by Sam Waldron | Jan 26, 2026 | Eschatology
*Editor’s Note: Below are questions submitted to Dr. Sam Waldron at an Eschatology Conference. Since these questions and answers could be helpful for a broader audience, we are posting them here as a series. Click the following numbers to read other parts of this series: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
How do you avoid an implicit sacred-secular divide in your eschatology?
The simple answer here is that I do not avoid such a divide. Neither do I want to avoid a sacred-secular divide. In this world and in this life, some things are holy and other things are not.
The Lord’s Day is holy in a way that other days are not (Rev. 1:10). It is to be kept holy in a way that the other days do not need to be.
The church is holy in a way that the other institutions of human life are not (1 Tim. 3:14-15). The church and neither the family nor the state is the house of God, the church of the living God, and the pillar and support of the truth.
My eschatology teaches me that in the age to come, the holy, New Jerusalem will fill the whole earth as the temple of God Rev. 21:14ff.), but in this age we must live and apply a sacred-secular divide.
In another couple of questions, my interrogator sheds light on where he is coming from in his question that challenges a secular/sacred divide. He asks: “Is it legalistic for a preacher to give application for what the sabbath should look like in the life of a believer? Isn’t all application of the sabbath a matter of Christian liberty?”
Perhaps I am wrong, but this sounds like hostility to any thought that the sabbath is binding on Christians. I deduce this from the implication of the question that all (and thus any) application is legalistic. How can you have a law that cannot be applied? Of course, such an application can go too far and be too precise, but you cannot have a law of God that cannot be applied. That is preposterous.
Is it coherent to affirm Christ’s present kingship while expecting the world to get progressively worse?
A couple of responses to this question seem important to me.
First, the assumption that I believe the world will get progressively worse is a one-sided and unfair characterization of my eschatology. I believe, as Matthew 13:30 teaches, that both the good seed and the bad seed grow together until harvest. This question dismisses my affirmation of the growth of the good seed.
Second, even if that characterization of my views was true—and it is not, Christ’s present kingship is coherent with the worsening state of the bad seed world because I affirm that Christ as king is building His church in such a way that the gates of hell will not prevent its incursions into the city of destruction and the taking of many captives for His glory (Matt. 16:17-18). See my treatment of this in The Doctrine of Last Things, chapter 23.
How do I reconcile amillennial expectations with verses that speak of the earth being filled with the knowledge of the Lord?
I have touched on this before, but this provides another opportunity to correct the bad assumptions of this question.
I reconcile amillennialism with the “knowledge covering the earth as the waters covering the sea” by my doctrine of the redeemed earth. Cf. Romans 8:18-23 and many other passages. It is their failure to reckon with this doctrine that lies beyond the overconfident putting forward of passages like Isaiah 11:9: “They will not hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain, For the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD As the waters cover the sea.”
In the new earth, this prediction will have become completely and absolutely true. “They will not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain.” Something that cannot be said of the millennium as taught by either post or premillennialism.
Some Postmillennialists snidely say that these passages must be filled in time and on earth. But the redeemed earth cannot be discounted as something not taking place in time and on earth. It emphatically takes place in time and on earth.
If Amillennialism is correct, how do you interpret major, historical Christian victories like the collapse of Pagan Rome or the abolition of slavery? Were these genuine kingdom advances? Why has the gospel repeatedly transformed civilizations if such transformation is not expected?
I certainly acknowledge that the events mentioned were “Christian victories.” But I also recall that the results of these “victories” were not perfection and flawlessness. Out of the ashes of Rome, Roman Catholicism eventually rose. Now we see a flawed understanding of freedom embodied in the LGBTQ movement, which is so horrendously corrupting our society.
I would rephrase the second question. The present manifestation of the kingdom is found in its spiritual and ecclesiastical manifestation, the church. It is not found in so-called Christian nations that have abolished slavery. Whatever good came of the collapse of pagan Rome and the abolition of slavery, they were not “genuine kingdom advances.” They were the cultural result and the common grace overflow of the gospel of the kingdom and of the preaching of the gospel by the church of Christ.
Does Christ’s authority include civil law in any meaningful sense today?
Colossians 2:10 says: “ … and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority.” This means, of course, that all human authority, including civil authority, owes allegiance to Christ. This means, then, additionally, that the civil laws such states make are under His authority.
But the question really raised by this question is this. Does Christ want the Mosaic civil laws implemented in our nations? The answer to this is no. The Old Testament civil law has been abolished. The logic of the old confessions is undeniable, I think. At chapter 19:4, they say: “To them also he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any now by virtue of that institution; their general equity only being of moral use.”
Further, supporting this view is the teaching of Hebrews 9:19: “For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people …” In its Old Testament context, this refers specifically to the summary of the civil law given in Exodus 21-23. In the context of Hebrews 9:19, the old or Mosaic covenant is obsolete and passing away. This includes its civil laws.
The old confessions go on to say that “their general equity only (is) of moral use.” Civil laws that embody the principles of God’s moral law have Christ’s authority behind them and supporting them.
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 | Jan 26, 2026 | Eschatology
*Editor’s Note: Below are questions submitted to Dr. Sam Waldron at an Eschatology Conference. Since these questions and answers could be helpful for a broader audience, we are posting them here as a series. Click the following numbers to read other parts of this series: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
Psalm 110 speaks of Christ ruling in the midst of His enemies. What does that look like if the enemies remain largely dominant until the end? What does it look like for Christ to visibly win in history?
In principle, I have answered this question previously, but it will be good to address this statement of it distinctly. Let me begin by simply denying that the enemies of Christ remain largely dominant until the end. This is only partially true in this age. It is not true at all in the age to come.
What it looks like for Christ to rule in the midst of His enemies depends on the two-stage fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. We must always interpret the prophecies of the Old Testament in light of the two-stage fulfillment of the kingdom outlined by Jesus in His great parables of the kingdom in Matthew 13. Thus, Christ ruling in the midst of His enemies during this age looks like his frustrating the attempt of Satan through all his minions to stop the spread of the gospel. It looks like the creation of a worldwide church by His constantly defeating the strategy of the evil one to prevent the building of Christ’s church throughout the world and throughout this gospel age. In the age to come, a further fulfillment arrives. Christ ruling in the midst of His enemies looks like their final destruction in the judgment, in which the glory of the age to come commences.
Psalm 2 commands kings to kiss the Son. When and how does this happen in history?
Psalm 2 calls on kings to kiss (do homage to) the Son: “Now therefore, O kings, show discernment; Take warning, O judges of the earth. 11 Worship the LORD with reverence And rejoice with trembling. 12 Do homage to the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way, For His wrath may soon be kindled. How blessed are all who take refuge in Him!” (Ps. 2:10-12)
I simply note that the command for them to kiss the Son does not tell us how often they will do this. Many leaders have done this throughout church history.
I also note that such kings should rule within their limited sphere in light of the principles of God’s moral law. The leaders of Gentile kingdoms are not theocratic kings. The theocratic kingdom was destroyed by Babylon and Rome. It will not be re-erected until the King returns. Thus, their authority focuses on enforcing the Second Table of the Law.
Their authority, then, does not mean that they should enforce the religious precepts of the First Table of the Law. It does not mean that they have totalitarian rule over all aspects of society. It does not mean that they should assume to themselves an authority over religious worship which God has never given to any but the theocratic kings. They should not become persecutors of those who disagree with their religious convictions. Only if somebody’s religion leads them to violate the Second Table of the Law in criminal offenses against the civil rights of their neighbors should a supposedly religious practice be restrained. Gentile kings would have the right to curtail the Molech worship, which sacrifices children in the fire to their god.
Do the parables of the mustard seed and leaven teach gradual, visible growth of the kingdom in history? If not, what exactly is going on in those parables?
As I show in detail in The Doctrine of the Last Things in chapters 22-24, these parables do teach the gradual growth of the kingdom in history. To sum up, I believe that these parables teach the gradual growth of the kingdom and its triumph in the age to come.
In Matthew 13, these parables are surrounded by “bodyguard” parables, which prevent a postmillennial interpretation. The parable of the wheat and weeds surrounds them. It makes clear that not only does the good seed grow, but the bad seed grows as well. The parable of the sower precedes them. It makes clear that the good seed will always fall into four different kinds of soil, only three of which are fruitful.
Should Christians expect their obedience to Christ to positively shape law, culture, and institutions in any way?
Questions like this tempt me to respond sarcastically and say, No, we should not expect anything to happen! It will not shape these things in any way! But I refrain from such a response.
But why am I tempted to respond in such a way? Because it feels like this is an attempt to caricature the optimistic amillennial viewpoint. Of course, our positive obedience to Christ’s laws will positively shape law, culture, and institutions. But two things must be said.
First, the resistance of the evil world and the growth of the evil seed will prevent the total triumph of Christian obedience in culture. The expectation of a transformed culture and world is not promised in this age by the Bible.
Second, the focus of our obedience in this age is the growth and spread of the church throughout the world. It is not the transformation of civil law, particular cultures, or governmental institutions—even though those are good things
If Christ’s reign does not aim at cultural victory, what is the long-term purpose of Christian cultural labor and efforts?
Several responses to this query are important.
First, and this may seem so obvious that it feels a little snarky, the purpose is simple obedience to God. Christians are embedded in specific cultures and human societies. They must interact with and live as Christians in such cultures and societies. They cannot do otherwise than live obediently to God in all of life and each of those cultures.
Second, this is one way in which Christians are to shine as lights in the world and expose the darkness around them (Matt. 5:16; Eph. 5:8-10). In this way, their cultural activities further the spread of the gospel.
Third, perhaps in some mysterious way, the cultural fruits of the Word of God will be brought into the age to come. Since we look for a redeemed and new earth, something like this seems possible.
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 | Jan 26, 2026 | Eschatology
*Editor’s Note: Below are questions submitted to Dr. Sam Waldron at an Eschatology Conference. Since these questions and answers could be helpful for a broader audience, we are posting them here as a series. Click the following numbers to read other parts of this series: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
If Christ is reigning now, what concrete changes should we expect as a result of that reign? What does it mean for Christ to have all authority in heaven and earth before the Second Coming?
Though these arrived as two separate questions, I think they are so closely related that they must be treated together. I will take the second one first.
When Christ claims all authority in heaven and earth in the Great Commission in Matthew 28:18-20, this is clearly connected with the commission given to the Apostles of Christ and the church built on them to preach the gospel to all the nations. Thus, for Christ to have all authority in heaven and earth means, in the first place and centrally, that He has the authority to command His church to spread the gospel to all nations. It also means that He has the power to ensure that this gospel is effective in the gathering of His church from all the nations. It also means by implication that He has the power to destroy any devilish power that stands in the way of the spread of the gospel. This is the implication, I think, of the statement in 1 Corinthians 15:25: “For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.” No power will be permitted to resist the irresistible spread of the gospel and the building of Christ’s church throughout the world (Matthew 16:18).
All this enables us to answer the question as to what concrete changes we should expect as a result of Christ’s reign. We should expect the building of Christ’s worldwide church in spite of anything that Satan can do. From a little band of 120 disciples in Jerusalem, the church will become a worldwide entity in every nation and a great multitude whom no man can number from every kindred, tribe, and nation (Acts 1:15; Rev. 5:9). This is a glorious prospect and a glorious, concrete change in the world as a result of Christ’s reign.
Does the Great Commission envision merely saving individuals from all nations or the discipling of nations as nations? What would the discipling of the nations look like under an amillennial framework? Can a nation be discipled without its laws, public ethics, or institutions being shaped by Christ’s teaching?
It is often assumed that the Great Commission does call for and thus predicts the discipling of nations as whole nations. This is totally to misapprehend what Jesus is saying here. Let me explain why.
First, the parallel passages in the New Testament do not lead us to think that whole nations will be discipled. I am thinking of Revelation 5:9: “And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.” The song of praise here speaks a great multitude “out of” every nation. It does not speak of nations as nations. Similar is Revelation 7:9: “After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands …” The Greek preposition used here means and is often translated “out of.” It speaks not of whole nations but a portion of people out of every nation.
Second, a common-sense understanding of the Great Commission does not favor the idea of the discipling of whole nations. It speaks of baptizing and teaching those evangelized by the gospel. You do not baptize whole nations. You baptize individuals.
Third, in the Bible, nations may be said to be saved if a remnant of that nation is saved. It is in this sense that a nation can be saved by the gospel. A nation is represented by its elect remnant. This is certainly the case in Paul’s argument in Romans 9-11. Israel is not cast off, because a remnant of Israel is saved. This is explicitly what Paul says in Romans 11:1-5.
I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? 3 “Lord, THEY HAVE KILLED YOUR PROPHETS, THEY HAVE TORN DOWN YOUR ALTARS, AND I ALONE AM LEFT, AND THEY ARE SEEKING MY LIFE.” 4 But what is the divine response to him? “I HAVE KEPT for Myself SEVEN THOUSAND MEN WHO HAVE NOT BOWED THE KNEE TO BAAL.” 5 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice.
Here, Israel is not rejected because Paul is saved, because the 7000 are saved, and because an elect remnant is being saved. Nations may be saved and discipled when a remnant of it is saved and discipled. This is the answer to the last question raised above. Can a nation be discipled without its laws, public ethics, or institutions being shaped by Christ’s teaching? The answer is yes. It can be discipled by the salvation of the elect remnant without such secondary results of the common grace overflow of the gospel.
How do you interpret Old Testament prophecies that describe worldwide peace, justice, and righteousness? Are these prophecies fulfilled entirely in the church or entirely in heaven? Why should texts like Isaiah 2, 11, Psalm 72, and Habakkuk be read as non-historical in their fulfillment?
I love these questions because they beautifully illustrate the value of new earth amillennialism and the falsity of this kind of alternative. When it is asked, Are these prophecies fulfilled entirely in the church or entirely in heaven? The answer is neither! These are not the only choices. They may be partially fulfilled in heaven and the church. They are, however, finally and fully fulfilled in the redeemed earth. Thus, Isaiah 2, 11, Psalm 72, and Habakkuk should be read as non-historical in their fulfillment, but they should be understood in time and in history in the redeemed earth.
This is when, according to Psalm 37, we will look for the wicked and not find them (vv. 9-11). This is when the meek shall inherit the earth (Matt. 5:5). This is when there shall be a new heaven and new earth in which righteousness dwells (2 Pet. 3:13). There is an earthly fulfillment of these prophecies, but it is not a millennial but an eternal fulfillment of them.
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 | Jan 26, 2026 | Eschatology
*Editor’s Note: Below are questions submitted to Dr. Sam Waldron at an Eschatology Conference. Since these questions and answers could be helpful for a broader audience, we are posting them here as a series. Click the following numbers to read other parts of this series: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
Why do you believe our Baptist forefathers were incorrect when they taught that the office of the pope was and is antichrist?
It is well-known among our small circle of Reformed Baptists that I take some exception to the statement of 1689 26:4 which asserts “… the Pope of Rome … is that antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.” Let me explain my position.
First, I do not hesitate to say that the Pope is an antichrist. He and the false doctrines his church teaches are certainly antichristian. My difference is only my unwillingness to say that the institution of the papacy is the antichrist predicted in 2 Thessalonians 2.
Second, let me emphasize that it is clearly to 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 that the Confession is alluding. The prooftext given for this statement is 2 Thessalonians 2:2-9. This use of that passage is, in my view, mistaken because the passage clearly refers to a little season before Christ returns. During that little season, there will rise a future, personal antichrist who will deceive the whole world.
Third, this little season of the rise of a personal antichrist is corroborated by the teaching of Revelation 20:1-10 (understood in an amillennial way) that after the thousand years, there will be a short time in which Satan is loosed to deceive the nations for the purpose of raising global and universal persecution of the church. Though the whole gospel age is a time of tribulation (Rev. 1:9), there will be a short time of intensified and global persecution before Christ’s return. This amillennial understanding corresponds exceedingly well with the prediction of 2 Thessalonians 2 of a future rise of a personal antichrist at the end of the age, during which a spirit of deception will cloud the minds of the entire world and lead them astray.
In fact, in the Doctrine of Last Things, in chapter 11, I show a compelling parallel between the timelines and structures of Revelation 20 and 2 Thessalonians 2 in a chart. Both the period described in Revelation 20 and 2 Thessalonians begin with a long period of the restraint of evil in the world. Following this, the restraint is taken away. After the restraint is taken away, there is a time of terrible deception of the nations. Finally, after this short period of final deception, the antichrist is destroyed, and Satan is burned up in the lake of fire. These incredible parallels show that the two passages, though under different imagery, describe the same historical period.
To repeat and summarize my argument: these parallels (and they are confirmed by many other passages) show that there is not only tribulation throughout the gospel age, but a specific period of tribulation for the church at its end. They also show that, though there are many antichrists who arise through this age (1 John 2:18), there is a final antichrist during this terrible last tumult. The ideas of a personal antichrist and a specific period of tribulation tend to confirm each other.
Fourth, the notion that the institution of the papacy is the antichrist is the starting-point, heart, and centerpiece of the historicist understanding of prophecy. The historicist understanding is that prophecy gives us a symbolic step-by-step unfolding of the present age. In many different ways, this historicist understanding of prophecy and especially of the Book of Revelation has been proven wrong. I suggest that if anyone doubts this, they read Mark Jones account of Thomas Goodwin’s historicist interpretation of Revelation in the work on Puritan Theology he co-authored with Joel Beeke.
Given that you are optimistic in your amillennialism, isn’t it possible that the result of gospel expansion in the world is a transformative effect on societies and communities?
Undoubtedly, the gospel as it spreads throughout the world will have a transformative effect on societies and communities. At the same time, we must not forget the paradigm of the parable of the wheat and weeds. I discuss this in chapter 22 of the Doctrine of Last Things. It teaches that the growth of the good seed will not overwhelm or uproot the bad seed. Rather, Jesus suggested that both would grow together until the harvest at the end of the world (Matthew 13:30). This reminds us that the purpose of the gospel is not to transform the Gentile kingdoms of the world. It is rather call out of them a great multitude whom no man can number and prepare them to enter into the glory of the age to come. The fact is that the response of evil to the growth of the good seed grows worse. While there is certainly a ripple effect of transformation in cultures and nations from the gospel, the end result is not the transformation of the world or the production of a millennial era of peace, prosperity, and righteousness. Rather, the dark world rebels against the light of the gospel and is driven into even worse darkness.
Should New Covenant Christians and churches be concerned at all with transforming culture?
The key issue here is what is meant by “transforming culture.” My answer depends on what this phrase assumes.
I think for some, this phrase assumes that we should have as a goal a transformed culture and, by implication, a transformed world. As I have said in a previous question, the Bible does not hold out to us the prospect of a transformed culture and world as a result of the cultural influence of the ripple effects of the gospel. It holds out the prospect of good and evil growing side by side until the end of the age (Matt. 13:30). We have the promise and prospect of a worldwide church, but we do not have the promise and prospect of a transformed world culture.
But having said that, it is, of course, inevitable that the law of God written in the hearts of believers will influence their approach to every area of life. From this perspective, we must say that, of course, New Covenant Christians should and will be concerned with transforming culture. We may add that we can expect—in spite of the opposition of the evil seed and their being made worse by the gospel’s influence—that remarkable transformations in culture will be affected by the Christian world and life view. Wonderful cultural results will be achieved. Terrible cultures of evil will be mitigated by the influence of Christians living Christianly. The church should be a microcosm of the transformation of personal relationships and fellowship that shines as a light on a hill (Matt. 5:13-16).
It is not, then, a question of either cultural influence or no cultural influence. It is a question of the focus and hope of the Christian. That focus must be on the growth of the church of Christ throughout the world. The focus is not the transformation of culture. That is a secondary, though important, matter.
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 | Jan 26, 2026 | Eschatology
*Editor’s Note: Below are questions submitted to Dr. Sam Waldron at an Eschatology Conference. Since these questions and answers could be helpful for a broader audience, we are posting them here as a series. Click the following numbers to read other parts of this series: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
Could the “thousand year reign” be a form of the overlapping of the ages?
My answer to this question depends on what the questioner is assuming about “the thousand-year reign.” If an amillennial understanding of Revelation 20 and “the thousand-year reign” is assumed, the answer is a nuanced yes. For Amillennialism, “the thousand-year reign” is brought about by the events of Christ’s first advent and especially His resurrection, which brings about the gospel age and the things especially at its beginning which anticipate the age to come.
But I rather doubt that this is what the questioner is assuming. He is assuming the premillennial system and its interpretation of Revelation. In that case, my answer is a firm “no.” Let me explain why.
My chapter on this in The Doctrine of Last Things emphasizes that the language of the overlapping of the ages is an enhancement and enlargement of the map of the two ages. I put it this way because this must never be used to contradict or overthrow the Basic Scheme. This is exactly what a premillennial misuse of the overlapping of the ages does.
Think about it. The premillennial understanding of Revelation 20 requires un-resurrected men, who marry and are given in marriage, who die, and who live mixed together with resurrected sons of God. This is not optional to the premillennial system but necessary to every form of premillennialism. This is not an enlarged enhancement of the two ages but an absolute contradiction of the teaching of Luke 20:34-36. Remember what the Lord says so clearly here;
34 Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, 35 but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36 for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.
This statement directly asserts (what is in many places confirmed in the New Testament) that in the age to come, there is no marrying and giving in marriage, no death, no natural men in an un-resurrected state, and no mixture of good and evil men, but only sons of God. All of this is absolutely in contradiction to the most basic requirements of any premillennial system.
No, the premillennial understanding of Revelation 20 cannot be a kind of overlapping of the ages. Such an understanding does not enlarge or enhance the basic scheme, but absolutely contradicts it.
Amillennialism fits the overlapping of the ages of the enhanced scheme without contradicting the basic scheme. Premillennialism does not.
In light of the “two age teaching,” please comment on Matthew 19:28?
Here is the passage under discussion with a little context:
28 And Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 “And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or farms for My name’s sake, will receive many times as much, and will inherit eternal life.
Once more, I must guess a little about the meaning of this question, but here is my guess. My guess is that the questioner means by the two age teaching substantially the Amillennialism which I defend in light of it. I imagine this is the case because Matthew 19:28 is thought to require a premillennial and Jewish understanding of the millennium. A few comments may help the reader to discard the premillennial glasses through which they are accustomed to looking at this passage.
The timing of this prediction must be noted. It is “when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne.” This event is clearly identified in the Gospel of Matthew as commencing with the return of Christ and the judgment of the world. Here is Matthew 25:31-32: “ 31 “But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. 32 “All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats …” The account of the judgment here described concludes with the eternal state. Matthew 25:46 is that conclusion: “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” Thus, the sitting of the Son of Man on His glorious throne commences with His Second Coming and leads into the eternal state. Both in Matthew 19:28-29 and Matthew 25:31-46, it is connected with the gaining of eternal life.
The subject of this prediction must be noted. Jesus speaks of “the regeneration.” In Titus 3:5, this word speaks of what we normally think of when we hear this word—the new birth in which our salvation begins. This is, of course, not what Jesus means by it in Matthew 19:28. One lexicon defines the meaning here as follows: “the future as the restoration and renewal of the world new age.” I am convinced, however, that a further idea is intended by “the regeneration.” The mention of the apostles ruling over the 12 tribes of Israel conjures up thoughts of the Old Testament theocratic kingdom. This kingdom was overthrown by Babylon. Its restoration is predicted in many places. Daniel 2 and 7 are especially clear and important. Let me sum up. The regeneration speaks of the restored theocratic kingdom in a renewed world.
The recipients of this prediction must be noted. They are clearly the twelve apostles. This is crucial to understand because it begins to suggest the way in which this prophecy should be understood. Throughout the New Testament, the twelve apostles of Christ are pictured as the foundation of Christ’s church (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:14). This correlates clearly with the language of their ruling in the prediction of Matthew 19:28.
All of which brings us to “the twelve tribes of Israel.” This is a reference to the church composed of the remnant of believing Jews and the Gentiles who are grafted into God’s Israel. The church is described in the New Testament as the true circumcision and the true Jewish race (Rom. 2:25-29; Phil. 3:1-3); the seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:29); the sons of promise (Rom. 9:6-8; Gal. 4:26-31); and finally as the Israel of God (Eph. 2:12-19; Gal. 6:15-16). There are even places in the Book of Revelation where the elect of God are pictured as composed of 144,000 from the twelve tribes of Israel. Revelation 7:4-9; 14:1-3). With all of this before us, it is not far-fetched at all to think of the twelve tribes of Israel in Matthew 19:28 as a picture of the church composed of the remnant of Jewish believers with the Gentile believer grafted into God’s olive tree, Israel (Rom. 11:16-24).
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.
