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 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.
by Sam Waldron | Apr 26, 2017 | Book Reviews, Eschatology
Introduction:
When someone writes a book which critiques a position that you hold deeply and dearly, and mentions you by name in his critique, I suppose it would be easy to react defensively and see nothing good in (and say nothing good about) said book. I suppose that is the temptation which I and other Amillennialists face in regard to Matt Waymeyer’s volume entitled, Amillennialism and the Age to Come, published in 2016 by Kress Biblical Resources. I have the “honor” of being mentioned in the very first footnote of this extensive (325 page) critique of Amillennialism. Also mentioned in its footnotes (and perhaps even more frequently than I am) are the fine defenses of Amillennialism written by Sam Storms and Kim Riddlebarger.
Waymeyer holds a Ph.D. from the Master’s Seminary and serves on the faculty of The Expositor’s Bible Seminary in Jupiter, Florida. He (according to the back cover of the book) also serves on the pastoral staff of Grace Immanuel Bible Church. Before that he taught Hermeneutics at the Master’s Seminary for several years. After reading his book, I was not surprised to hear him say in an interview with Fred Zaspel: “But really, the book, itself, flowed out of my PhD dissertation which I wrote at the Masters Seminary.” [http://www.booksataglance.com/author-interviews/interview-matt-waymeyer-author-amillennialism-age-come/] The book certainly does reflect the thoroughness of a doctoral dissertation. On the other hand, Waymeyer deserves commendation, I think, because this volume is quite readable.
But let me return to my original point about the danger I am in of defensiveness and seeing nothing good in Waymeyer’s book. I can honestly say that this is not my reaction to this work. Oh, of course, I do not agree with him. In fact, at a number of points I emphatically disagree. Yet, the fact is that there are number of things about his book that deserve appreciation and commendation. In my next post I will enumerate those things about his book for which I am thankful.
Part 2
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 | Mar 8, 2013 | Eschatology, New Testament, Systematic Theology
I thought I would conclude these blog posts with a few stray comments on the Revelation Symposium.
First, I wanted to say more, but had no opportunity at the Symposium, about the danger of Partial Preterism. But let me first qualify what I want to say.
I admit the difference between partial and full preterism. It is important to acknowledge that partial preterism lies within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy, while full or hyper-preterism does not. It is important to make clear that Gary Demar and many others reject hyper-preterism as heresy. He said so at the Symposium. That is all good. I think he is right about hyper-preterism.
But now let me give my worry. To put my concern in a nutshell, it is this. The same hermeneutic which can ascribe everything in Matthew 24 to the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and can understand Revelation 1:7 (BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.) of the same event must lead, it seems to me, to full preterism. Yes, I know that Gary and others do not want it to go there, but I think it does. They have probably have attempted it, but they need to explain why it does not. If these passages can apply to AD 70, why not 1 and 2 Thessalonians and every other reference to the parousia of Christ in the New Testament? Partial Preterism is responsible for the logic of its hermeneutic.
And along this line I have another worry. The assumption that the language of shortness and nearness necessarily implies an event within the generation of those living at the time of Christ’s first advent is the very logic that full preterism uses to teach its views. An examination of the uses of “near” and its relatives in the New Testament show that it is used of Christ’s Second Coming bodily and visibly in glory, I think. Look them up, and if you can take all of the events described as near as a reference to AD 70, you will be on well on your way to hyper-preterism!
I have responded to this assumption about nearness in the essay: “A Reply to the Hyper-Preterist Argument from Imminence.” Though the linked essay is addressed against full preterism, its reasoning applies to the partial preterist argument as wells.
Second, wanting to be an equal opportunity offender, let me say that one thing that Jim Hamilton said also worried me. Before I tell you my worry, I do want to say that I do deeply appreciate Jim and his labors. Having said that, however, and before I come to my deepest worry, I have to say that I think it is mislabeling to call Jim’s position, futurism. He thinks that the seven seals refer to events characteristic of the entire inter-adventual period. He thinks that the 1260 days of Revelation 11 refers to the church age and the two witnesses to the church. He is correct, I think. But this is not futurism. He should have made clear at the symposium that he was defending a highly modified form of futurism.
But here is my worry. Jim said in the roundtable q&a that every ethnic Jew alive at Christ’s coming would be converted by seeing Christ’s return. My response at the time was, “Wow, really?!” I am really surprised that Jim believes this and hope that I misunderstood him, but I do not think I did. Again, I do not want to make Jim responsible for actually holding what I believe are the logical implications of his position. He is responsible, however, for the good and necessary consequences of what he believes.
What are they? First, being converted by seeing Christ return is not salvation by faith, it is salvation by sight. Sight and faith are two different things (2 Cor. 5:7). Second, the Bible teaches that people must repent before Christ’s return. Christ delays His return so that people can be repent before He comes (2 Pet. 3:9). No Jew and no Gentile will be saved unless they repent before Christ’s return. Third, if the privilege of being converted by Christ’s Second Coming only applies to the Jews, then you have the return in principle of the Dispensational tendency to teach different ways of salvation for their two peoples of God. Fourth, neither Romans 11, nor Revelation 1:7, requires this interpretation. Even if you think Romans 11 teaches a mass conversion of the Jews–and I doubt it–, you still do not have to say that they are converted by seeing Christ’s Second Coming. In fact, in context you have to say that they are justified by believing in Christ before He comes again. Neither Revelation 1:7, nor Zechariah 12:10-14, requires this kind absolute universalism of the conversion of every ethnic Jew. Nor should they be used to contradict the clear NT teaching that men must be saved by faith prior to the Second Coming of Christ.
But let me conclude by once more congratulating both Jim and Gary on their fine presentations and faithfulness to God’s Word as they understand it!
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 | Mar 6, 2013 | Eschatology, New Testament, Systematic Theology
In their presentations of preterism and futurism both Gary Demar and Jim Hamilton explained their views of Matthew 24. I used my 20 minute response time in the afternoon to address this. I argued that Gary was right about the meaning of generation in Matthew 24:34 and that Jim was right about the Second Coming of Christ in glory at the consummation of the age being in view in Matthew 24:36 and that both were wrong to deny the others’ view of these matters. Here in two parts from More of the End Times Made Simple is my understanding of Matthew 24.
Following the outline specified [previously], let us now examine the teaching of Matthew 24:1-36.
Introduction: The Disciples’ Questions (vv. 1-3)
Matthew 24:1 And Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. 2 And He answered and said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here shall be left upon another, which will not be torn down.” 3 And as He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”
The Olivet Discourse is the answer to the disciples’ questions found in v. 3. As Murray says, “…we should most probably regard the disciples as thinking of the destruction of the temple and the coming (parousia) as coincident…” In other words, it seems clear from their questions that the disciples assumed that destruction of the temple could mean nothing less than the end of the world. This confusion could not go uncorrected. As we shall see, it does not.
I. The Outstanding Features characterizing This Period (vv. 4-14)
Matthew 24:4 And Jesus answered and said to them, “See to it that no one misleads you. 5 “For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many. 6 And you will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars; see that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes. 8 But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs. 9 Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations on account of My name. 10 And at that time many will fall away and will deliver up one another and hate one another. 11 And many false prophets will arise, and will mislead many. 12 And because lawlessness is increased, most people’s love will grow cold. 13 But the one who endures to the end, he shall be saved. 14 “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a witness to all the nations, and then the end shall come.
These verses give an overview of the entire interadventual period (the period between Christ’s first and second advents). The mention of the end in verses 6, 13, and 14 in comparison with verse 3 shows that Christ’s perspective in these verses reaches out to the very end of the age and His own Second Coming. It is clear from these verses, therefore, that the gospel age will be characterized by tribulation. War, famine, earthquake, tribulation, apostasy, persecution, false religions, increased lawlessness, and the waning of affection for Christ will be the age-long experience of the church of Christ.
II. The Great Tribulation during This Period (vv. 15-28)
Matthew 24:15 Therefore when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains; 17 let him who is on the housetop not go down to get the things out that are in his house; 18 and let him who is in the field not turn back to get his cloak. 19 But woe to those who are with child and to those who nurse babes in those days! 20 “But pray that your flight may not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath; 21 for then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall. 22 And unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days shall be cut short. 23 Then if anyone says to you, ‘Behold, here is the Christ,’ or ‘There He is,’ do not believe him. 24 For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. 25 “Behold, I have told you in advance. 26 “If therefore they say to you, ‘Behold, He is in the wilderness,’ do not go forth, or,‘ Behold, He is in the inner rooms, ‘do not believe them. 27 For just as the lightning comes from the east, and flashes even to the west, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be. 28 “Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.
Having given the big picture, verses 15-28 focus on the event of most concern to Jesus’ Jewish disciples, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. Murray notes, “In verse 15 it is not as apparent as it is in Luke 21:20 that Jesus is dealing with the destruction of Jerusalem. In the latter the reference is explicit: “When ye see Jerusalem encompassed by armies, then know ye that its desolation is drawn nigh.” All the language of the passage clearly describes the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem and gives warnings about it pertinent to Jesus’ first century Jewish disciples.
In particular the warning against believing that an imminent or secret appearance of the Messiah is to be associated with these events must be noticed. This makes clear that it is not a period just before the consummation of the age that is in view.
Some have found an objection to the interpretation here defended in the strong language of Matthew 21:21 and 22. Many have felt that such language could only describe the so-called great tribulation at the end of the age.
- This objection presses the language to ridiculous, literal lengths never intended by the Lord and ignores the possibility of the use of legitimate hyperbole by the Lord. (For examples of hyperbole see Matt. 5:29; 23:24; John 12:19; Luke 14:26; Mark 9:23).
- It also is forced to ignore the plain reference of the rest of the passage to the events of AD 70.
- Unless one adopts a strictly futurist view, one (say a proponent of the double fulfillment view) is forced to allow that some fulfillment of this horrifying prediction must have occurred in AD 70.
- This interpretation also displays ignorance of the massive and horrifying massacre of the Jews at this time. A reading of Josephus account is recommended.1
- This objection also fails to appreciate the covenantal ramifications of this event for the Jews. In this event the wrath of God came upon them to the uttermost (1 Thessalonians 2:16).
III. The Second Coming ending This Period (vv. 29-33)
Matthew 24:29 But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken, 30 and then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory. 31 And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other. 32 “Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender, and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; 33 even so you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door.
With this section of Matthew 24 one of the major difficulties with Professor Murray’s view is confronted. Murray recognizes this and says:
When we come to verse 29, we encounter some difficulty. For ‘the tribulation of those days’ might appear to refer to the ‘great tribulation of verse 21 which is associated particularly with the desolation of Jerusalem. How could it be said that, immediately after 70 A. D., the events specified in verses 29-31 took place?”
To put the problem in other words, verse 29 seems to say that immediately following the destruction of Jerusalem the coming of Christ in glory occurs. How then can verses 15-28 refer to a destruction of Jerusalem that took place in 70 A. D. and verse 29 refer to the future coming of Christ in glory?
Very properly Murray once again finds the solution in the parallel passage in Luke 21. He shows that Luke inserts words of Jesus not recorded by Matthew that wonderfully help to clarify the meaning. Here are the words that Luke inserts between what is recorded in Matthew 24:28 and what is recorded in Matthew 24:29.
Luke 21:24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
These words make very clear that “the tribulation of those days” mentioned in Matthew 24:29 includes not only the Jews’ falling by the edge of the sword, but also their being led into captivity, the times of the Gentiles, and thus, the entire interadventual period. The comments of Murray at this point are exceedingly helpful:
Luke includes an observation in Jesus’ discourse not included in Matthew’s account, and it belongs to what precedes Matthew 24:29, and must therefore be inserted. The observation given in Luke 21:24 is that “Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” So, in view of this element, it is apparent that our Lord’s delineation extended far beyond the destruction of Jerusalem and the events immediately associated with it. Hence the period “those days”, in Matthew 24:29, must be regarded as the days that extend to the threshold of what is specified in verses 29-31. But, apart from Luke 21:24, it would be reasonable, even on the basis of Matthew’s own account, to take the expression “the tribulation of those days” inclusively and not restrictively, “Those days” could properly be taken to mean the days preceding that of which Jesus now proceeds to speak, the days depicted already in verses 4-14, and “the tribulation” not exclusively the “great tribulation” of verse 21, but the tribulation which, according to the earlier part of the discourse, is represented as characterizing the interadventual period as a whole.2
Conclusion: The Lord’s Distinction (vv. 34-36)
Matthew 24:34 Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away. 36 But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.
Murray begins his treatment of these verses by a lengthy treatment of the meaning of generation in verse 34. He argues that it is “wholly untenable” to make this word mean race rather than generation. He uses three arguments. First, he argues that in the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament in use at the time of Christ) this Greek word translates a Hebrew word that means generation and not race. Second, he argues that if Jesus had intended to say race, another and clearer Greek word was available. Third, he argues that the meaning of the word generation in the New Testament is “clearly that of the living generation, or the generations in succession to one another”.
In particular Murray notes at this point the clearly parallel use of generation in the near context, Matthew 23:36. Notice this statement in its context. It seems beyond doubt that this parallel use is meant of the then living generation of Jews.
34 “Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, 35 so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 “Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. 37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. 38 “Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!
With this understanding of the word, generation, required in verse 34, Murray then addresses the obvious question raised by the verse.
How, then, are we to resolve the question posed by the events specified in the preceding context, especially in verses 29-31, which did not occur in the generation of which our Lord spoke?3
Murray’s reply to this question is to argue that there is a contrast intended in verses 34-36 between the destruction of Jerusalem and the coming of Christ in glory. Matthew 24:34-36 is often misunderstood because people do not appreciate the contrast that Jesus intends in these verses. Verse 34 must be contrasted with verse 36 or the entire meaning of the passage will be mistaken.
That there is a contrast intended in these verses is plain from three things high-lighted in these verses. First, the fact that verse 36 begins with the word, but, must not be overlooked. This conjunction in Greek commonly is used to introduce a contrasting thought.
Second, the contrast in the two different demonstrative pronouns used in verses 34 and 36 respectively must not be overlooked. “These” is the immediate demonstrative pronoun used to designate something relatively near at hand. It is appropriately used to describe the relatively near occurrence of all the things associated with the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem. It is so used throughout the passage (Matt. 23:36; 24:3, 8, 33). “That” is the remote demonstrative pronoun used to designate something that is relatively distant. It is appropriately used to designate the day and hour of Christ’s coming in glory. 4
Third, the contrast in the matter of time signs also cannot be overlooked. ”This generation” as Murray shows is clearly a reference to the then living generation of Jews. Thus, a general time sign is given for the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem. When Jesus says that “no one knows” including Himself of the day and hour of His return, there is a plain distinction introduced as to time signs between the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Coming of Christ. No time sign of any kind is given for the Second Coming. (There are signs, but no time signs of the Second Coming.)
1For a summary of Josephus’ description and an extended response to the objection in question, cf. J. Marcellus Kik, An Eschatology of Victory (Presbyterian and Reformed,1971), 112-120.
2John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray, vol. 2, (Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, 1977), pp. 387ff.
3John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray, vol. 2, (Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, 1977), pp. 387ff.
4H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, (The Macmillan Company, New York, 1967) pp. 122f.
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.
