by Sam Waldron | Sep 28, 2018 | Eschatology
In the last post I mentioned the first two points of my case against Owen’s preterist interpretation of 2 Peter 3, here I add a further argument in my case.
The Conclusive Case against Owen’s Interpretation Continued
Owen takes Luke 21:34, 36 as a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem (page 138). Let me remind you of his exact words:
“As it was foretold and threatened by Christ. How were believers cautioned to be ready for it with eminent holiness and watchfulness therein! So Luke xxi. 34, 36, “Take heed to yourselves; watch, therefore.” Why so? “Christ is coming,” verse 27. When? “Why in this generation,” verse 32. What to do? “Why, to dissolve heaven and earth,” verse 25; to “dissolve the Jewish church and state. Watch, therefore, give all diligence.” So also Matt. Xxiv. 42.”
It is perfectly evident from this that Owen takes the coming of which Luke 21:27 speaks as a spiritual coming of Christ at the destruction of Jerusalem. The problem with this becomes evident when one reads the context of these verses and what they say about the coming of Christ there described.
Consider Luke 21:23-27
“Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people; 24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. 25 “There will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth dismay among nations, in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves. 26 men fainting from fear and the expectation of the things which are coming upon the world; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 27 “Then they will see THE SON OF MAN COMING IN A CLOUD with power and great glory.”
It is evident that the coming of which this passage speaks does not take place at the destruction of Jerusalem. The order is explicit. There is (1) the actual destruction of Jerusalem ending with the words “they will fall by the edge of the sword (vv. 23-24a) (2) the exile of the Jews into all the nations (v. 24b) (3) Jerusalem trampled down by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled (v. 24c) (4) signs in the sun, moon, and stars, and on the earth dismay among the nations etc. (v. 26) (5) Then the coming of the Son of man (v. 27). Plainly, this coming does not take place at, or anywhere near, the time of the destruction of Jerusalem.
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 | Sep 21, 2018 | Eschatology
In my last couple of posts I tried to lay out fairly what I understand both the explicit extent of Owen’s argument for a preterist interpretation of 2 Peter 3 and also the inferential implications of that argument. My purpose, I admit, was not only to help my readers understand Owen, but to share what are to me the troubling implications of his exegesis. In this post and the following I want to turn to a number of serious objections to his view.
The Conclusive Case against Owen’s Interpretation
The first argument in my case against Owen is the lack of analogy between Owen’s view of the new heavens and earth in verse 13 and the whole thrust and movement of Peter’s argument in 2 Peter 3. As I have documented in my End Times Made Simple, Peter’s eschatological teaching in this passage is broadly speaking built around three worlds divided by two destructions. There is the old world which was created by God and destroyed by water (verses 5-6). There is the present or now world that is reserved for fire (verse 7). There is the new heaven and new earth (v. 13).
I think this structure is absolutely inconsistent with a preterist view of new heavens and earth. The reason should be clear. The original heavens and earth were the physical universe created by God in the beginning and destroyed in the universal flood. This pointedly suggests that the new heavens and new earth must also be that same universe remade in the resurrection glory of the sons of God (Romans 8:19-23). Furthermore, the water which destroyed the world in the flood was literal water. This directly leads to the conclusion that the fire of the greater judgment was a fire which reduces the world to ashes. It is not a spiritual fire which destroyed the Judaical system. Yes, I know that some fire was used in the destruction of Jerusalem, but it certainly does not qualify for the kind of fiery destruction of which 2 Peter 3 speaks—if it is taken literally.
The second argument is really a kind of exegetical focusing of the first. The focus of which I speak is the movement from destruction of the old world in the flood in verse 6 to the preservation of the present heavens and earth for destruction by fire in verse 7. Look at these two verses once more: “through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.” Here the present heavens and earth are contrasted with the world that was destroyed by water. Of course, this included the religious and civil structures—whatever they were–of that world, but it certainly included much more. There was a massive upheaval of the physical surface of the world.” This destruction took place by physical water. To say that the counterpart of this physical water was the spiritual fire that destroyed Judaism simply defies the analogy instituted by Peter.
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 | Sep 19, 2018 | Eschatology
In my last post I attempted to emphasize several of the explicit assertions of Owen regarding 2 Peter 3. In this post I want to suggest that there are several natural inferences or implications of Owen’s argument that need to be carefully weighed.
The Inferential Implications of Owen’s Argument
Here is the first one. If Owen is right, then it follows that the whole Olivet Discourse speaks only of the coming of Jesus for the destruction of Jerusalem. Peter’s words allude to Matthew 24. There is a seamless web between Matthew 24 and 25. Thus, Matthew 25:31-46, the passage which speaks of Jesus coming in glory to judge all nations and consign the sheep to eternal life and the goats to eternal punishment, must rather refer to the coming of Jesus at the destruction of Jerusalem. This passage which speaks so clearly of day of judgment would appear to be nothing more than a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem.
Another inference which may naturally be drawn from Owen is that the other references to the coming of Christ in 1 Peter and 2 Peter must be thought as references to the coming of Christ at the destruction of Jerusalem. I refer to passages such as these:
“so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ;” (1 Pet. 1:7 NAU)
“Therefore, prepare your minds for action, keep sober in spirit, fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.” (1 Pet. 1:13 NAU)
“The end of all things is near; therefore, be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of prayer.” (1 Pet. 4:7 NAU)
“but to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing, so that also at the revelation of His glory you may rejoice with exultation.” (1 Pet. 4:13 NAU)
“And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.” (1 Pet. 5:4 NAU)
“for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you.” (2 Pet. 1:11 NAU)
Now let me be clear that I do not know how Owen may have interpreted these passages. I am only asserting that upon the exegetical grounds he takes in 2 Peter 3 all of them may be so interpreted as to refer merely to the destruction of Jerusalem.
I have already admitted that Owen here seems clearly to be adopting a partial preterist position. It also needs to be said, however, that upon Owen’s principles of interpretation it is difficult to find a clear text in the New Testament that teaches the Second Coming of Christ in glory at the end of the age. This is surely a consequence of his exegesis that must be carefully weighed.
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 | Sep 17, 2018 | Eschatology
Owen’s way of reading 2 Peter 3 is so alien to most Christians in our day that there may be some doubt about what he is actually saying and implying. In this post I want to emphasize both the explicit and the implicit significance of the way Owen interprets 2 Peter 3. My hope is that the results of this survey will by themselves raise significant doubt about the propriety of Owen’s exegesis.
The Explicit Extent of Owen’s Argument
Owen takes Luke 21:34, 36 as a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem (page 138). Here is what he says speaking of the “dissolution” of “the Judaical church and state”:
“As it was foretold and threatened by Christ. How were believers cautioned to be ready for it with eminent holiness and watchfulness therein! So Luke xxi. 34, 36, “Take heed to yourselves; watch, therefore.” Why so? “Christ is coming,” verse 27. When? “Why in this generation,” verse 32. What to do? “Why, to dissolve heaven and earth,” verse 25; to “dissolve the Jewish church and state. Watch, therefore, give all diligence.” So also Matt. Xxiv. 42.”
Owen takes the words of 2 Peter 3:4 (“the promise of His Parousia”) as a reference to Jesus’ coming at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Thus, it is not just a coming, but the Parousia which is said to occur at the destruction of Jerusalem.
Owen takes Isaiah 65:17f. as exclusively a reference to the present gospel age (page 135). Remember his words: “this is a prophecy of gospel times only; and that the planting of these new heavens is nothing but the creation of gospel ordinances…” It would be one thing if Owen maintained that this was a promise anticipated or even partly fulfilled in the gospel age. His words, however, are clear. They are exclusively fulfilled in the gospel age— “nothing but the creation of gospel ordinances.”
I find this interpretation deeply troubling in itself for a number of reasons, but what I find even more troubling are its implications or consequences. I will point out those consequences in my next post.
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 | Sep 13, 2018 | Eschatology
In my last post I quoted Owen’s statement of his partial preterist view of 2 Peter 3. I believe this view to be seriously misguided in the exegesis of 2 Peter 3 and also burdened with serious, practical consequences. Let me hasten to add that these serious, practical consequences were probably not as visible nor even as serious in Owen’s day as they are in ours.
In defense of his partial preterist view of the prophecy of 2 Peter 3 Owen says that “I shall offer these two reasons, of many that might be insisted on from the text.” Here is the first of those two reasons.
“Because whatever is here mentioned was to have its peculiar influence on the men of that generation. He speaks of that wherein both the profane scoffers and those scoffed at were concerned, and that as Jews;–some of them believing, others opposing the faith. Now, there was no particular concernment of that generation in that sin, nor in that scoffing, as to the day of judgment in general; but there was a peculiar relief for the one and a peculiar dread of the other at hand, in the destruction of the Jewish nation; and, besides, an ample testimony, both to the one and the other, of the power and dominion of the Lord Jesus Christ;–which was the thing in question between them.” (Works, 9:134)
This is a remarkable assertion. It assumes an identification of the false teaching with which Peter was dealing which will need to be examined. It also asserts that “there was no particular concernment of that generation in that sin, nor in that scoffing, as to the day of judgment in general.” This assertion also needs to be questioned.
But here is Owen’s second reason for his view. It contains assertions that are, if anything, even more troubling.
“Peter tells them, that, after the destruction and judgment that he speaks of, verse 13, “We, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth,” etc. They had this expectation. But what is that promise? Where may we find it? Why, we have it in the very words and letter, Isa. Lxv. 17. Now, when shall this that God will create these “new heavens and new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness?” Saith Peter, “It shall be after the coming of the Lord, after that judgment and destruction of ungodly men, who obey not the gospel, that I foretell.” But now it is evident, from this place of Isaiah, with chap. Lxvi. 21, 22, that this is a prophecy of gospel times only; and that the planting of these new heavens is nothing but the creation of gospel ordinances, to endure for ever. The same thing is so expressed, Heb. Xii. 26-28.” (Works, 9:134, 135)
We must begin to explore the validity of these arguments and their truly massive implications in the next post.
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.
