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 | 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 CBTSeminary | May 11, 2017 | Book Reviews, Eschatology
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4
First Criticism: Prophetic foreshortening must not be applied to New Testament prophecy. (Continued.)
In my last post, I promised to give my readers two conclusive arguments against Waymeyer’s idea that prophetic foreshortening is characteristic of New Testament prophecy. Here is the first one.
First, it directly contradicts the assertion of Jesus that the one who is least in the kingdom is greater than John the Baptist (Matt. 11:11). This is a confusing statement to many and little understood. Its relevance for the present argument is immense. Allow me some space to open up its true meaning.
John the Baptist gladly embraced Jesus as the one who would usher in the glorious and irresistible coming of the kingdom (John 1:29). But when Jesus continued to preach the nearness of the kingdom and even preach the actual presence of the kingdom (Matt. 12:28f.) without the coming of the judgment of the wicked and the onset of the glorious consummation which he had prophesied (Matt 3:10-12), John the Baptist began to have doubts. When John was arrested and imprisoned, the problem became acute. How could the kingdom have come already in Jesus while John was rotting in Herod’s prison? Prison was the last place John expected to be after the coming of the kingdom! Thus, we read in Matthew 11:2-11, “Now when John in prison heard of the works of Christ, he sent word by his disciples, 3 and said to Him, “Are You the Expected One, or shall we look for someone else?” 4 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Go and report to John what you hear and see: 5 the BLIND RECEIVE SIGHT and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the POOR HAVE THE GOSPEL PREACHED TO THEM. 6 And blessed is he who keeps from stumbling over Me.” …. 11 “Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.””
How could Jesus say that the one who was least in the kingdom of heaven was greater than John? Verse 11 in speaking of the one “who is least in the kingdom” being greater than John the Baptist refers to John in his distinctive capacity as a prophet. That is the capacity in which John is being considered in this context as verses 12-14 make clear: “And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force. For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John. And if you care to accept it, he himself is Elijah, who was to come.”
Prophets were distinguished for their knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom. It is in this respect that Jesus ranks John as least in the kingdom. It is in his capacity as a prophet—the last and greatest of the Old Testament prophets—that Jesus is referring to John. It is, therefore, at the point of insight with regard to the mysteries relating to the coming of the kingdom that the one who is least in the kingdom is greater than John.
Old Testament prophets and prophecy had, as we have noted, what we may call a flattened perspective about the future. To put it in other words, the prophets were given little depth perception about the future. Sometimes, therefore, events that were widely separated in future time can be found predicted and mixed together in their writings. Consider for example the prophecy of Micah about the exile of Israel to and their deliverance from Babylon (Micah 4:9f.) and how this is intimately connected to predictions of the birth and glory of the Messiah (Micah 5:2f.). It is for this reason that the New Testament clearly teaches that prophets themselves did not at times understand clearly the things they were prophesying (1 Peter 1:10-12).
We learn from Matthew 11:2-6 that a godly and believing man like the great prophet John the Baptist struggled with the seeming inconsistency of Jesus’ preaching of the kingdom and with what the Old Testament itself had led the Jews to expect (Dan 2:44). Can we think, therefore, that Jesus’ disciples would be immune to the same doubts? No, they would have to face the same question. How could the all-conquering, glorious eschatological kingdom of God be present in this former carpenter and His Galilean followers?
The parables of the kingdom in Matthew 13 purport to explain the mystery of the kingdom. Thus, the question addressed is how the kingdom could be present in Jesus, His preaching, and His disciples. The common emphasis of these parables is Jesus’ response to this question. This response is the theme of these parables. It is that the kingdom has come and is present in a form unexpected by the Jews, but that this present form anticipates its future, glorious consummation. To put this in other words, the theme of these parables is that the coming of the kingdom has two phases. It unfolds in two stages. It comes in a form unexpected by the Jews (and even John the Baptist), before it comes in its final glorious form. It is in this two stage coming of the kingdom that the mystery of the kingdom is revealed. Matthew 13 is the intended explanation of this mystery of the kingdom. The one who is least in the kingdom now understands that the kingdom comes in two stages—something that the prophets including John the Baptist—did not understand. The one who is least in the kingdom understands that Jesus is coming twice.
But in explaining the mystery of the kingdom in this way, Jesus brings an end to prophetic foreshortening. He explains the mystery. Thus, the least in the kingdom—then and now—is greater than John the Baptists and all the other Old Testament prophets. To apply prophetic foreshortening to New Testament prophecy is to turn back the clock. It is to put New Testament Christians in the same position as Old Testament prophets. It is to say that Jesus really did not explain the mystery of the kingdom. Virtually, Waymeyer is saying that the kingdom does not come only twice. Mysteriously and in a way not explained in Matthew 13 by Jesus, it actually comes three times: in the present age, in the millennial kingdom, and then in the eternal state.
And all this brings me to a second and consequent criticism. The notion that prophetic foreshortening is to be applied to New Testament prophecy creates havoc with biblical eschatology. Waymeyer substantially and virtually argues that in spite of the way certain passages sound (105), the principle of prophetic foreshortening allows us to see two resurrections, two judgments, and two ages to come where the Bible only speaks of one.
But this application of prophetic foreshortening to New Testament prophecy by Premillennialists is self-defeating. If such gaps still exist, then why may there not be three resurrections, three judgments, and three ages to come, and for that matter three comings of Christ—something that Dispensationalists like Waymeyer already in a sense actually believe! If it justifies Dispensationalism, why may not it justify a Super-Dispensationalism? If Jesus’ explanation of the mystery is not in some sense its final explanation, then New Testament prophecy may mean or include virtually anything. There is an end to the sufficiency of Scripture for prophetic interpretation if we accept Waymeyer’s application of prophetic foreshortening to New Testament prophecy.
There is an old hymn with this prayer: “Be darkness, at Thy coming, light, Confusion, order in Thy path.” The above discussion is the first of many places in which I find the result of Waymeyer’s hermeneutic to be the exact opposite. Its result is not light, but darkness; not order, but confusion. It cannot, therefore, be divine.
Part 6
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 9, 2017 | Book Reviews, Eschatology
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
First Criticism: Prophetic foreshortening must not be applied to New Testament prophecy.
We have already seen Waymeyer’s assertion that hermeneutics is primary in the debate between Amillennialists and Premillennialists. (8) I agree and will give first place in my criticisms to my disagreement with Waymeyer’s hermeneutical principles. My first criticism has to do with his notion that we may attribute the double fulfillment or prophetic foreshortening characteristic of Old Testament prophecy to New Testament prophecy. (11, 13, 91, 111)
It is a commonly recognized hermeneutical principle with regard to Old Testament prophecy that it has a kind of flat perspective about the future. Often events that differ vastly in time are predicted together or next to each other in Old Testament prophecy. Waymeyer describes this principle as follows: “As most biblical interpreters recognize, sometimes a given prophecy will predict two or more future events and present them in such a way that it appears they will occur simultaneously, and yet later revelation clarifies that a significant gap of time separates them. Commonly referred to as “telescoping,” “prophetic perspective,” or “prophetic foreshortening,” this phenomenon is often compared to seeing two mountain peaks off in the distance—initially they appear to be right next to each other, but a closer look reveals that they are separated by a valley.” (13) Waymeyer is correct when he goes on to assert: “Most amillennialists recognize this use of prophetic perspective.” (13)
Waymeyer proceeds to apply this principle of prophetic foreshortening to New Testament prophecy. He applies it to the New Testament doctrine of the kingdom to argue for a gap in some prophecies which allows for a millennial kingdom in the age to come. (92) He also applies it to passages which seem to predict that the resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous occur at the same time in order to argue that progressive revelation reveals a telescoping of two far separated events into one. (111)
In my view the application of the prophetic foreshortening or flat perspective of Old Testament prophecy to New Testament prophecy is misguided and has serious consequences. Here I have to admit, however, that some of my fellow amillennialists have not seen the fallacy of applying the principle of prophetic foreshortening to New Testament prophecy. For instance, I have documented in my interpretation of Matthew 24 (in More of the End Times Made Simple) the serious difficulties and even (in my opinion) incomprehensibilities produced by an application of this principle to the Olivet Discourse by some of my amillennial friends.
Thus, though I have no wish to entangle myself in a dispute with both premillennialists and amillennialists, I must insist that the application of prophetic foreshortening to New Testament prophecy is simply wrong. In my next post, I will set before my readers two conclusive arguments for this assertion and against the idea that prophetic foreshortening is characteristic of New Testament prophecy.
Part 5
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | Mar 8, 2013 | Eschatology, New Testament, Systematic Theology
I thought I would conclude these blog posts with a few stray comments on the Revelation Symposium.
First, I wanted to say more, but had no opportunity at the Symposium, about the danger of Partial Preterism. But let me first qualify what I want to say.
I admit the difference between partial and full preterism. It is important to acknowledge that partial preterism lies within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy, while full or hyper-preterism does not. It is important to make clear that Gary Demar and many others reject hyper-preterism as heresy. He said so at the Symposium. That is all good. I think he is right about hyper-preterism.
But now let me give my worry. To put my concern in a nutshell, it is this. The same hermeneutic which can ascribe everything in Matthew 24 to the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and can understand Revelation 1:7 (BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.) of the same event must lead, it seems to me, to full preterism. Yes, I know that Gary and others do not want it to go there, but I think it does. They have probably have attempted it, but they need to explain why it does not. If these passages can apply to AD 70, why not 1 and 2 Thessalonians and every other reference to the parousia of Christ in the New Testament? Partial Preterism is responsible for the logic of its hermeneutic.
And along this line I have another worry. The assumption that the language of shortness and nearness necessarily implies an event within the generation of those living at the time of Christ’s first advent is the very logic that full preterism uses to teach its views. An examination of the uses of “near” and its relatives in the New Testament show that it is used of Christ’s Second Coming bodily and visibly in glory, I think. Look them up, and if you can take all of the events described as near as a reference to AD 70, you will be on well on your way to hyper-preterism!
I have responded to this assumption about nearness in the essay: “A Reply to the Hyper-Preterist Argument from Imminence.” Though the linked essay is addressed against full preterism, its reasoning applies to the partial preterist argument as wells.
Second, wanting to be an equal opportunity offender, let me say that one thing that Jim Hamilton said also worried me. Before I tell you my worry, I do want to say that I do deeply appreciate Jim and his labors. Having said that, however, and before I come to my deepest worry, I have to say that I think it is mislabeling to call Jim’s position, futurism. He thinks that the seven seals refer to events characteristic of the entire inter-adventual period. He thinks that the 1260 days of Revelation 11 refers to the church age and the two witnesses to the church. He is correct, I think. But this is not futurism. He should have made clear at the symposium that he was defending a highly modified form of futurism.
But here is my worry. Jim said in the roundtable q&a that every ethnic Jew alive at Christ’s coming would be converted by seeing Christ’s return. My response at the time was, “Wow, really?!” I am really surprised that Jim believes this and hope that I misunderstood him, but I do not think I did. Again, I do not want to make Jim responsible for actually holding what I believe are the logical implications of his position. He is responsible, however, for the good and necessary consequences of what he believes.
What are they? First, being converted by seeing Christ return is not salvation by faith, it is salvation by sight. Sight and faith are two different things (2 Cor. 5:7). Second, the Bible teaches that people must repent before Christ’s return. Christ delays His return so that people can be repent before He comes (2 Pet. 3:9). No Jew and no Gentile will be saved unless they repent before Christ’s return. Third, if the privilege of being converted by Christ’s Second Coming only applies to the Jews, then you have the return in principle of the Dispensational tendency to teach different ways of salvation for their two peoples of God. Fourth, neither Romans 11, nor Revelation 1:7, requires this interpretation. Even if you think Romans 11 teaches a mass conversion of the Jews–and I doubt it–, you still do not have to say that they are converted by seeing Christ’s Second Coming. In fact, in context you have to say that they are justified by believing in Christ before He comes again. Neither Revelation 1:7, nor Zechariah 12:10-14, requires this kind absolute universalism of the conversion of every ethnic Jew. Nor should they be used to contradict the clear NT teaching that men must be saved by faith prior to the Second Coming of Christ.
But let me conclude by once more congratulating both Jim and Gary on their fine presentations and faithfulness to God’s Word as they understand it!
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
