by Sam Waldron | Jul 20, 2017 | Book Reviews, Eschatology
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11, Part 12, Part 13, Part 14, Part 15
Concluding Thoughts
It is time to bring this lengthy critique of Waymeyer’s volume to a close. I want to do so by making four brief comments.
First, I will not attempt to delve into Waymeyer’s treatment of Revelation 20. It is tempting to do so, but this blog series is perhaps already too long. Fine, Amillennial treatments of this passage are, furthermore, easily available. I recommend William Hendriksen’s treatment for clarity and accessibility. I also and especially recommend G. K. Beale’s massive and impressive treatment of Revelation 20. It is 61 pages long! In it he seems to give evidence of having read almost everything ever written on the passage. He also seems to respond to every Premillennial objection to the Amillennial reading of Revelation 20:1-10.
Second, I also want to repeat my conviction that hermeneutical errors are at the root of Waymeyer’s mistakes. These involve especially the illicit introduction of the double fulfillment character of Old Testament prophecy into New Testament prophecy; his failure to recognize the highly figurative character of prophetic literature; and his failure to allow the clear teaching of Scripture, especially in the literal portions of the New Testament, to exercise a normative influence on the interpretation of the figurative and shadowy teaching of Old Testament prophecy and the highly figurative, apocalyptic language of Revelation.
Third, it must also be stressed that Waymeyer and the kind of Premillennialism he represents are guilty of (what Jay Adams someplace calls) eschatological diplopia. That is, they have a kind of prophetic double vision. What I mean is that the Bible teaches an interim kingdom to which they seem blind. It is the spiritual kingdom of the reigning Jesus during the inter-advental period. This is the true, interim kingdom. When Waymeyer insists on the necessity of a future, Jewish, millennial interim kingdom he is unnecessarily inserting a second interim kingdom after the one in which the church exists today. No such re-duplicated interim kingdom is necessary to explain biblical eschatology.
Fourth, and finally, I want to stress in conclusion that perhaps the greatest error of Waymeyer and his fellows is their failure to understand the true scope of Scripture (scopus scripturae) and biblical prophecy. That center is not the future of national Israel, but the future of Christ and His church. Ultimately, the question is really just this. Is the New Testament vision of Christ and the Church the fulfillment of the Old Testament? Or is it the Premillennial vision of a millennial kingdom centered on National Israel?
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 | Jul 18, 2017 | Book Reviews, Eschatology
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11, Part 12, Part 13, Part 14
Waymeyer’s Treatment of 1 Corinthians 15 Continued
Let me repeat the words with which I began my last post. “The pinnacle of the systemic confusion introduced into plain and literal New Testament passages by Waymeyer is found in his lengthy treatment of 1 Corinthians 15 on pages 147 to 171 of his book. Waymeyer’s argument consists in a number of assertions. First, there is a sequence of events at the end of Christ’s reign allowed by the use of epeita in verse 23 and eita in verse 24; and this allows for a temporal gap into which a future millennium may be inserted. Second, the reign of Christ in view in the passage is a future reign which requires a future millennial reign for its complete fulfillment. Third, “the end” in verses 24-26 includes the resurrection of unbelievers at the end of the millennium. Fourth, the assertion that death is defeated by the resurrection of believers at Christ’s Second Coming does not refer to a once-for-all defeat of death the last enemy. There are plain and, in my view, unanswerable responses to each of these assertions.” I responded to the first two of these assertions in my last post. The last two will be answered here.
“Third, ‘the end’ in verses 24-26 includes the resurrection of unbelievers at the end of the millennium.” Here it needs to be said that Waymeyer expresses some reservation about this typical premillennial interpretation of “the end” as the end of the resurrection, that is, the resurrection of unbelievers. Nevertheless, at the end of his “on the one hand, and on the other hand,” he adopts the traditional, premillennial position that this phrase is a reference, either directly or indirectly, to the resurrection of unbelievers at the end of the millennium.
In response to this little or nothing needs to be added to what I have said in the End Times Made Simple: “Against this theory the following considerations are conclusive: (1) As we have seen, the context makes no mention of the resurrection of unbelievers (vv. 18, 19). (2) The statement that all will be made alive in verse 22 is qualified by the phrase “in Christ.” Without exception this phrase has in the Apostle Paul’s writings a reference to the sphere of salvation. Unless, therefore, one is willing to adopt the heresy of universal salvation, one must limit the scope of verse 22. (3) The phrase “the end” (to telos) is never used of the last segment of the resurrection elsewhere in the New Testament.” Also conclusive against this interpretation of the end is what was noticed in my previous post. The time of “the end” is identified by the two “when’s” of verse 24. As we have seen, the second when clearly identifies the time of “the end” with the destruction of the last enemy, death, by the resurrection of believers at Christ’s Second Coming.
“Fourth, the assertion that death is defeated by the resurrection of believers at Christ’s Second Coming does not refer to a once-for-all defeat of death the last enemy.” I have already pointed to the explicit statement of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:54-55 that at the resurrection of Christ’s people death will be abolished and defeated as one of the conclusive reasons to reject Waymeyer’s reconstruction of the meaning of verses 20-28. In response to this use of these verses, Waymeyer argues: “The most plausible way to harmonize 1 Corinthians 15:51-57 with Revelation 20 is to see the language of victory over death in this passage as applicable to each stage of resurrection set forth in Scripture.” (166) Several responses to this innovative reading of these verses may be mentioned.
In the first place, it directly contradicts verses 54-55: “But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, ‘DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory.’” Paul says “then”—not “about then.” Nor does he say “sometime after then.” He certainly does not say “over a thousand years after this.” He clearly and straightforwardly says: “then will come about the saying that is written, ‘DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory.’”
In the second place, Waymeyer’s reading is made even more difficult because it is simply impossible to ignore the connection between verses 54-55 and verse 26. Granting for the sake of argument, that in another context something like Waymeyer’s reading might be possible. It is not possible in this context, because of the contextual connection between the verses 54-55 and verse 26.
In the third place, the deplorable hermeneutics driving Waymeyer’s reading must be noticed. For him the question is how to reconcile 1 Corinthians 15 with Revelation 20. Clearly, the force driving the innovative reading of 1 Corinthians 15:54-55 is the Premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20. I have pointed out in previous posts just how misguided and backwards it is to allow a highly figurative passage written in apocalyptic language to exercise a normative, hermeneutical influence over a straightforward and literal passage like 1 Corinthians 15. To introduce an alien universe of discourse into 1 Corinthians 15 from Revelation 20 is destructive of the clarity of Scripture.
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 | Jul 13, 2017 | Book Reviews, Eschatology
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11, Part 12, Part 13
Waymeyer’s Treatment of 1 Corinthians 15
The pinnacle of the systemic confusion introduced into plain and literal New Testament passages by Waymeyer is found in his lengthy treatment of 1 Corinthians 15 on pages 147 to 171 of his book. Waymeyer’s argument consists in a number of assertions. First, there is a sequence of events at the end of Christ’s reign allowed by the use of epeita in verse 23 and eita in verse 24; and this allows for a temporal gap into which a future millennium may be inserted. Second, the reign of Christ in view in the passage is a future reign which requires a future millennial reign for its complete fulfillment. Third, “the end” in verses 24-26 includes the resurrection of unbelievers at the end of the millennium. Fourth, the assertion that death is defeated by the resurrection of believers at Christ’s Second Coming does not refer to a once-for-all defeat of death the last enemy. There are plain and, in my view, unanswerable responses to each of these assertions. I will respond to the first two of these assertions in the remainder of this post. Then the last two will be answered in the next post.
‘First, there is a sequence of events at the end of Christ’s reign allowed by the use of epeita in verse 23 and eita in verse 24; and this allows for a temporal gap into which a future millennium may be inserted.’ This is the gist of Waymeyer’s argument on pages 151-155. What is the proper response?
I see no reason to deny that epeita and eita—here and in other places—speak of a sequence of events. Thus, it is possible in the abstract that a period of time may lie between the periods designated by these words. At the same time, I agree with my fellow Amillennialists that inserting both the 7-year tribulation and the millennium and thus a period of over a thousand years between verse 23 and verse 24 seems in itself far-fetched. I cannot quite say that it is impossible.
What does make it impossible is the way in which the passage itself identifies the period specified by Paul in the words of verse 24, “then comes the end.” This “end” comes “when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.” In the context this abolition of all rule and authority and power occurs and must have occurred when “the last enemy … death is abolished.” This happens—everything about the passage conspires to teach this—at the resurrection of Christ’s people at His coming. This is what the contextual emphasis on the resurrection of Christ’s people requires. It is also what the specific statement of Paul requires later in the passage when he says in 1 Corinthians 15:54-55: “But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, “DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory. 55 “O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING?”” Death, the last enemy, is destroyed and abolished by the resurrection of Christ’s people at His coming. Not all the attempts of Waymeyer to distract our attention from this simple and decisive affirmation of Paul in this passage should move us from his straightforward assertion.
‘Second, the reign of Christ in view in the passage is a future reign which requires a future millennial reign for its complete fulfillment.’ Waymeyer asserts: “A closer look at this passage indicates that the reign of Christ in 1 Corinthians 15:25 cannot be a present reality and therefore must refer to a future kingdom.” (1550). Waymeyer’s assertion seems to be grounded on several false premises.
In the first place, he thinks that “the present age is the only age in which Jesus will reign over the messianic kingdom.” (155). This is wrong. Though a certain phase of the messianic kingdom comes to an end with His return (the reign of conquest), the kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is eternal. Several passages say plainly that His reign once commenced is without end (Isa. 9:7; Eph. 5:5; 2 Peter 1:11; Rev. 22:3-5). Jesus reigns as king not only in this age but in the age to come (Eph. 1:21).
In the second place, he assumes that, if the present age is the age of Christ’s reign, then the saints do not and cannot co-reign with Christ (155-156). This also is mistaken for several reasons. (1) The saints reign with Christ in heaven now after their deaths. This is, in fact, the actual meaning of Revelation 20:4-6 according to Amillennialists. Revelation 3:21’s promise that the overcomers will sit down on Christ’s throne after they overcome has a preliminary fulfillment like the other promises to the overcomers in the intermediate state—as I prove in End Times Made Simple. (2) It is also true that by faith they are seated with Christ on His throne in heaven even in the present life (Eph. 2:6; Col. 3:1). Thus, they are reigning with him even now in heaven. (3) Further, it is also true that when Christ returns to destroy His enemies His people will share with Him in their destruction and in His final war of destruction. (4) Finally, since Christ’s reign does not cease with His Second Coming, the saints share for all eternity in His reign in the age to come and, thus, co-reign with Him (Rev. 5:10; 22:5).
In the third place, Waymeyer adopts Saucy’s distinction between Christ being exalted to the messianic kingship and his actual reigning (157). Here is what Saucy and Waymeyer following him actually say: “Although Christ has been exalted too the messianic kingship, nowhere else in the New Testament is he said to be presently exercising that kingship in an actual ‘reigning’ over his enemies.” This assumption and idea is also completely mistaken. Here is why. (1) The notion of Christ’s sitting on the throne, but not actually reigning is so distant from the biblical conception of kingdom as to be almost entirely foreign to its way of thought. To sit on the throne is to reign. To distinguish the two things is a notion completely without support in the Scriptures. (2) As a matter of fact, the New Testament presents Christ as exercising this reign over all things including His enemies in a number of key passages. In Acts 2 He pours out His Spirit and converts His enemies because of His reign. Cf. especially Acts 2:33-36. In Revelation 5 and 6 He takes His place on the throne of God at His ascension and opens the seals of the book of God’s redemptive purposes during the present age. As the actual opening of the seals discloses, their opening involves reigning over His enemies in different ways. (3) The quotation of Psalm 8 confirms all of this. Waymeyer and Saucy are completely mistaken in their view that Hebrews 2 supports their contention that Jesus has not yet begun to reign. When Hebrews says that we do not yet see all things subjected to Him (Heb. 2:8), it is talking not about Christ but man or, in other words, the human race. As a matter of fact, the writer immediately proceeds to say that Jesus has been crowned with glory and honor—and the implication is that all things are under His feet, even if they are not yet under the feet of His redeemed race. Ephesians 1:22 actually asserts that all things are already put under Jesus’ feet. Not only so, but that verse asserts that He is made head over all things for the sake of His church. How is this purpose of His being seated on His throne consistent with the notion that He is not exercising a reign over His enemies? Thus, Hebrews 2:8 cannot mean what Waymeyer and Saucy think and does not refer to Christ. Of course, the complete outworking of this past subjection of all things to Christ awaits the future consummation when at His Second Coming the last enemy is destroyed (1 Corinthians 15:27), but the notion that Jesus is not yet actually reigning over all things and His enemies is wholly without New Testament support.
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 | Jul 5, 2017 | Book Reviews, Eschatology
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11, Part 12
Waymeyer’s Treatment of Luke 20
Perhaps the clearest and most comprehensive, single statement of the New Testament’s “two-age” eschatology is found in Luke 20:34-36. For this reason it has become foundational to contemporary Amillennialism’s critique of Premillennialism. Waymeyer focuses on this passage on pages 102-105 of his book. Here is the passage: “Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, 35 but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36 for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.”
The Amillennialist treatment of this passage assumes that the meaning is straightforward and clear. It contrasts the two ages at four points. This age is characterized by marriage, but the age to come by no marriage. This age is characterized by death and dying, but the age to come by no death and dying. This age is characterized and inhabited by natural men, but the age to come by resurrected men. Finally, this age is characterized by righteous and wicked men co-existing, but the age to come by the fact that its inhabitants are exclusively sons of God.
Waymeyer acknowledges, as I have previously pointed out, that this passage—taken alone—naturally suggests these contrasts and the polemic against Premillennialism which may be based on them. (105) How does he seek to evade what appears to be the natural force of this passage?
He begins by noting that the context of its assertions is a debate between Jesus and the Sadducees over the reality of the resurrection (Luke 20:27f.). (103) He is, of course, correct in this. His argument is, then, that the passage is not so much about the age to come, but about the resurrection and that it is unnecessary to apply everything Jesus says about the resurrection to the age to come. (104) In a footnote he seeks to buttress the implicit distinction he makes here between the resurrection and the age to come by noting that the passage speaks of “that age and the resurrection of the dead.” (103-104) He takes the conjunction (kai) to mean that there is some distinction between the age to come and the resurrection of the dead.
What is wrong with this reading of the passage?
First, it begs the question as to why Jesus introduces the concept of the two ages and the contrast between them at all. As Waymeyer rightly points out, the context is about the resurrection. Why, then, does Jesus introduce the two ages? It seems to me that, once this question is asked, that the natural and even necessary answer to it must be that the concept of the two ages is simply Jesus’ own way of speaking of the contrast between the age of resurrection and the present age. If this is not the case, then Jesus introduces an extraneous and irrelevant distinction into this discussion which only confuses the issue. The age of resurrection is, in other words, the age to come; and the age to come is the age of resurrection. To distinguish the two is to miss Jesus’ whole point.
Second, everything about the passage and its contrast between the two ages conspires to confirm this. Everything about Waymeyer’s distinction, on the other hand, tends to confuse and corrupt the clarity of the passage.
Third, everything about the parallel passages in the New Testament tends to contradict Waymeyer’s attempted distinction. Passage after passage associates the age to come with eternal life in the eschatological and resurrected sense (Matt. 12:32; Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30; 1 Timothy 6:17-19). Passage after passage concludes the present age with the Second Coming of Christ (Matt. 13:40, 49; 24:3; Titus 2:12-13); and Christ’s coming brings the transformation of the new body to all of His people including especially all of those who survive until His return (1 Cor. 15:51, 52; 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17). Thus, the age to come is the age of resurrection for all of Christ’s people.
Fourth, what is true of the New Testament parallels in general is especially true of the closest parallel to Luke 20:34-36. Here I refer to the teaching of Jesus in the parable of the wheat and weeds explained in Matthew 13:36-43. In that passage there is the same contrast between two periods of time—the age of sowing and the age of reaping. There is the same contrast between the present mixture of good and evil men in the world and a future period in which wicked men are rooted out of Christ’s field. There is the same contrast between the natural character of the present age and the supernatural character of the future period in which the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father (Matt. 13:43)—a clear reference to Daniel 12:3 and the resurrection of the righteous. All this is clearly parallel to the teaching of Jesus in Luke 20:34-36. What is devastating, however, for Waymeyer’s exegesis of Luke 20 is that it specifically contradicts his notion of a distinction between the age to come and the resurrection. At Christ’s coming all the wicked are rooted out of His field-kingdom-world; and all the righteous enter the glory of the resurrection. The coming of the future age of reaping brings the extirpation of the wicked from the world by the Second Coming and the glorification of the righteous. The passage is incapable the distinction that Premillennial reads into Luke 20:34-36.
Fifth, Waymeyer’s footnote emphasizing the kai conjunction ignores a well-known alternative use or meaning of kai known as the epexegetical or appositional use. In this construction which is common in the New Testament the kai explains or expounds the previous words. It is simply misleading and unacceptable for Waymeyer merely to assume his own understanding and not to mention or discuss the epexegetical or appositional meaning which would destroy his thesis of a distinction between the age to come and the resurrection. Everything, on the other hand, that we have seen above points to the epexegetical meaning as the right understanding of the kai.
Here in Waymeyer’s treatment of Luke 20:34-36 we see a constant feature of his exegetical work which should disturb the reader. The result of his Premillennial approach is to create confusion in passages which appear at first clear to the straightforward reader of Scripture. Distinctions are imposed on passages which are not obvious in any way in the passage itself and which actually contradict the most natural reading of the passage. We have seen this in Matthew 25. We observe it again here in Luke 20. We will see the tendency of Waymeyer’s Premillennial hermeneutic to undermine and erode the clarity of Scripture again in 1 Corinthians 15.
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 | Jul 5, 2017 | Book Reviews, Eschatology
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11
Waymeyer’s Treatment of Matthew 25
At this point in these blog posts, we turn from what are mainly hermeneutical criticisms of Waymeyer to an examination of his treatment of various passages which together form the bedrock of the Amillennial position. On pages 115-124, Waymeyer labors to provide an acceptable Premillennial interpretation of the judgment passage found in Matthew 25:31-46. We think that he fails. The scope of this response does not allow a point by point discussion of Waymeyer’s treatment of Matthew 25, but the following is one example of why his Premillennial interpretation cannot stand.
On the face of it this passage certainly appears to support the Amillennial position by teaching a general judgment. The scope of this judgment is universal: “all the nations.” Cf. Matthew 25:31. The result of this judgment is eternal: “eternal punishment … eternal life.” Cf. Matthew 25:46. The timing of this judgment is Christ’s Second Coming: “when the Son of Man comes in His glory.” Cf. Matthew 25:31. A general judgment composed of three conceptual pillars eliminates the possibility of Premillennialism. No eschatological room is left for the kind of interim, millennial kingdom defended by Waymeyer. After the Second Coming there are no natural men left to populate, procreate in, or deviate from the ways of God in a Premillennial millennium.
Waymeyer’s attempts to provide such natural men strain credibility. Several of his assertions fall into this category. Here is an example. He says. “… premillennialists generally believe that Matthew 25:31-46 describes not the final judgment of all mankind, but rather the judgment of the nations which exist when Jesus returns, specifically concerning either their entrance into the millennial kingdom or their consignment to eternal fire.” (116) In this assertion Waymeyer manages to combine several ideas which strain exegetical credibility.
(1) He manages directly to contradict the clear assertion that the results of this judgment are eternal punishment for the wicked and eternal life for the righteous. This contrast (as the orthodox have pointed out ad infinitum against annihilationists and universalists) requires that the eternal punishment be parallel to the eternal life. The Premillennial argument here advocated by Waymeyer undoes that clear parallel by substituting entering a millennial kingdom for entering eternal life. How is this entering a temporary millennium parallel to eternal punishment?
(2) The interpretation of “the nations” as (only) the living nations which exist when Christ returns (and not all mankind) forgets that Jesus does not say “the nations,” but “all the nations.” It, then, contradicts the meaning of “all the nations” in Matthew and the parallel passages. While “the nations” in Matthew refers to the Gentiles, “all the nations” has a universal scope. “All the nations” is used in only two other passages in Matthew. One of them in the very context of Matthew 25:32, the Olivet Discourse. In Matthew 24:14 and in Matthew 28:19 it is used to refer to the universal scope of the gospel proclamation in the last days. Since we know that this gospel proclamation (the Great Commission) is first made to the Jewish nation and then to all the nations of the world (Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8), “all the nations” cannot be restricted to the Gentiles. Furthermore, it cannot be given the nationalistic connotation favored by Premillennialists. Clearly, “all the nations” are composed of individuals who either believe the gospel and are saved or refuse it and are lost. This judgment does not concern whole nations entering the millennial kingdom or not, but individuals entering eternal life or not!
(3) Here is another serious difficulty, then, for the Premillennial attempt to limit the scope of this judgment “the nations that exist when Jesus returns” (and thus living nations). It is that the language of Matthew 25:32 suggests that the judgment here described must include all those who have heard the universal, gospel proclamation. This surely will and must include some who have died by the time of Christ’s return. It also requires the dubious notion that some wicked men will survive Christ’s return in fire to destroy the adversaries. This, in light of the clear descriptions of the destruction resulting from Christ’s return, is highly questionable. Cf. Matthew 13:40-43; 24:31-50; 1 Thessalonians 5:3; 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10. But even more insurmountable for the Premillennial interpretation is the fact that it has to ignore and even defy (what seems to me to be) the clear fact that Matthew 25:31f. is the final stanza in a song of judgment that runs throughout the teaching of Matthew’s Gospel. Previous verses in that song may be found in Matthew 7:21-23; 11:20-24; 12:41-42; 13:40-43; and 16:27. Premillennialists are forced to say that the judgment repeatedly described in these passages (which clearly included individuals who have died) is not the judgment of Matthew 25:31-46. Their interpretation of Matthew 25 is, thus, not contextual.
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.
