by Richard Barcellos | Jun 8, 2011 | Biblical Theology, Book Reviews, Hermeneutics, New Testament, Old Testament, Systematic Theology
Tom Wells’ book on the Sabbath: Chapter Three (IV)
Mark 2:23-28 narrates another incident between Jesus and his disciples and the Pharisees. Jesus was “passing through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples began to make their way along while picking the heads of grain” (Mk. 2:23). The Pharisees said, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” (Mk. 2:24). This is the regulating question Jesus answers in this passage. According to the Pharisees’ understanding, Christ’s disciples were violating the law of God by doing that which was, in their words, “not lawful on the Sabbath” (Mk. 2:24). Christ, as in Matt. 12:3-4, brings up the example of David and his companions entering the house of God and doing that “which [was] not lawful…” (Mk. 2:26). In Matt. 12:7, he pronounced his disciples innocent. In Matt. 12:12, Jesus said, “So then, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” Though he does not pronounce his disciples innocent in Mark 2, he uses David and his companions as an example of someone in Scripture doing a similar thing his disciples were doing. It seems obvious that if his disciples were innocent in one text (Matt. 12), they are innocent in another (Mk. 2).[1] But how were they innocent? Did they, in fact, do that which was not lawful on the Sabbath? Obviously, Jesus did not think so in Matthew 12 or here. In Jesus’ mind, they did that which was lawful. It was lawful because God desires compassion or mercy over sacrifice (cf. Matt. 12:7). In other words, Jesus makes a distinction between aspects of the Old Testament’s laws. Mercy overrules the positive aspects of the Sabbath under the old covenant.[2]
In Mk. 2:27, Jesus does as Paul and Moses do elsewhere. He draws a principle from creation that is germane to mankind (cf. Exod. 20:8-11 and 1 Tim. 2:12-13). Mark 2:27-28 says, “And He said to them, ‘The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath.’” First, note that both man and Sabbath are said to be made. The verb used by Mark in v. 27, evge,neto (“made”), comes from gi,nomai, which means ‘to become’ or ‘to be.’ It is the same verb used in Jn. 1:3, where it is translated “made.” There it refers to the creation of all things through the Word. What Jesus is saying in Mk. 2:27 is that, in the past, both man and the Sabbath came into being (i.e., ‘were made’) and that coming into being is described by one verb. This leads us to the conclusion that man and Sabbath were made at the same time. It would be quite clumsy to separate the making of man and the making of the Sabbath by hundreds and maybe even thousands of years by placing the Sabbath’s birth after Israel’s deliverance from Egypt in Exod. 16 or 20. Since we know that man was created (i.e., ‘came into being’) according to Gen. 1 and 2 in the Garden of Eden, Christ would have us to conclude that the Sabbath, as he refers to it here, was made at the same time and in the same place (cf. Exod. 20:11). This relates Christ’s teaching on the Sabbath with previous revelation.
Second, both Sabbath and man are singular and articular in the Greek text (To. sa,bbaton… to.n a;nqrwpon [“the Sabbath…the man”]). Both words occur twice in this verse and both words are preceded by an article each time. This is one way to emphasize both Sabbath and man. Jesus did not say “The Sabbath was made for the Jews” or “the Sabbaths[3] were made for the Jews.” He said “the Sabbath” was made for “the man.” “The man” refers either to Adam as the head of the human race or mankind. Either way, it is clear that Christ goes back to the creation account and sees both man and the Sabbath being made. In context, Christ not only corrects the Pharisees for misunderstanding the Sabbath (Mk. 2:23-24), he, in effect, rebukes their narrow-minded and unbiblical approach to this issue. Jesus teaches us that the Sabbath is not unique to the Jews. God caused it to come into being as he caused Adam and all mankind to come into being for his glory and their good. The Sabbath is as old as man, according to Christ, not merely as old as the Jews. Again, this relates Christ’s teaching with previous revelation.
Third, the Sabbath is said to have been “made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.” Two observations are worthy to consider. First, “[t]he Sabbath was made for man.” It was not made for God. God does not need a Sabbath. We do. It was made by God for our good. Second, man was not made “for the Sabbath.” Man existed first. His needs existed before the Sabbath did. The Sabbath came into being to serve man’s needs to be like God and to enjoy him. We don’t serve the Sabbath, it serves us so we can serve God better. Again, this relates Christ’s teaching with previous revelation.
Fourth, Christ puts his stamp of Messianic lordship on the Sabbath that was made at creation. “Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath” (Mk. 2:28). This provides us with the expectation that the Sabbath will abide under his lordship and will take on characteristics appropriate to this lordship under the new covenant (cf. Rev. 1:10). John Murray comments:
What the Lord is affirming is that the Sabbath has its place within the sphere of his messianic lordship and that he exercises lordship over the Sabbath because the Sabbath was made for man. Since he is Lord of the Sabbath it is his to guard it against those distortions and perversions with which Pharisaism had surrounded it and by which its truly beneficent purpose has been defeated. But he is also its Lord to guard and vindicate its permanent place within that messianic lordship which he exercises over all things–he is Lord of the Sabbath, too. And he is Lord of it, not for the purpose of depriving men of that inestimable benefit which the Sabbath bestows, but for the purpose of bringing to the fullest realization on behalf of men that beneficent design for which the Sabbath was instituted. If the Sabbath was made for man, and if Jesus is the Son of man to save man, surely the lordship which he exercises to that end is not to deprive man of that which was made for his good, but to seal to man that which the Sabbath institution involves. Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath–we dare not tamper with his authority and we dare not misconstrue the intent of his words.[4]
It is clear from the text in Daniel, where the phrase “Son of Man” comes from, that it refers to Christ in the posture of enthronement, immediately following his ascension into glory and is a title appropriate for him during the days in which he is given a kingdom and the nations become his.
I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed. (Dan. 7:13-14)
In other words, Christ administrates the Sabbath as the Son of Man during the whole interadvental period–the days of the new covenant. This relates Chris’s teaching on the Sabbath with both previous and future revelation. Christ’s lordship over the Sabbath also implies Christ’s deity. The Sabbath is God’s (Isa. 56:4; 58:13). Since Christ is Lord of the Sabbath as Son of Man and since this title is his during the inter-advental days of the new covenant, then we should not be shocked if the Sabbath bears unique characteristics of his lordship under the new covenant. Patrick Fairbairn says:
He is Lord of the Sabbath, and, as such, has a right to order everything concerning it, so as to make it, in the fullest sense, a day of blessing for man–a right, therefore, if He should see fit, to transfer its observance from the last day of the week to the first, that it might be associated with the consummation of His redemptive work, and to make it, in accordance with the impulsive life and energy thereby brought in, more than in the past, a day of active and hallowed employment for the good of men.[5]
Jesus (Matt. 19:4-5 [and Mk. 2:27-28]), Paul (1 Tim. 2:12-13), and Moses (Exod. 20:11) argue in similar fashion. Each of them goes back to the creation account for the basis of ethics in terms of marriage, divorce, male/female roles in the church, and Sabbath. They all apply the same reasoning, though to different issues. If the basis for their argument is creation, and if creation transcends covenants and cultures, how can we not conclude that what they are arguing for applies to all men at all times, though dependant upon revelation from God in terms of specific application at any given point in redemptive history? In other words, though the application may vary due to various redemptive-historical situations (i.e., divorce permitted due to the entrance of sin, 7th day Sabbath to 1st day Sabbath/Lord’s Day, etc.), the principle itself stands. And the reason why it stands is due to the order and ethical implications of creation drawn out by the Bible itself.
If the principle applies to marriage, divorce, and male/female roles in the church, then doesn’t it still apply to the Sabbath as well? If it does not apply to the Sabbath, upon what grounds is the principle dismissed? If one says, “The Sabbath was an ordinance for the Jews only. It was theirs’ as God’s old covenant people to apply to their culture alone in the Promised Land,” then couldn’t someone argue the same for male/female roles in the church? They could say, “Paul was dealing with a culture-relative issue. His reasoning applied to that culture alone. Women, therefore, may have authority over men in the church and may teach and preach to them. Women may be pastors.” Some in our day argue this way. But when the Bible bases ethics upon creation, the principle applies to all cultures at all times. And until this age gives way to the fullness of the age to come, creation-based ethics (i.e., creation ordinances) are moral laws for all men.
[1] If Matthew utilized Mark, it could be that he filled out the incident for his own purposes. If Mark used Matthew, it could be that he trimmed the incident because he knew Matthew had dealt with it in detail. If the Gospel writers wrote independent of each other based on eye-witness accounts, each one wrote what they did for authorial purposes. Either way, both texts were inspired by God and can and ought to be used to interpret each other.
[2] See the Second London Baptist Confession, 22:7, where it acknowledges that the Sabbath is “a positive moral, and perpetual commandment…” I take this to mean that the Sabbath can and does take upon itself temporary aspects (i.e., positive laws) during the history of redemption, which can and do change, yet its essence is moral or perpetual. This means that its positive aspects may give way to the moral or perpetual aspects of God’s law.
[3] The Jews under the old covenant had both a weekly Sabbath and other non-weekly Sabbaths.
[4] John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol. I (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1976), 208.
[5] Fairbairn, Revelation of Law, 238.
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
by Richard Barcellos | Jun 4, 2011 | Hermeneutics, Historical Theology
Brief survey of the history of hermeneutics – 11. Renaissance and Reformation
The theological methodology of the post-Reformation Reformed orthodox: The theological methodology of the post-Reformation Reformed orthodox was, in the first place, exegetical. In order to get a firmer grip on their methodology, we will examine it from the vantage point of what it is not – 1. a hyper-syllogistic method; 2. an Aristotelian, rationalistic method; and 3. a universal method – and what it is – 4. a pre-critical method; 5. an exegetically-based method; 6. a redemptive-historically sensitive method; and 7. a multi-sourced method. The last four mentioned methodological characteristics are especially visible in the writings of John Owen, one of the premiere post-Reformation Reformed scholastics.[1]
1. Not a Hyper-Syllogistic Method: Their method was not reduced to syllogistic argumentation ad nauseam. In fact, Muller claims that “[f]ew of the orthodox or scholastic Protestants lapsed into constant or exclusive recourse to syllogism as a method of exposition.”[2] Syllogistic argumentation was utilized, but mostly in polemic contexts and not as an exegetical tool. Logic–the science of necessary inference–was utilized by the Reformed orthodox in the drawing out of good and necessary conclusions from the text of Scripture,[3] but it was a servant and not lord of the interpreter. Muller says that “the drawing of logical conclusions appears as one of the final hermeneutical steps in the [Reformed orthodox exegetical] method…”[4]
2. Not an Aristotelian, Rationalistic Method: The Protestant scholasticism of the post-Reformation era must be distinguished from rationalism. The Reformed orthodox did not place human reason above, or even equal to, divine revelation.[5] The place and function of reason was subordinate to the authority of Scripture. Reason was an instrument not an axiomatic principle.[6] The Protestant scholastics utilized a modified (or Christian) Aristotelianism “that had its beginnings in the thirteenth century.”[7] Muller explains:
It is important to recognize what this use entailed and what it did not. The Christian Aristotelianism of the Protestant orthodox drew on rules of logic and devices such as the fourfold causality in order to explain and develop their doctrinal formulae—and only seldom, if ever, to import a full-scale rational metaphysics or physics into their theology. Contrary to what is sometimes claimed, the fourfold causality (i.e., first, formal, material, and final causes) does not imply a particular metaphysic. Specifically, it is not by nature “deterministic.” One can use the model to delineate the soteriological patterns of the eternal decree of God and its execution in time; one can also use the model to describe the sources and effects of human sinfulness and human moral conduct; or one can use the model to explain how a carpenter makes a table. The large-scale result of Christian Aristotelianism was not, in other words, a fundamentally Aristotelian Christianity: Aristotle would have disowned this hybrid philosophy with its infinite God who created the world out of nothing! There was, certainly, less imposition of rational metaphysics on theology in the seventeenth-century orthodox affirmations of divine eternity, omniscience, and immutability than there is in the twentieth-century claims of a changing God whose very being is in flux and who lacks foreknowledge of future contingency![8]
Van Asselt says, “[the] facile equation of Scholasticism and Aristotelianism is no longer tenable.”[9]
3. Not a Universal Method: As well, simply because an author utilized the scholastic method in some of his writings did not mean he used it in all of them. For instance, Muller offers Beza as an example.[10] Elsewhere, Muller says, “In the cases of Perkins, Ames, Voetius, and Baxter, works of piety and works of scholastic theology emanated from the same pens.”[11] Muller goes on to say:
…there is no clear division between Protestant scholasticism and federal theology. Theologians who wrote works of piety that followed a “positive” or “catechetical” method also wrote more technical and academic works using the scholastic method – and many of the scholastic, as well as “positive” works were covenantal in their theology.[12]
This observation applies to Johannes Cocceius and John Owen. Owen utilized the scholastic method in some treaties and a more practical, pastoral approach in others. Both Cocceius and Owen utilized the federal model as well as the loci model. Also, within the body of Owen’s Biblical Theology, he utilizes the scholastic method but also ridicules it.[13] This obviously shows that Owen could use a method he fully realized was abused by others and that the scholastic method was just that–a method and not a theology.
4. A Pre-Critical Method: The Reformed orthodox obviously predate the Enlightenment and the critical assault on the Holy Scriptures. The Enlightenment gave birth to, among other things, a rationalistic approach to the interpretation of Scripture. This can be seen, for instance, in the early developments of biblical theology.[14] Typical Enlightenment rationalism and anti-supernaturalism is evidenced in the following statements made by Benjamin Jowett, a Greek professor at Oxford in the mid-nineteenth century. David C. Steinmetz quotes Jowett and comments:
Jowett argued that “Scripture has one meaning–the meaning which it had in the mind of the Prophet or Evangelist who first uttered or wrote, to the hearers or readers who first received it.”[15] Scripture should be interpreted like any other book and the later accretions and venerated traditions surrounding its interpretation should, for the most part, either be brushed aside or severely discounted. “The true use of interpretation is to get rid of interpretation, and leave us alone in company with the author.”[16]
Jowett obviously reduces meaning to the intent of the human author alone. In critical hermeneutical theory, there was no room whatsoever for the medieval concept of “double literal sense”[17] or for the Reformation and post-Reformation concepts of sensus literalis (literal sense), analogia Scripturae (analogy of Scripture), analogia fidei (analogy of faith), and scopus Scripturae (scope of Scripture).[18] In post-modern thought, man, the reader, is king of interpretation; in the modern/Enlightenment theory man, the author, was. In the Middle Ages, however, and in the Reformation and post-Reformation eras, though through differing hermeneutical principles, the meaning of Scripture was not determined by the human author’s intent alone or the reader. Ultimately, the meaning of Scripture was determined by God, the author of Scripture.[19]
5. An Exegetically-Based Method[20]: Though the Reformed orthodox were confessionally one in a historical sense (i.e., the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Canons of Dordt, and in Britain in the Westminster Assembly’s Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms, Savoy Declaration, Second London Confession of Faith), this did not mean they viewed the exegetical task as complete and, therefore, unnecessary, nor that there was no room for disagreement over the exegesis of individual texts. Muller comments:
the biblicism of the seventeenth-century orthodox must not be read as an era of dogmatizing exegesis devoid of careful textual analysis and devoid of any variety in interpretation among those of an orthodox confessional persuasion. Instead, the age ought to be viewed as the great age of Protestant linguistic study and Judaica, of the textual analysis that led to such monumental productions as the London Polyglot Bible. …the Protestant orthodoxy must be recognized as producing highly varied and diverse exegetical works and commentaries, ranging from text-critical essays, to textual annotations, theological annotations, linguistic commentaries based on the study of cognate languages and Judaica, doctrinal and homiletical commentaries, and, indeed, all manner of permutations and combinations of these several types of effort.[21]
Biblical exegesis, in fact, experienced a revival of sorts within the Reformed orthodox of the seventeenth century. Muller says:
Contrary to much of the “received wisdom” concerning the seventeenth century, the era of orthodoxy was a time of great exegetical, textual, and linguistic development in Protestantism–and, indeed, it was the orthodox exegetes who were responsible for the major monuments to biblical scholarship.[22]
Carl R. Trueman says, “…the seventeenth century witnessed a remarkable flourishing of linguistic and exegetical studies, driven by both the positive and the polemical exigencies of Protestantism’s commitment to scripture, in the original languages, as being the very Word – and words – of God.”[23] Trueman continues elsewhere:
A high view of the authority and integrity of the biblical text as God’s word written was [a] major factor in fuelling the development of careful attention both to the biblical languages and other cognate tongues, and to issues of textual history and criticism. The idea that the seventeenth-century Reformed were interested neither in careful exegesis nor in the literary and linguistic contexts of the Bible is simply untrue. Indeed, the linguistic and exegetical work of this century was far more elaborate than that which had marked the earlier Reformation. …the exegesis of the Reformed Orthodox is far from the dogmatically-driven Procusteanism[24] [sic] of popular mythology.[25]
6. A Redemptive-Historically Sensitive Method: Not only were the Reformed orthodox exegetically driven, their hermeneutic was a whole-Bible hermeneutic, evidenced in such concepts as their highly nuanced view of sensus literalis (literal sense), analogia Scripturae (analogy of Scripture), analogia fidei (analogy of faith), and scopus Scripturae (scope of Scripture).[26] It is of vital importance to understand the nuances involved with these concepts in order to properly understand the Reformed orthodox. We will explore these concepts in our next post.
[1] We will discuss Owen below.
[2] Muller, “Calvin and the “Calvinists”,” I:369.
[3] Cf. Muller, PRRD, II:497-500 for a discussion of the use of logic in interpretation.
[4] Muller, PRRD, II:501.
[5] Cf. WCF 1:10 for confessional embodiment to this conviction.
[6] Muller, “Calvin and the “Calvinists”,” I:374.
[7] Muller, “Sources of Reformed Orthodoxy,” 55. Cf. van Asselt, “The Fundamental Meaning of Theology,” 322, where he says that the Reformed theology of the late sixteenth century (i.e., Franciscus Junius) critically received the Christian tradition.
[8] Muller, “Sources of Reformed Orthodoxy,” 55.
[9] van Asselt, “The Fundamental Meaning of Theology,” 329, n. 42.
[10] Muller, “Calvin and the “Calvinists”,” I:370.
[11] Muller, “Calvin and the “Calvinists”,” II:145.
[12] Muller, “Calvin and the “Calvinists”,” II:146.
[13] Cf. Rehnman, Divine Discourse, Chapter 4, “Faith and Reason,” especially the sections “The Abuse of Reason in Theology” and “A Contextual Line of Explanation,” 119-28 and the “Conclusion” to my dissertation.
[14] See below.
[15] Benjamin Jowett, “On the Interpretation of Scripture,” Essays and Reviews, 7th ed. (London: Longman, Green, Longman and Roberts, 1861), 378, quoted in David C. Steinmetz, “The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis,” Theology Today (April 1980): 27.
[16] Steinmetz is quoting Jowett, “On the Interpretation of Scripture,” 384. Cf. Steinmetz, “The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis,” 27.
[17] Steinmetz, “The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis,” 31.
[18] We will discuss these below.
[19] This, of course, does not imply that pre-critical exegesis always arrived at God’s meaning of the text. Cf. Packer, Quest for Godliness, 98, for a brief discussion of the Puritans as pre-modern exegetes.
[20] Cf. Muller, “Sources of Reformed Orthodoxy,” 46-48; Muller, PRRD, II:482ff; Packer, Quest for Godliness, 98; and Thomas D. Lea, “The Hermeneutics of the Puritans,” JETS 39/2 (June 1996): 273.
[21] Muller, “Calvin and the “Calvinists”,” II:132-33.
[22] Muller, “Sources of Reformed Orthodoxy,” 46.
[23] Trueman, John Owen, 8-9.
[24] Tending to produce conformity by violent or arbitrary means.
[25] Trueman, John Owen, 37; Cf. Muller, PRRD, II:482ff. for a fascinating discussion of the practice of exegesis among the Reformed orthodox.
[26] Packer lists six governing principles of interpretation for the English Puritans: 1. Interpret Scripture literally and grammatically. 2. Interpret Scripture consistently and harmonistically. 3. Interpret Scripture doctrinally and theocentrically. 4. Interpret Scripture christologically and evangelically. 5. Interpret Scripture experimentally and practically. 6. Interpret Scripture with a faithful and realistic application. Cf. Packer, Quest for Godliness, 101-5. Cf. Barry Howson, “The Puritan Hermeneutics of John Owen: A Recommendation,” WTJ 63 (2001): 354-57.
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
by Sam Waldron | May 30, 2011 | Current Events, Eschatology
III. Its Concluding Application
The “date-setters” make predictions that time after time prove to be false. Thus, they are akin to false prophets, and we may apply to such false teachers the warnings of Deuteronomy 18:20f.
Deuteronomy 18:20-22 20 “‘But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’ You may say in your heart, ‘How will we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?’ When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.”
This passage says three things that we may apply to ourselves with regard to the modern date-setters.
Deuteronomy 18:22 addresses the people of God regarding the false prophet with the command, “You shall not be afraid of him.” The last words of Deuteronomy 18 are perfectly applicable to the modern date-setters. There is something in us that tends to respond fearfully to the Campings of the world. Could it be true? What if they are right? But even before Camping’s prediction disproved itself, the Bible gave us sober reason not to believe it. Christ has said that such predicting of His return is impossible. So heed the warning of the Word of God against such false prophets. Don’t be afraid of them! Don’t be worried by them! Don’t be rattled by them! Don’t be moved by them! Don’t be made cautious by them! Don’t give respect to their forecasts in any way! They may speak with a show of great learning. They may speak with amazing dogmatism. They may speak calm solemnity. Still, don’t be afraid of them.
Deuteronomy 18:20 commands of the false prophet: “That prophet shall die.” False prophets in the Old Testament were to be put to death. We live no longer in the Old Testament economy, and I am not teaching that we should not literally kill false prophets like Camping. But there is an application of this command to us in the NT church. We should do everything we can to kill their influence and standing in the church. We should rebuke them, denounce them, warn people against them, and, if they happen to be members of our churches, exercise church discipline against them.
Why is this an important duty for us to take to heart? Such false teachers give occasion to the wicked to mock Christianity. They give Bible-believing Christianity a bad name. They deceive and lead into sin immature believers. They bring scorn on the very doctrine they pretend to uphold, the second coming of Christ. People hear of such date-setting for the second coming of Christ and say to themselves, “Those crazy Christians are at it again!” We must get the Word out that people who write and believe predictions like Camping’s do not represent biblical Christianity or our Savior. We must let people know that Christ Himself condemns such predictions.
Deuteronomy 18 also contains a command about the true prophet in verse 19: “Whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him.” In Old Testament Israel the presence of false prophets did not mean that there were not true prophets to whom Israel had to listen. Similarly in our day the presence of false predictions of Christ’s return does not mean that we may ignore all that Bible does teach about Christ’s return. We must not allow all the extremism to steal from us the “blessed hope” of the appearing of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus. If you are here tonight and do not know Jesus Christ, you must not allow the failure of lunatic predictions like those of Camping to make you secure or lull you to sleep. Camping was wrong about yesterday. But Jesus is not wrong about someday! Judgment is coming. If it were today, would you appear on the right hand before Jesus or would you wake to find yourself on the dreadful left hand of the coming King and doomed to eternal judgment?
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 28, 2011 | Current Events, Eschatology
Context is crucial in understanding Matthew 24:36. Here is the circle of context which must be considered.
C. The Broader New Testament Context
I want you to look at two other passages in the New Testament that are related to the statement of Jesus in Matthew 24:36.
The first passage is Acts 1:6, 7.
And so when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel? ” He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority.”
When the disciples asked about the restoration of the kingdom to Israel, their question was rooted in Old Testament prophecy. The Old Testament had, indeed, predicted “the time … when the saints … (would take) … possession of the kingdom” (Dan. 7:22). Now it may be that the disciples still had too carnal and nationalistic an idea of what the restoration of the kingdom to Israel would mean, but it is clear that their hope for such a restoration was firmly built on biblical basis (Acts 3:21; Matt. 19:28). This restoration occurs, of course, in conjunction with the glorious appearance of the Messiah in His second coming.
Thus, the disciples are raising here substantially the same question that Jesus answered in Matt. 24:36. Not surprisingly, Jesus answers them in language which echoes Matt. 24:36. He refers to the Father just as He did in Matt. 24:36. There he said, “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone”. Here He says, “it is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority”. The statements are clearly parallel, but there is one key point at which Jesus enlarges upon and interprets what He said in Matt. 24:36. You will notice that He does not speak of “the day and the hour”. Now He speaks of “times or epochs”.
Whatever these words more exactly mean, they plainly confirm the meaning that we have attached to the words of Jesus in Matt. 24:36. When Jesus denies that we can know the day or hour, He is not contrasting the day and the hour with the week, month, or year. Rather, He is denying that we can have any knowledge of the date of Christ’s arrival. Not the day, nor the hour, nor the time, nor the epoch of Christ’s return can be known, and therefore certainly not the week, month, or year.
The second passage is 1 Thessalonians 5:1-4.
Now as to the times and the epochs, brethren, you have no need of anything to be written to you. For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night. While they are saying, “Peace and safety!” then destruction will come upon them suddenly like birth pangs upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day should overtake you like a thief.
The meaning of this passage is plain itself and also plain in light of Matt. 24:36 and Acts 1:6, 7. Paul here uses the same two words used in Acts 1:6, 7: “times and epochs”. He plainly says that there is no need to write them about such things because they already know that the day of the Lord is coming like a thief in the night. The phrase, “thief in the night”, echoes a passage in Matthew 24 a few verses after our text:
“But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into. For this reason you also must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will.”
The idea is plainly that Christ’s coming is sudden and unexpected. A thief does not announce the time of his burglary. Neither does Christ announce the time of His coming.
This is confirmed by v. 3. That verse pictures the ungodly world as promising itself peace and safety when sudden and inescapable judgment overtakes them through Christ’s return. Thus, Paul is plainly saying that he need not write them about the time of Christ’s return, because they already know that its timing is unknown.
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.
