by Sam Waldron | Jun 8, 2017 | Book Reviews, Eschatology
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10
The Test Case of Isaiah 65:17-25
In previous posts I have challenged Waymeyer’s hermeneutical priorities. I have argued that notwithstanding his refusal to do so, hermeneutical priority must be given to the New Testament over the Old Testament. I also argued that the more literal New Testament passages must be given priority over the more figurative prophetic genres of much of the prophetic literature of the Old Testament and the Book of Revelation.
In this post those hermeneutical priorities must be tested in relation to one of the Old Testament prophetic passages on which Waymeyer believes he can build a case for what he calls “the intermediate kingdom” of the millennium. That passage is Isaiah 65:17-25. As he says in his treatment of this passage, I have stated in the End Times Made Simple that this may provide one of the most plausible passages in favor of a future millennial kingdom which falls short of the eternal state.
This is so because taken literally and interpreted in terms of the naïve hermeneutics Waymeyer espouses it seems to teach that a period of time is coming which far surpasses the present, but which still contains the reality of death. The key verse is Isaiah 65:20: “No longer will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, Or an old man who does not live out his days; For the youth will die at the age of one hundred And the one who does not reach the age of one hundred Will be thought accursed.” Similar are the words of verses 22-23a: “They will not build and another inhabit, They will not plant and another eat; For as the lifetime of a tree, so will be the days of My people, And My chosen ones will wear out the work of their hands. 23 “They will not labor in vain, Or bear children for calamity …”
I have several responses to the use Waymeyer makes of this passage.
First, the figurative genre of prophetic literature may not be ignored in the way that Waymeyer does in interpreting this passage. If such a verse occurred in historical narrative I would admit that its meaning would be clear. It does not, however, occur in such a literal genre of Scripture. It occurs in prophetic literature which is composed of what Numbers 12:8 calls “dark sayings.” This means that a naïve literalism is out of place in interpreting such a statement.
Waymeyer cites and criticizes Richard Bauckham who says that “Prophecy can only depict the future in terms of the present.” (38). I admit that this statement goes a little too far. The Old Testament does predict the resurrection. In fact, Isaiah himself predicts the resurrection world in Isaiah 25:8—as Waymeyer points out. Still, it remains true that in terms of actually apprehending, deeply understanding, or “getting a feel” for what the age of resurrection might be like, there is still a necessary place for depicting the future in terms of the present. Even we who live in New Testament times grope for understanding about such a future. This is where the vivid, figurative language which depicts the future in terms of the absence of the miseries of the present has an important place. Storms makes this point in a more balanced fashion: “The best and most intelligible way the original author of this prophecy could communicate the realistic future glory of the new heaven and new earth, to people who were necessarily limited by the progress of revelation to that point in time, was to portray it in the hyperbolic or exaggerated terms of an ideal present.” (39). I would only add to Storms that in an important sense we also are so limited. We really do not know what living in the glory of the world of resurrection will be or feel like. We ourselves have a difficult time having a right and proper sense of it. And if we do—who have the light of the New Covenant—, then how much did the Old Testament saints who lived before life and immortality was brought to light through the gospel! That brings me to my second point.
Second, when interpreting such figurative passages of Scripture, we must pay close attention to the real intention of what is said. Let me say this very clearly. The true purpose and deepest intention of Isaiah 65:20 is certainly not to affirm the presence of death in the future state. At best, this is a secondary implication, and when it comes to figurative passages such secondary implications must be evaluated very critically. The true intention of these verses is to affirm the absence of the great and terrible tragedies that fill the present age with such deep sorrows. Some of us know the terrible sorrows of which Isaiah 65:20 speaks. We know the deep sorrow of burying our children. We know the painful frustration of laboring and toiling only to see our work destroyed. We know what it means to work hard for something and then see what we have built inherited by someone else. We know what it means to “bear children for calamity.” Isaiah’s clear purpose and true point is to affirm that all such sorrows and tragedies will be banished from the age of which he is speaking. It is a sad trivializing of Isaiah’s words to find in them a proof text for death in the millennium. It really constitutes extreme callousness to his glorious affirmation. Such a hermeneutical response to Isaiah 65:20-23 is incredibly insensitive. Given the figurative genre of these words, it is also wholly unnecessary.
Third, such an interpretation is also incredibly insensitive to how this passage is interpreted in the New Testament. This is, of course, the other hermeneutical principle and priority upon which I have insisted in previous posts. There are clear interpretive statements made about Isaiah 65:17-25 in the New Testament. We do not find anything in any of them about a millennium where death still exists.
Granted, Waymeyer acknowledges that there are certainly allusions to Isaiah 65:17-25 in the New Testament which apply it to the eternal state. He seeks to explain these references by way of “prophetic conflation.” (42-45). By way of such prophetic conflation, Waymeyer believes that he can meet the Amillennial polemic based on the way in which the New Testament applies the words of this passage. He can, thus, have the best of both worlds: the Premillennial interpretation he favors and the application to the eternal state found in the New Testament.
The reader should note, in the first place, that Waymeyer has actually granted the central point I want to make here. He appears to agree that the allusions to Isaiah 65:17-25 in the New Testament understand it to speak of the eternal state and, therefore, of a period in which there is no death. He is certainly right to agree with Amillennialists about this. For there are clear references throughout Isaiah 65:17-25 to conditions which can only be fulfilled in the perfection of the eternal state. Its joy is eternal (Isa. 65:18). Weeping is banished (Isa. 65:19). No evil or harm is done in God’s holy mountain—the New Jerusalem (Isa. 65:25). It seems to me, however, that Waymeyer’s use of the idea of prophetic conflation in this matter is misguided and finally futile. This is true for at least two reasons.
In the first place, it ignores the hermeneutical priority of the New Testament over the Old Testament. This means that we are bound to interpret the Old Testament as the New Testament does. What needs to be pointed out, then, is that, not only does the New Testament apply Isaiah 65:17-25 to the eternal state, but that it never takes it to speak of the Premillennialist’s millennium at all. The Premillennial interpretation of Isaiah 65:17-25 is absent from every possible allusion to the passage in the New Testament! The new heavens and new earth (Isaiah 65:17) is a reference to the eternal state in the New Testament (2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1). The New Jerusalem (Isa. 65:18) only descends from heaven in the eternal state (Rev. 21:2-4). The banishment of weeping is found only in the eternal state (Rev. 21:2-4).
Waymeyer’s use of prophetic conflation in order to explain the clear references to the eternal state is misguided for a second reason. The very passage on which the Premillennialist seeks to argue for the presence of death in the condition described in Isaiah 65:17-25 is actually understood quite differently by the New Testament. Here we need to look closely at the flow of thought or structure of Isaiah 65.
Verse 19 asserts that there will no longer be weeping in the state predicted. This is clearly fulfilled according to the New Testament by the eternal state in the clear allusion to Isaiah 65:19 in Revelation 21:2-4. There John says explicitly that the absence of weeping entails no more death! Revelation 21:4 says explicitly: “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.” Crying in Revelation 21:4 is the exact word used in the LXX to translate the weeping of Isaiah 65:19!
But what must be seen and weighed in connection with all this is that verses 20-23 of Isaiah 65 are the explanation in that passage of the statement of Isaiah 65:19, “And there will no longer be heard in her the voice of weeping and the sound of crying.” Thus, the New Testament takes verses 20-23 not to describe a time in which death continues, but interprets them of a time in which there will no longer be any death! The phrase, “there will no longer be any death,” is, then, the New Testament summary of Isaiah 65:20-23. Thus, the New Testament in Revelation 21:4 actually supports the figurative, Amillennial interpretation of Isaiah 65:20-23.
Waymeyer’s misunderstanding of biblical, hermeneutical principles and priorities, thus, betrays him into a misguided interpretation of Isaiah 65:17-25 which brings him into collision with the teaching of the New Testament. Space does not permit me to show this with regard to the other passages which he thinks teach an intermediate (millennial) kingdom in the Old Testament. I am satisfied, however, that proper hermeneutical principles and priorities will also explain those passages in a way which removes their supposed support for Premillennialism. If Isaiah 65—the most plausible support for a Premillennial kind of intermediate kingdom to be found in the Old Testamant—can be so clearly understood in a manner supportive of the Amillennial position, then so also can the other passages he brings forward.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by CBTSeminary | Jun 5, 2017 | Book Reviews, Eschatology
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9
Does Waymeyer recognize the figurative character of Old Testament prophecy or adopt the typical literalism of Dispensationalism with regard to it?
I noted in previous posts that Waymeyer at points seems uncomfortable, or at least speaks as if he were uncomfortable, with the literalistic approach of other Dispensationalists. His statements about this occur on pages 61-63 and are worthy of a closer examination.
In these pages Waymeyer is responding to Dean Davis’ comments in The High King of Heaven where Davis notes that a literal interpretation of Zechariah 14 entails the notion that at the end of the present, modern age battles will be fought by men riding on horses, camels, and donkeys. This direct implication of the literal hermeneutics of Dispensationalism, says Davis, poses one of the “intractable problems” for the premillennial view of this passage.
In response Waymeyer argues that Premillennialists have “long recognized the need to take an “analogical approach” with some Old Testament prophecies.” (61) In this approach, he says, “statements are taken literally but then translated into their modern-day equivalents.” (61) Waymeyer then opines: “Because it is unlikely (although certainly not impossible) that horses will be used as the primary means of advancing on Israel … the prophet may be describing the implements of future war with battle imagery familiar in his own day.” (61)
This is an interesting and even startling admission in several ways.
First, Waymeyer here allows a hermeneutic which he denies to Amillennialists. James Attebury (in his critique on Amazon) speaks of the Amillennial interpretation of Old Testament prophecy as using “the hermeneutic that the future is being described as an idealized present in Old Testament prophecy.” Here Waymeyer himself allows the possibility that such a hermeneutic is possible. An “analogical approach” to the Old Testament prophetic genre is all that Amillennialists require in order to answer Waymeyer’s polemic from Old Testament prophecy.
Second, it is also striking that Waymeyer is not entirely comfortable with his own admission. Thus, as the above quotation makes clear, he holds out the possibility that Zechariah might still be taken in an entirely literal fashion. He also makes the—what seems to me—contradictory statement that in this analogical approach statements are still taken literally, but interpreted analogically. This, as with much else that the Dispensational hermeneutic has to say about the literal interpretation of the figurative language of the Bible, leaves me scratching my head. It seems clear to me that if a statement is taken literally, then it ought to be interpreted literally. On the other hand, it seems to me that if a statement is interpreted analogically, then this necessarily assumes that it is—as to its genre—analogical or figurative.
Third, further comments by Waymeyer suggest that he is still quite committed to a highly literal or literalistic interpretation of Old Testament prophecy. Of course, in this vein we have just seen that he does not quite relinquish the possibility of a literal interpretation of the camels, donkeys, and horses of Zechariah 14. We must also take account here, however, of his comments about the Feast of Booths and the Passover being celebrated in the Millennium in the following pages. (63)
Here Waymeyer argues that celebration of the Feast of Booths predicted in Zechariah 14 is consistent with the New Covenant’s fulfillment of the Old Testament shadows. He says: “There is simply no reason why a future, eschatological celebration of this feast would require the re-establishment of anything that has been abolished or rendered obsolete by the first coming of Christ.” Waymeyer may think so, but when the institution of this Feast is considered in Leviticus 23:33-43 and Deuteronomy 16:13-17, it is clear that the celebrating of this feast involves celebrating a ceremonial sabbath! It also becomes clear that it is to be celebrated at Jerusalem. It also becomes clear that it is appointed as one of the three great feasts appointed for the Jews to celebrated as part of their ceremonial calendar. All of this is contrary to the abolition and obsolescence of the Old Covenant.
Waymeyer also in this context suggests that the Passover will be celebrated in the future! Citing a personal conversation with Michael Vlach, he affirms this on the basis of the words of Jesus in Luke 22:15-16. He then adds: “Celebrating the Feast of Booths in the messianic will no more constitute a return to the Mosaic law than eating the Passover will.” The problem with all this is that it would contradict the New Covenant to eat the Passover after Christ our Passover has been sacrificed (1 Corinthians 5:7). Furthermore, and emphatically, Jesus does not say that He will eat the Passover in the Age to Come. He says that He will eat its “fulfillment.” This is something entirely different: “And He said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God”” (Luke 22:15-16).
More to come…
CBTS Faculty fully subscribe to the 1689 Confession of Faith, hold an advanced
degree in their field of instruction, and possess significant pastoral experience.
by Sam Waldron | May 31, 2017 | Book Reviews, Eschatology
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8
Second Criticism: Hermeneutical Priority Must Be Given to the New Testament over the Old Testament and the More Literal New Testament Passages over the More Figurative. (Continued.)
In my last post I pointed out that Waymeyer’s priorities ignore and contradict the plain teaching of the Bible, that the prophetic genre of revelation is characterized as “dark sayings” (Numbers 12:6-8) and cannot be given priority over the clear and literal deliverances of the New Testament. My third comment builds on this reality.
Third, and now to be more specific, it is clear that Revelation 20 is also a passage that comes to us in the visionary, prophetic, or apocalyptic genre. It also, then, is by definition a figurative, less clear, and more obscure passage. As such, it must not be allowed to trump the clear teaching of the rest of the New Testament. On what basis do I say this?
I say it, first, because if anybody can actually read the rest of Revelation (especially chapters 4-19) and not find themselves scratching their heads again and again about the meaning of its prophetic visions, well, they are better than I am and almost all other Christians. Yes, there are high points like Revelation 5 which deal with the high points of Scripture like the ascension and enthronement of Christ. Nevertheless, even these passages are stated in what is clearly, highly and continuously, symbolic language. Revelation 20 may thus seem clear from within a Premillennial perspective, but it certainly has not seemed clear to those coming from other perspectives. It also could be shown that Premillennialism has its own many internal controversies about the meaning and implications of Revelation 20.
But the main and even more cogent point is this. The Book of Revelation bears all the marks of prophetic vision and is, thus, what Numbers 12:8 calls “dark sayings.” This includes Revelation 20. On what basis do I say that? One of the clearest markers of the prophetic, visionary, or apocalyptic genre is the use of the words, “I saw,” in its various forms. This marker occurs three times in Revelation 20:1-10 (once in verse 1 and twice in verse 4). These words frequently designate in Scripture a vision or dream seen by the inner eye of the prophet in his mind. In those cases the vision does not refer literally to anything in the external or physical world. There are simply symbolic parallels between the visionary world and the external world.
The Greek verb translated, “I saw,” in Revelation 20:1 and 4 actually occurs 63 times in the Book of Revelation and almost exclusively refers to the visions and dreams which the Apostle John saw as a prophet. The peculiarity of the genre of the Revelation is illustrated by the fact that these 63 occurrences are almost 1/7th of its 483 occurrences in the New Testament. The darkness or difficulty of such language as compared to normal or literal language is underscored not only in Numbers 12:8, but also in another book that is marked by this genre, Daniel.
In Daniel 8 Daniel sees the vision of the ram, the goat, the little horn, and the suspension of regular sacrifice in the temple. The word used in the LXX of Daniel 8:1-2 to identify this vision is the same as that used in Revelation 20 and throughout the Revelation. After the conclusion of the vision the difficulty of interpreting such visionary revelation is underscored in Daniel 8:15-17: “When I, Daniel, had seen the vision, I sought to understand it; and behold, standing before me was one who looked like a man. And I heard the voice of a man between the banks of Ulai, and he called out and said, “Gabriel, give this man an understanding of the vision.” So he came near to where I was standing, and when he came I was frightened and fell on my face; but he said to me, “Son of man, understand that the vision pertains to the time of the end.” Clarifying interpretation is necessary for such revelation as Daniel was given in Daniel 8 in order for it to be understood. Such interpretive help is not necessary for normal speech and literal communication, but such interpretive help is necessary for visions like those seen in Daniel 8.
Hence, for Waymeyer to maintain the hermeneutical priority of Revelation 20 over the rest of the New Testament betrays great insensitivity to its literary genre and a refusal to acknowledge the comparative difficulty of interpreting such language as compared to the normal speech of historical narrative and epistolary discourse which dominates the rest of the New Testament. We must in our interpretation of the Bible give hermeneutical priority to the clear before the difficult, the literal before the figurative, and the general before the detailed.
More to come…
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 26, 2017 | Book Reviews, Eschatology
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7
Second Criticism: Hermeneutical Priority Must Be Given to the New Testament over the Old Testament and the More Literal New Testament Passages over the More Figurative. (Continued.)
Having affirmed and qualified Waymeyer’s concern about a misuse of the analogy of faith, let me now critique his giving hermeneutical priority to Old Testament prophecy and Revelation 20 over the teaching of the New Testament. This brings me to my second comment regarding Waymeyer’s hermeneutical priorities.
Second, and by way of explaining my incredulity at Waymeyer’s virtual denial that prophetic literature is less clear than other genres of literature found in the Bible, let me explain why I assume this is true.
Let me begin this explanation by making what I hope will be a straightforward distinction. When I speak of prophetic literature in what follows, I am speaking of a genre of literature found in the Bible and not a doctrinal subject. In other words, I am saying that there are many passages in the Bible which deal with a prophecy (or last things) as a subject, but yet do not come to us in the Bible in a prophetic genre. The distinction I am talking about here is a distinction of literary genres. I am contrasting the prophetic or apocalyptic genre with other literary genres found in the Bible. Historical narrative and epistolary discourse are examples of other literary genres. Thus, prophecy (the doctrine of last things) may be addressed in historical narrative or epistolary discourse, but that does not make such passages as to their literary genre “prophetic.”
Does the Bible itself identify a “prophetic” literary genre? What is the nature of this literary genre? Are we justified in judging it less clear and more figurative than other literary genres? Let me attempt to answer each of these questions by turning to one of the pivotal passages with regard to prophets and prophecy.
In Numbers 12 Aaron and Miriam raise a complaint against Moses which included the question: “Has the LORD indeed spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us as well?” (Num. 12:2 NAU). Yahweh appears to them and defends His servant, Moses. In so doing He makes clear the nature of prophecy as a genre of revelation. Here are the key verses:
He said, “Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, shall make Myself known to him in a vision. I shall speak with him in a dream. “Not so, with My servant Moses, He is faithful in all My household; With him I speak mouth to mouth, Even openly, and not in dark sayings, And he beholds the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid To speak against My servant, against Moses?” (Num. 12:6-8 NAU)
In this passage are found the answers to each of our three questions raised above.
Does the Bible itself identify a “prophetic” literary genre? Yes, the Bible does identify a specific prophetic genre of revelation and distinguishes it (in this case) from the directness of the personal conversations with God connected to Theophany.
What is the nature of this literary genre? The passage once more makes this clear. Prophetic revelation is given characteristically through visions and dreams. Visions and dreams are revelations made through vivid symbols appearing in the mental world of the prophet and not in the outward world, visible to all.
Are we justified in judging it less clear and more figurative than other literary genres? Yes, the contrast between the theophanic, personal communication with Moses and the prophetic, visionary communication with Aaron and Miriam is emphasized in Numbers 12:8 “With him I speak mouth to mouth, Even openly, and not in dark sayings, And he beholds the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid To speak against My servant, against Moses?”
To put the problem for Waymeyer succinctly, he pervasively ignores the literary genre of the Old Testament prophecies to which he appeals against Amillennialism. As visionary, prophetic utterances we must be prepared to understand them in a highly symbolic fashion. The naively literal approach which boldly ignores their New Testament interpretation is both wrong-headed and misguided.
The great illustration of the disastrous results of such a naively literal approach can be seen from what it yields in connection with the great prophecy of the eschatological temple in Ezekiel 40-48. Waymeyer does not quite affirm the typical Dispensational interpretation of this passage. Indeed, at points he seems uncomfortable with this interpretation (61-63). Nevertheless, his literalistic interpretation of Old Testament prophecies and his pressing of them against the natural meaning of New Testament statements entails upon his view the disastrous Dispensational interpretation of Ezekiel 40-48 (105). For interpreted with the same naively literalistic method that Waymeyer uses, Ezekiel 40-48 results in the re-erection of Judaism in the Dispensational Millennium. I have documented this result in my critical review of Barry Horner’s Future Israel. Let me, however, review them here.
A consistently literal interpretation of Ezekiel’s prophecies in Ezekiel 40-48 leads to the following necessary results: in the future millennial temple there are tables for slaughtering burnt and sin offerings and the restoration of sin and guilt offerings and the sprinkling of blood on the altar (40:39; 43:18-27; 44:9-11, 13-15); there will be the restoration of the Zadokite Levitical priesthood (40:46-47; 43:18-19; 44:9-11, 13-15); the temple is a holy place to which no one “uncircumcised in flesh” may come (41:4; 43:12, 13; 44:9-11); there will be holy garments that the priest are to wear only when they minister in the Temple (42:14; 44:17-18); there is the restoration of the Shekinah glory overshadowing the Temple (43:1-14); this system will go on forever in the New Earth (43:7); there will be the restoration of the ceremonial law in which contact with dead bodies creates ceremonial defilement (43:7); the altar will have to be cleansed before being used (43:18-27); there will be special priestly laws about their haircuts, the consumption of alcoholic beverages and about marrying only virgins (44:20-22); there will be laws about ceremonial purity and defilement restored, taught by the priests, and enforced by their judgments (44:23-24); and, finally, there will be the restoration of the religious calendar of the Old Testament including seventh-day Sabbath observance, new moons, and the year of Jubilee (44:24; 45:17; 46:1, 3, 16-17). These are the consequences of the hermeneutic which allows Waymeyer to interpret the visions of Old Testament prophecy in such a way as to appeal to it against what “one might understandably conclude”—his words (105)—from the New Testament. Each of these contradict the plain deliverances of the New Testament.
Thus, I must protest against the kind of naively literal interpretation which lies under the hermeneutical priority Waymeyer gives the Old Testament prophecies over the New Testament interpretation of those prophecies.
Part 9
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 22, 2017 | Book Reviews, Eschatology
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6
Second Criticism: Hermeneutical Priority Must Be Given to the New Testament over the Old Testament and the More Literal New Testament Passages over the More Figurative. (Continued.)
In my last post I said that in a very real sense Waymeyer’s book constitutes an emphatic denial of (what I thought were) self-evident hermeneutical principles. Those principles were that clear passages must be given priority over difficult passages, literal passages over figurative passages, and general truths about eschatology before the details of prophecy. He does this by giving hermeneutical priority to Old Testament prophecy and Revelation 20 over the teaching of the New Testament. I am incredulous, but let me respond to Waymeyer with something more than incredulity.
First, let me affirm a concern of Waymeyer’s which I believe has some validity. He says: “The second problem concerns the use of the two-age model as an interpretive grid.” (9) He warns that such a use of the two-age model “silences the contribution of those passages by forcing them to conform to his theological system.” He adds: “In this way, systematic theology is used to determine exegesis rather than vice versa.” (9) In general, it seems to me, this is a fair warning with regard to the use of the hermeneutical principle known as the analogy of faith. Care must be taken not to silence the richness of divine revelation by a too facile assumption that we know what Scripture cannot say in light of our understanding of other indisputable truths of Scripture. Divine revelation is greater and more mysterious than our finite and fallen minds may realize. No doubt, the analogy of faith has been abused by those who have deduced contradictions where there was only supplementation by other plain truths of Scripture. This is a danger of which Systematicians must always beware.
The real danger in our day, however, is the tendency of Evangelicals to interpret Scripture in a way uninformed by historical theology and detached from any recognizable systematic theology. Thus, the danger about which Waymeyer warns is probably not the greatest danger we face today. Instances could be multiplied of interpretations of biblical passages which simply refuse to confront the practical contradictions they impose on ordinary Christians. One reputable theologian argues that the exegesis of Hebrews 3, 6, and 10 teaches the apostasy of genuine Christians. Yet he refuses to show how this is consistent with other passages that teach the opposite and even refuses to interpret those passages in a way consistent with their exegesis of Hebrews.
Listen to Calvin R. Schoonhoven in the article entitled, “The Analogy of Faith,” in Scripture, Tradition, and Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 105: “Although the “analogy-of-faith” devotee may assert that whatever these texts say they cannot teach that a “saved” person could be forever lost so as never again to be able to experience repentance, this is precisely what is taught here. These statements must not be interpreted in the context of other teachings; they must be interpreted in the context of Hebrews and from the perspective of this writer. Such strong words should not be interpreted by some sort of “illumination” from other passages.”
Such exegesis is simply irresponsible. The goal of all Christian teaching is to teach Christians to observe all that Christ commanded (Matthew 28:18-20). It is simply impossible for the ordinary Christian to practice a theological contradiction.
This is not, of course, the practical error into which Waymeyer falls. He believes that ultimately Scripture is self-consistent. He actually uses the analogy of faith himself to argue that Revelation 20 must expand our understanding of Luke 20 and what we might naturally conclude it means. (105) I say these things, however, because we all need to remember the necessity and responsibility of providing a coherent interpretation of Scripture to the Christian church. We may not wave aside the analogy of faith in our hermeneutics. It is in principle perfectly legitimate for Amillennialists to argue that the clear teaching of clear Scriptures require something other than a Premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20. If, for instance, the New Testament teaches—as it assuredly does—a general judgment of all men living and dead at Christ’s Second Coming issuing in the eternal state, then whatever Revelation 20 teaches it cannot teach Premillennialism. I think that it is plain that the New Testament does teach such a general judgment in many places and in clear language and that such a judgment is legitimately part of the analogy of faith by which the interpretation of Revelation 20 must be controlled.
Part 8
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.
