John Owen—A Caveat, part 12

by | 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.

Follow Us In Social Media

Subscribe via Email

Sign up to get notified of new CBTS Blog posts.

Man of God phone
Why is Theonomy Unbiblical?

Why is Theonomy Unbiblical?

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.

A Post-Logue to #DatPostmil? Blog Posts

A Post-Logue to #DatPostmil? Blog Posts

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. 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.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This