a little umbrage at my description of Postmillennialism as a millennium involving a distinct, golden age following the one in which we live. Here is the way a friend of mine described his understanding of their views in an email to me. This friend is actually neither amillennial nor postmillennial, but an historic premillennialist. Nevertheless, I think he has stated their view accurately. 

Their version of postmillennialism seems to be an interesting mix of beliefs. If I understand it correctly, they believe that the millennium stretches between the first and second comings of Christ like amillennialism and do not divide between an age of humility and an age of glory. But they argue for a social/cultural sanctification process through this age similar to a personal sanctification process in our lives. So the gospel is successful through this millennial age of Christianizing the world.

Another correspondent who is postmillennial has described his view this way. He begins by quoting me:

“To maintain its millennial hope for a golden age, of necessity, it must conceive of the gospel age—the period between Christ’s First and Second Advents—as divided into two distinct periods. The first period is the humiliation of the church. The second period is the triumph of the church. There is the time of the persecuted church and the time of the triumphant church.”


I know that, at least for me and many others, this is not how I conceive of the millennium AT ALL. If I had to draw a parallel image, it would be of the process of sanctification. I am a “New Creation”, but I don’t conceive of my existence as a ‘new creation’ as divided into two distinct periods after the New Birth: a period where I am alive in Christ but living an awful, sinful, and ungrateful life and a period where I suddenly start living like an awesome, totally devoted, and pure Christian. No, my sanctification is a gradual process, life growing up from infancy to adulthood. I don’t stay as an infant and then one day, TA-DA! now I’m a fully grown, matured man. No, first infancy, then toddler, adolescent, a young man, a middle aged man, and finally an old man.


So too is it for the millennium. Just as the New Creation (me) is slowly, but surely sanctified throughout my life according to God’s divine plan, so too are the New Heavens and New Earth sanctified throughout its existence according to God’s divine plan. When I die, I will have been sanctified as such that I am much closer to God then when I was first born again – but I will not be perfectly sanctified. When Christ returns, the nations will have been discipled, baptized, and taught obedience – and it will be glorious, but it will not be perfect. It is then that the final enemy, Death, will be destroyed.

Now, I freely admit that my presentation did not do justice to this sort of postmillennial theory. It should have. I was aware of North and others with this viewpoint. Nevertheless, I do have a kind of defense and restatement of my view in light of this pushback. Let me provide it now.

First, allow me to say that this view is a clear movement in the direction of Amillennialism and away from the way which most historic postmillennialists thought of the millennium. In embracing that the whole gospel age is a single era with the same, continuing characteristics, they have really embraced one of the main perspectives of Amillennialism. They have also changed significantly the definition of the millennium held by historic postmils.

Second, allow me to say consequently that, in adopting this view of the gospel age, contemporary postmils have given us a system which is very difficult to distinguish from Amillennialism and especially my form of optimistic Amillennialism. Amillennialists like myself believe in the growth of the kingdom and the building of the church throughout the world. We do not believe in the victory of evil in this age or that the only reality is that “evil men grow worse and worse.”

Third, I do have to take exception to the analogy of the personal sanctification process and the millennial conquest of this age by the Word of God. Just as the Christian is gradually sanctified, so also this age is gradually Christianized by the gospel and law of God. This is the analogy; and I need to say that it does not work. Why? It does not work because the sanctification process assumes a regenerate person. One cannot make an analogy here with the present age, because it is not a regenerate age. It is an evil age ruled by Satan. Sanctification can only take place where there is an original and radical break from evil in regeneration. But this age has not been regenerated. As I pointed out in my previous posts, it is an evil age ruled by Satan, the god of this age, and dominated by the sons of this age and not the sons of light. To be conformed to this age’s thinking and to walk according to this age is to live under the dominion of evil. This age cannot be gradually sanctified because it is not regenerate. Rather, it is evil.

Fourth, I guess that is the preterist hermeneutic which is being utilized by those who reject my reasoning here. The personal correspondent I mentioned earlier actually did say:

And no, I don’t think that this Age is ruled by the Evil One, as Waldron suggests. Rather it is Christ who rules it and has sovereignly ordaining that all enemies will be subdued under His feet in these New Heavens and New Earth.

I rather think that we have here a clue as to how contemporary postmils would respond to what I have just said. It comes back to their preterist hermeneutic. What the New Testament asserts and asserts plainly about this age is no longer true because it only obtained before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Now we are in the new heavens and new earth. It is, thus, no longer true that this is an evil age. Allow me to quote what I said previously:

The proposition here is, in other words, that the basic character of this age will always be morally evil.  A number of the key passages where the two-age terminology is used require this conclusion. Luke 16:8 speaks of evil men as the sons of this age and contrasts them with the sons of light.  Mark 10:30 teaches that those who have left all for Christ must always expect persecutions in this age.  As long as this age lasts, then, persecution will be the lot of the true Christian.  Romans 12:2 is Paul’s exhortation to Christians not to be conformed to this age. Such language plainly assumes that this age will always be an evil age.  2 Corinthians 4:4 asserts that Satan is “the god of this age”.  It is, therefore, necessarily evil.  Galatians 1:4 is Paul’s description of this age as a “present, evil age” from which the elect are to be delivered by the death of Christ. Ephesians 2:2 describes the former, wicked lives of Ephesian believers as a “walking according to the age of this world.”


Such passages as these presuppose and assume that this present age is, and always will be, evil.  If this were not the case, there might come a day when the persecution of Christians would cease, when it would not be wrong to be conformed to this age, when Satan would not be its god, when Paul’s description of it as evil would cease to be true, and when one could walk according to the age of this world and be righteous.  All this would defy, however, the plain implications of these passages. 

It appears that contemporary postmils use their Preterism to refer such passages to another age or dispensation. They no longer describe “these New Heavens and New Earth.” It is just this result of Preterism which I so fervently reject. In a way not so different than Dispensationalism, it refers passages which describe our present life and duty to another period of human history and empty them of their significance for us. I think that even though fine men have adopted this preterist view in the past, they have deviated seriously from a reasonable interpretation of key passages of Scripture. See my blog series: John Owen—A Caveat.

Fifth, while admitting that my presentation was not clear with regard to some, contemporary postmillennialism, I have a difficult time regarding my criticism of a bifurcation in the present age as off-base. Let me quote Rex Semrad’s response to one correspondent on this point.

I cannot tell for certain from what you wrote whether or not you believe that for some period of time before Christ returns the majority of people in the world will be converted and nations will be governed by Christian principles. If you don’t believe this, I don’t know why you would consider yourself a postmillennialist, so I assume that is what you believe. … A period of time in which the majority of people are saved and the nations are governed by Christian principles would certainly be clearly differentiated from the world as it now is and has been since Christ ascended to His throne. One would have every reason to consider this a “golden age.” It would also be quite difficult to call it a “present evil age” to which we are not to be conformed (Gal. 1:4, Rom. 12:2). It is also hard to understand how all who seek to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution in such an age (2 Tim. 3:12). This is the bifurcation of which Dr. Waldron speaks, and it is certainly still there whether it comes about gradually or in a single generation.

Sixth, it does seem to me that there is a focus on the “sanctification” of the world in contemporary Postmillennialism which does not reflect the biblical focus. One friend remarked on this in private correspondence to me:

In any case, I am wondering if the biggest distinction between their theonomic postmillennialism and other millennial views has to do with the nature of Christ’s kingdom. They explicitly deny two kingdoms doctrine, which leads to problematic conclusions.

I think this is correct. Though it is true that the world is under the authority of Christ and the moral law ought to be the basis for all rule in the world today, yet the nations of the world—all of them—are Gentile kingdoms. They are not—any of them—potential theocracies. It is God’s will that church and state not be joined as it was in the theocracy in the world today. These Gentile kingdoms are simply the interim, civil authorities which God has appointed until … “the return of the king!

Pastoral Counseling Module (May 28-31)

Pastoral Counseling Module (May 28-31)

by | Apr 8, 2021 | Upcoming Events

May 28-31, 2021 – J. Ryan Davidson

A survey and introduction to the role of the pastor as a counselor of God’s people using the Word of God. The course will survey theological, historical, and practical areas related to pastoral counseling and will focus on the use of the Scriptures in the counseling ministry of the church. Various topics will be addressed from a biblical perspective such as fear, depression, guilt, family, and habitual sin and will be surveyed alongside biblical anthropology, counseling methodology, and biblical solutions for addressing such issues.

Register Now
John Owen—A Caveat, parts 1-13

John Owen—A Caveat, parts 1-13

by | Apr 8, 2021 | Eschatology

 

Part 1

Caveat comes from the Latin cavere.  The verb in Latin means to be on guard.  I am using its English descendant caveat to mean a warning or caution.  Such is my esteem for John Owen that I prefer the softer idea of caution.

John Owen has attained (and not without warrant) a high status among Reformed Baptists in our day.  This status derives from many things, I suppose.  He is certainly a profound and faithful expositor of the Reformed faith.  He is also a progenitor of the Reformed Baptist movement as a Congregationalist Puritan and one of the authors of that confession from which the mass of the 1689 is immediately drawn, the Savoy Declaration of Faith.  The views articulated in the Savoy are only a kind of half step from the positions regarding baptism and the church found in the 1689.  1689 Federalism has publicized the idea that Owen’s views of covenant theology articulate a covenant theology amenable to and even foundational for Reformed Baptist views of covenant theology.

For all of these reasons, to cite Owen is almost to cite Scripture in Reformed books and blogs.  Do we have a celebrity theologian of our own in John Owen? This is a question, I think, worth considering.  Christian realism and spiritual sanity require, I think, that we admit that all men have spiritual and exegetical feet of clay.  I think this is true of John Owen, and in the posts that follow I will point out a place at which I am convinced Owen does have feet of clay.  It is also an exegetical place about which, in my opinion, we may no longer entertain his views without opening ourselves to serious error.

Part 2

My first post on this subject, I must confess, was a deliberate “teaser.” It was a deliberate attempt to attract interest in my subject and get you to “stay tuned” and come back next week to the same time and channel. Now I must ‘fess up and tell you without further ado what my concern is about Owen. It is found in Book 9 page 134 of his Works. My general area of concern is eschatological. My specific concern is the Preterist interpretation of 2 Peter 3 which Owen adopts. Some of you may not have Owen’s works. Of course, this may at some level and for some people undermine your very credibility as a Reformed Baptist. (Pardon my humor, please!) Yet for those of you who do not have his Works here is what Owen says:

“On this foundation I affirm, that the heavens and earth intended in this prophecy of Peter, the coming of the Lord, the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men, mentioned in the destruction of that heaven and earth, do all of them relate, not to the last and final judgment of the world, but to that utter desolation and destruction that was to be made of the Judaical church and state; …”

Owen goes on to offer two reasons (which he says are among many that could be offered) for this view. In the posts that follow I will provide a critique both of Owen’s reasoning and several (what I believe to be) conclusive arguments against the exegetical ground he occupies in his interpretation of this key, eschatological passage.

Before I close this present post, I simply want to identify what the position is that Owen is taking. He is quite obviously taking the partial preterist approach to New Testament prophecy and to 2 Peter 3. I gladly acknowledge that, since he speaks of the last and final judgment of the world, he is not defending the full preterist view. That is to say, his view is that some but not all of the prophecies of the New Testament are fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem and the events surrounding it. This is partial preterism, not its heretical evil twin, full or hyper-preterism.

Part 3

In my last post I quoted Owen’s statement of his partial preterist view of 2 Peter 3. I believe this view to be seriously misguided in the exegesis of 2 Peter 3 and also burdened with serious, practical consequences. Let me hasten to add that these serious, practical consequences were probably not as visible nor even as serious in Owen’s day as they are in ours.

In defense of his partial preterist view of the prophecy of 2 Peter 3 Owen says that “I shall offer these two reasons, of many that might be insisted on from the text.” Here is the first of those two reasons.

“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)

This is a remarkable assertion. It assumes an identification of the false teaching with which Peter was dealing which will need to be examined. It also asserts that “there was no particular concernment of that generation in that sin, nor in that scoffing, as to the day of judgment in general.” This assertion also needs to be questioned.

But here is Owen’s second reason for his view. It contains assertions that are, if anything, even more troubling.

“Peter tells them, that, after the destruction and judgment that he speaks of, verse 13, “We, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth,” etc. They had this expectation. But what is that promise? Where may we find it? Why, we have it in the very words and letter, Isa. Lxv. 17. Now, when shall this that God will create these “new heavens and new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness?” Saith Peter, “It shall be after the coming of the Lord, after that judgment and destruction of ungodly men, who obey not the gospel, that I foretell.” But now it is evident, from this place of Isaiah, with chap. Lxvi. 21, 22, that this is a prophecy of gospel times only; and that the planting of these new heavens is nothing but the creation of gospel ordinances, to endure for ever. The same thing is so expressed, Heb. Xii. 26-28.” (Works, 9:134, 135)

We must begin to explore the validity of these arguments and their truly massive implications in the next post.

Part 4

Owen’s way of reading 2 Peter 3 is so alien to most Christians in our day that there may be some doubt about what he is actually saying and implying. In this post I want to emphasize both the explicit and the implicit significance of the way Owen interprets 2 Peter 3. My hope is that the results of this survey will by themselves raise significant doubt about the propriety of Owen’s exegesis.

The Explicit Extent of Owen’s Argument

Owen takes Luke 21:34, 36 as a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem (page 138). Here is what he says speaking of the “dissolution” of “the Judaical church and state”:

“As it was foretold and threatened by Christ. How were believers cautioned to be ready for it with eminent holiness and watchfulness therein! So Luke xxi. 34, 36, “Take heed to yourselves; watch, therefore.” Why so? “Christ is coming,” verse 27. When? “Why in this generation,” verse 32. What to do? “Why, to dissolve heaven and earth,” verse 25; to “dissolve the Jewish church and state. Watch, therefore, give all diligence.” So also Matt. Xxiv. 42.”

Owen takes the words of 2 Peter 3:4 (“the promise of His Parousia”) as a reference to Jesus’ coming at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Thus, it is not just a coming, but the Parousia which is said to occur at the destruction of Jerusalem.

Owen takes Isaiah 65:17f. as exclusively a reference to the present gospel age (page 135). Remember his words: “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.”

I find this interpretation deeply troubling in itself for a number of reasons, but what I find even more troubling are its implications or consequences. I will point out those consequences in my next post.

Part 5

In my last post I attempted to emphasize several of the explicit assertions of Owen regarding 2 Peter 3. In this post I want to suggest that there are several natural inferences or implications of Owen’s argument that need to be carefully weighed.

The Inferential Implications of Owen’s Argument

Here is the first one. If Owen is right, then it follows that the whole Olivet Discourse speaks only of the coming of Jesus for the destruction of Jerusalem. Peter’s words allude to Matthew 24. There is a seamless web between Matthew 24 and 25. Thus, Matthew 25:31-46, the passage which speaks of Jesus coming in glory to judge all nations and consign the sheep to eternal life and the goats to eternal punishment, must rather refer to the coming of Jesus at the destruction of Jerusalem. This passage which speaks so clearly of day of judgment would appear to be nothing more than a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem.

Another inference which may naturally be drawn from Owen is that the other references to the coming of Christ in 1 Peter and 2 Peter must be thought as references to the coming of Christ at the destruction of Jerusalem. I refer to passages such as these:

“so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ;” (1 Pet. 1:7 NAU)

“Therefore, prepare your minds for action, keep sober in spirit, fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.” (1 Pet. 1:13 NAU)

“The end of all things is near; therefore, be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of prayer.” (1 Pet. 4:7 NAU)

“but to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing, so that also at the revelation of His glory you may rejoice with exultation.” (1 Pet. 4:13 NAU)

“And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.” (1 Pet. 5:4 NAU)

“for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you.” (2 Pet. 1:11 NAU)

Now let me be clear that I do not know how Owen may have interpreted these passages. I am only asserting that upon the exegetical grounds he takes in 2 Peter 3 all of them may be so interpreted as to refer merely to the destruction of Jerusalem.

I have already admitted that Owen here seems clearly to be adopting a partial preterist position. It also needs to be said, however, that upon Owen’s principles of interpretation it is difficult to find a clear text in the New Testament that teaches the Second Coming of Christ in glory at the end of the age. This is surely a consequence of his exegesis that must be carefully weighed.

Part 6

In my last couple of posts I tried to lay out fairly what I understand both the explicit extent of Owen’s argument for a preterist interpretation of 2 Peter 3 and also the inferential implications of that argument. My purpose, I admit, was not only to help my readers understand Owen, but to share what are to me the troubling implications of his exegesis. In this post and the following I want to turn to a number of serious objections to his view.

The Conclusive Case against Owen’s Interpretation

The first argument in my case against Owen is the lack of analogy between Owen’s view of the new heavens and earth in verse 13 and the whole thrust and movement of Peter’s argument in 2 Peter 3. As I have documented in my End Times Made Simple, Peter’s eschatological teaching in this passage is broadly speaking built around three worlds divided by two destructions. There is the old world which was created by God and destroyed by water (verses 5-6). There is the present or now world that is reserved for fire (verse 7). There is the new heaven and new earth (v. 13).

I think this structure is absolutely inconsistent with a preterist view of new heavens and earth. The reason should be clear. The original heavens and earth were the physical universe created by God in the beginning and destroyed in the universal flood. This pointedly suggests that the new heavens and new earth must also be that same universe remade in the resurrection glory of the sons of God (Romans 8:19-23). Furthermore, the water which destroyed the world in the flood was literal water. This directly leads to the conclusion that the fire of the greater judgment was a fire which reduces the world to ashes. It is not a spiritual fire which destroyed the Judaical system. Yes, I know that some fire was used in the destruction of Jerusalem, but it certainly does not qualify for the kind of fiery destruction of which 2 Peter 3 speaks—if it is taken literally.

The second argument is really a kind of exegetical focusing of the first. The focus of which I speak is the movement from destruction of the old world in the flood in verse 6 to the preservation of the present heavens and earth for destruction by fire in verse 7. Look at these two verses once more: “through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.” Here the present heavens and earth are contrasted with the world that was destroyed by water. Of course, this included the religious and civil structures—whatever they were–of that world, but it certainly included much more. There was a massive upheaval of the physical surface of the world.” This destruction took place by physical water. To say that the counterpart of this physical water was the spiritual fire that destroyed Judaism simply defies the analogy instituted by Peter.

Part 7

In the last post I mentioned the first two points of my case against Owen’s preterist interpretation of 2 Peter 3, here I add a further argument in my case.

The Conclusive Case against Owen’s Interpretation Continued

Owen takes Luke 21:34, 36 as a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem (page 138). Let me remind you of his exact words:

“As it was foretold and threatened by Christ. How were believers cautioned to be ready for it with eminent holiness and watchfulness therein! So Luke xxi. 34, 36, “Take heed to yourselves; watch, therefore.” Why so? “Christ is coming,” verse 27. When? “Why in this generation,” verse 32. What to do? “Why, to dissolve heaven and earth,” verse 25; to “dissolve the Jewish church and state. Watch, therefore, give all diligence.” So also Matt. Xxiv. 42.”

It is perfectly evident from this that Owen takes the coming of which Luke 21:27 speaks as a spiritual coming of Christ at the destruction of Jerusalem. The problem with this becomes evident when one reads the context of these verses and what they say about the coming of Christ there described.

Consider Luke 21:23-27

“Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people; 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 underfoot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. 25 “There will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth dismay among nations, in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves. 26 men fainting from fear and the expectation of the things which are coming upon the world; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 27 “Then they will see THE SON OF MAN COMING IN A CLOUD with power and great glory.”

It is evident that the coming of which this passage speaks does not take place at the destruction of Jerusalem. The order is explicit. There is (1) the actual destruction of Jerusalem ending with the words “they will fall by the edge of the sword (vv. 23-24a) (2) the exile of the Jews into all the nations (v. 24b) (3) Jerusalem trampled down by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled (v. 24c) (4) signs in the sun, moon, and stars, and on the earth dismay among the nations etc. (v. 26) (5) Then the coming of the Son of man (v. 27). Plainly, this coming does not take place at, or anywhere near, the time of the destruction of Jerusalem.

Part 8

So far I have covered three points in my case against John Owen’s preterist view of 2 Peter 3. Let’s add a fourth in this post.

The Conclusive Case against Owen’s Interpretation Continued

Owen takes the words of verse 4 (“the promise of His Parousia”) as a reference to Jesus’ coming at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. My emphasis is on the fact that verse 4 speaks of the Parousia of Christ. It does not speak merely of a coming of Christ, but of His Parousia.

The word, Parousia, means arrival or presence or being present. One lexicon (Friberg) goes on to add that it is the opposite of apousia which is absence or being away. This word is used 24 times in the New Testament. In 6 of those occurrences the reference is to the coming or arrival and presence of someone other than Christ. The other 18 occurrences in all sorts of ways clearly and exclusively refer to the Second Coming of Christ in glory at the end of the age. Let me mention and comment on a few of these usages.

Matthew 24:27 “For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be.” While preterists take all of the references to the coming of Christ in Matthew 24 as references to the coming of Christ at the destruction of Jerusalem, the difficulty with so understanding this text is obvious. The “coming” of Christ at the destruction of Jerusalem was not obvious in the Americas nor in China, for instance. The Parousia, however, is obvious from one end of heaven to the other like a flash of lightning.

1 Corinthians 15:23 “But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming…” Here the resurrection of Christ’s people is coincident with His Parousia. Did this take place at the destruction of Jerusalem. Hyper-preterists say so, but I do not think that partial preterists want to assert this.

1 Thessalonians 4:15 “For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep.” This is the classic text on Christ’s Second Coming and it uses the term, Parousia, to describe that coming. The Parousia here is associated with meeting the Lord in the air. Verse 17 contains Paul’s famous assertion that believers will meet the Lord in the air. Pretribulationists assume that this statement implies that after this meeting, Christ and the church return together to heaven. Actually, this is neither stated, nor implied. In fact the word in the original (apantesis) implies exactly the opposite. F. F. Bruce says: “When a dignitary paid an official visit or parousia to a city in Hellenistic times, the action of the leading citizens in going out to meet him and escorting him on the final stage of his journey was called the apantesis….” Gundry aptly comments on the implication of this word: “This connotation points toward our rising to meet Christ in order to escort Him immediately back to earth.” This meaning of meeting (apantesis) is confirmed by its two other uses in the New Testament. Matt. 25:6 speaks of the ten virgins who were waiting to go out and meet the bridegroom and then return with him to the wedding feast. Even more clearly Acts 28:15 speaks of how the brethren came out to meet Paul and accompanied him on the final leg of his journey to Rome. If this is the meaning and implication of the word, then it is utterly inconsistent with the Pretribulational theory. It is also clearly inconsistent with a preterist interpretation of the Parousia.

There is one New Testament use of Parousia which is capable of being interpreted as not a reference to Christ’s final coming in glory. That passage is found in 2 Peter itself.

2 Peter 1:16 “For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.” Because of the association of these words with the transfiguration, some have assumed that Parousia here is a reference to that event. If so, it is the only use of the word to refer to that event to be found in the New Testament. It is preferable by far to understand that the transfiguration is here viewed as substantiating the Apostle Peter’s claims (1) that Jesus was the supernatural Son of God and (2) that Jesus would come again in glory.

In the context of the New Testament the Parousia of Christ is always a reference to the Second Coming of Christ in glory. It is not suggestive of a preterist interpretation anywhere and certainly not in 2 Peter 3:4.

Part 9

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.

Part 10

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?

Part 11

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.

Part 12

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.

Part 13

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.

Pin It on Pinterest