by Sam Waldron | Feb 27, 2013 | Eschatology, New Testament, Systematic Theology
I was recently involved in symposium on the Book of Revelation sponsored by several churches in Reno, Nevada and held at Sierra Bible Church. Gary Demar defended a preterist, Jim Hamilton a futurist, and I an Idealist approach to the Book. The symposium consisted of three major presentations 55 minutes in length in the morning and three 20 minute responses and question and answer time in the afternoon. Here are the first two of those principles as I presented them at the symposium.
I. Historical Interpretation that takes into account the Historical Context of the Revelation
The first and most basic principle of biblical interpretation is known as grammatical-historical interpretation. Simply stated this fundamental principle says that the Bible must be interpreted in terms of the normal grammatical meaning of the language and in a way that makes sense in light of the historical context of the language of the passage. The original sense of the words (first of all) for the author and (secondarily for) his readers is the true sense. No interpretation that divorces itself from its historical-grammatical meaning of the passage can be correct.
Of course, this strict attention to the grammatical-historical interpretation of the passage must be supplemented by an appreciation of its theological interpretation. The Bible is a divine-human document. Each of its parts has both a human author (Isaiah the Prophet or John the Apostle) and a divine author (the Holy Spirit). Each part of the Bible, then, has both a specific grammatical-historical meaning because of its human author and a larger theological significance because of its divine author. To put this another way, each part of Scripture is intended by the Holy Spirit as the canon (or rule of faith and life) of the church and has, therefore, a significance for the whole church. I will point out some hermeneutical implications of this later.
The crucial thing that must be pointed out here, however, is that these two sides of Scripture do not contradict one another. The human authorship of Scripture does not make it less divine. For instance, its human authorship does not cancel its inerrancy or decrease its infallibility. On the other hand, its divine authorship does not suppress the peculiar personalities or vocabularies of its human authors. Divine authorship does not mean that we can ignore either the peculiar language or the historical situation of the human author. Rather the theological interpretation always is consistent with and, in fact, grows out of the grammatical-historical interpretation of the passage.
Now what has all this to do with Revelation 20? It means that the historical context of its visions cannot be ignored in its interpretation. The exact date of the writing of the Book of Revelation is disputed. What is not disputed is this. It was originally written by John the Apostle in exile at Patmos for his faith to local churches in the Roman province of Asia also suffering for their faith (Revelation 1:9; 2:2, 3, 10, 13; 3:9, 10). Interpretations that forget that these visions were recorded by a suffering apostle for a suffering church defy the principle of historical interpretation. A credible interpretation must exhibit a clear line of connection with this historical context. Since the premillennial interpretation of this passage asserts that this passage has to do with a drastically different and distant period of time after the return of Christ, it faces up front a problem with this principle of historical interpretation. If the Beast is the Antichrist at the end of history and those crowned with glory in the millennium are those who suffer at his hands in the Great Tribulation at the end of history, then this passage has only a tangential and secondary application to believers suffering at the hands of Rome in the first century.
If, on the other hand, those who stand beheaded for the sake of Christ in the vision of Revelation 20:1-10 are exactly Christians martyred in the Domitian persecutions of the late first century, then there is an immediate relevance of this passage to its historical recipients. If their living and reigning with Christ speaks of their glorious participation in the heavenly reign of Christ immediately after their martyrdom, then there is a glorious relevance and encouragement given to the original recipients of this vision.1
II. Literary Genre Interpretation that takes into account the Predominantly Apocalyptic Character of the Revelation
The Book of Revelation has a predominantly apocalyptic genre. I need to explain each of these three words.
By using the word, predominantly, I mean again to emphasize my “Relative Idealism.” Not all of the Book of Revelation is apocalyptic. Some of it, especially the first three chapters, is predominantly epistolary literature. The Book of Revelation is predominantly, but not exclusively, apocalyptic literature. Epistolary literature must be interpreted in a more literal (non-symbolic) fashion, while apocalyptic literature must be interpreted in a symbolic.
The adjective, apocalyptic, comes originally from the Greek word that means revelation. It may also be derived more immediately from the name of the Book of Revelation. In some traditions it is called the Apocalypse. In the present context the word, apocalyptic, has reference to the highly symbolic, continuous, and dramatic figurative language characteristic of the Book of Revelation and also of some parts of the Book of Daniel. For instances of this sort of language compare Daniel 8:1-27 and Revelation 13:1-4.
The word, genre, is a word of French origin that refers to a kind, type, or sort of literature. Thus, the apocalyptic genre of Revelation 20 refers to the fact that it is a kind of literature that utilizes highly symbolic and figurative language. It is not ordinary, literal, prose.
I have to confess that when I read many Dispensationalists, I am confused by their approach to the interpretation of symbolic literature in the Bible. It seems sometimes that they are saying that we must not interpret the symbols of the Bible symbolically. We must rather, they seem to be saying, interpret the symbolic literature of the Bible literally. As for myself, it seems obvious to me that if literature is symbolic, then it must be interpreted symbolically.
Thus, the principle of biblical interpretation relevant here is that biblical literature must be interpreted in a way appropriate to its genre. Genre analysis is, therefore, crucial if the Bible is to be properly interpreted. R. C. Sproul has these helpful comments on the subject of genre analysis in biblical hermeneutics.
Genre analysis involves the study of such things as literary forms, figures of speech and style. We do this with all kinds of literature. We distinguish between the style of historical narratives and sermon, between realistic graphic descriptions and hyperbole. Failure to make these distinctions when dealing with the Bible can lead to a host of problems with interpretation. Literary analysis is crucial to accurate interpretation.2
Now the relevance of all this to Revelation 20 should be obvious. Revelation 20 is clearly written mainly in the apocalyptic genre and should be interpreted in a way that takes this into account. The opening words of Rev. 20:1, “and I saw,” inform us of the visionary and thus symbolic or apocalyptic character of the passage. It must not, therefore, be interpreted literally. It must rather be interpreted figuratively and symbolically in accord with its apocalyptic genre or form. Dan. 7:2-8 provides an example of such literature.
Dan. 7:16 shows that such language is not straightforwardly literal and involves special problems of interpretation. Daniel says, “I approached one of those who were standing by and began asking him the exact meaning of all this. So he told me and made known to me the interpretation of these things…” These words make clear that visions seen by the inner eye of the prophet or apostle are not to be interpreted literally, but figuratively. Their meaning is not immediately obvious like literal language or prose. Daniel has to inquire as to its interpretation, because as apocalyptic language its meaning is not immediately obvious to him.
All this leads to a further, important question. How should such symbolic, apocalyptic, or figurative language be properly interpreted? This question is all the more necessary because the claim is frequently made that symbolic interpretation is necessarily ambiguous. I quote Zukeran again:
Second, reading spiritual meanings into the text could lead to arbitrary interpretations. Followers of this approach have often allowed the cultural and socio-political factors of their time to influence their interpretation rather than seeking the author’s intended meaning. Merrill Tenney states, “The idealist view . . . assumes a ‘spiritual’ interpretation, and allows no concrete significance whatever to figures that it employs. According to this viewpoint they are not merely symbolic of events and persons, as the historicist view contends; they are only abstract symbols of good and evil. They may be attached to any time or place, but like the characters of Pilgrim’s Progress, represent qualities or trends. In interpretation, the Apocalypse may thus mean anything or nothing according to the whim of the interpreter.” 3
Several common sense answers can be made to the concern that symbolic interpretation is necessarily ambiguous and contrary ultimately to the doctrine of the clarity or perspicuity of Scripture.
(1) Apocalyptic passages must be interpreted in a way that is consistent. They ought not to be suddenly interpreted literally and then figuratively at the whim of the interpreters. For instance, there is no good reason to exclude indications of time (i.e. the 1000 years) from the overall symbolic or figurative character of Revelation 20.
(2) Apocalyptic passages must be interpreted in light of the clues or explanations given in literal language in the immediate passage. For instance, in Revelation 20:2 we have such an immediate explanation: “And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan…” In the vision John sees “the dragon, the serpent of old.” This is figurative language. He immediately, however, interpolates an explanation or interpretation for what he sees. This dragon, he says, in the real world where we live, is the devil or Satan.
(3) This distinction between the world of the vision and the real world where we live suggests another important skill or principle of interpretation when interpreting apocalyptic passages. We must both be able to distinguish and yet properly relate these two worlds.4
Think about it! The vision which the prophet sees does not literally exist anywhere in the space-time universe. It is a visionary world that exists only before the inner eye of the prophet through the revealing power of the Spirit of God. None of it exists exactly as the prophet sees it with the inner eye in the outer world which can be seen by his external eye.
Yet it symbolizes that world. One unique feature of apocalyptic literature like that found in Daniel and Revelation is the continued character of the symbols. You do not have a symbol here and there sprinkled in a passage. You have long-continued, whole, symbolic passages with, perhaps, here and there sprinkled in an explanation of what this points to in the literal world. This is the character of the vision of Revelation 20:1-10. It is continuously symbolic throughout. It has only occasional exceptions like the opening words, “and I saw,” and the words of verse 2 mentioned previously which identify in literal language the identity of the dragon.
Let me put it this way. We must not take the vision literally, even though we must take the vision seriously. We must not cut symbols out of the vision and paste them into the real world. They may only come into the real world through the gate of symbolic translation.
Let me give an illustration of this. In the history of the interpretation of Revelation 20 not a few have puzzled over the beheaded martyrs of verse 4. A failure to understand the principle I have just been articulating has led some to affirm that only beheaded martyrs, or at least only martyrs, or perhaps only especially martyrs, share in the reign of Christ. Such affirmations raise all sorts of silly questions. Is beheading more heroic (or meritorious) than burning? Does a person actually have to die to be a martyr for Christ? Does other suffering short of death allow one to reign with Christ?
But all such reactions to the text fail to see this that the beheaded martyrs of verse 4 are part of the world of vision. In the vision they are beheaded by a beast for failure to accept a tattoo indicating allegiance to him in their foreheads or hand. That is what John really saw. But none of this is to be taken literally. The question must be asked, How does all this look when it comes through the gate of symbolic translation? I think it looks like 2 Timothy 2:12: “If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us.” We must beware of taking things seen in visions, cutting them out, and without symbolic translation pasting them into the real world.
(4) Biblical symbols in apocalyptic passages must be interpreted by means of their biblical origin, background, and usage, if they are not explained in the immediate context. Great help can be derived in interpreting New Testament symbols by studying Old Testament passages from which such symbolism is derived. The reference to the birds of the air nesting in the mustard tree in the parable of the mustard seed in Luke 13:19 is illuminated by a study of the use of this phrase in two Old Testament passages (Ezekiel 17:22-24; Daniel 4:12, 21, 22) where it is used of nations coming under the rule of great kingdoms.
(5) The interpretive principle known as the analogy of faith must also be applied here. No interpretation inconsistent with the analogy of Scripture is tenable. The Westminster and 1689 Baptist Confession agree in asserting that the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself (Chapter 1, paragraph 9). The Bible is inerrant and infallible. No interpretation is acceptable that creates internal conflict in the meaning of Scripture.
One plain and important application of this principle of the analogy of faith is noted in the further statement of this paragraph: and therefore when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched by other places that speak more clearly. The application of this to the highly figurative and disputed language of Revelation 20 is manifold.
The symbolic language of Revelation 20 must be searched out in light of other and plainer Scriptures. The paramount question, for instance, When is Satan bound? must be answered on the basis of the teaching of the rest of Scriptures. The fact is that nowhere else in Scripture is there any reference to a future interim binding of Satan. If Revelation 20:1-3 refers to such a thing it is the only reference to it in the entirety of Scripture. On the other hand, there are many parallel references to a binding and limitation of Satan’s power in the present age. Cf. Matthew 12:28-29; Luke 10:17-19; John 12:31-32; Colossians 2:15; Hebrews 2:14; 1 John 3:8; and Revelation 12:5-10.
Furthermore, no interpretation of a highly symbolic passage that contradicts the plain meaning of straightforward, literal, or prosaic passages is acceptable. It demands that plain passages must be given priority over and must interpret obscure passages. A premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20:1-10, in my view, contradicts this principle. To give only one example of why this is so, the general judgment according to the clear and pervasive teaching of the New Testament occurs at Christ’s second coming (Romans 2:1-16; 2 Pet. 3:3-18; Matt. 25:31f.). In Revelation 20:11-15—subsequent to the millennium of verses 1-10—the general judgment is depicted. If Revelation 20:11-15 is regarded as chronologically subsequent to 20:1-10 (as it is by premillennialists), then the analogy of faith demands that the “1000 years” and “little season” precede the second coming of Christ.
These considerations are particularly crushing to premillennialism when we remind ourselves of the state of the doctrinal question about the millennium. The interpretation of Revelation 20 is absolutely crucial to the premillennialist. He must prove that Revelation 20 teaches a future millennium and that no other interpretation is possible. If there is another feasible interpretation of this passage, then premillennialism is left without its central exegetical pillar. Indeed Ladd is candid enough to admit that Revelation 20 is the sole exegetical pillar of premillennialism.5
1Charles Hill in Regnorum Caelorum (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 75-201, presents extensive evidence from the ante-Nicene church for the interpretation here defended. He shows many examples of the interpretation of Revelation 20:4-6 that refers it to the intermediate state of believers in heaven.
2R. C. Sproul, Knowing Scripture, (Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, 1979), 49.
3Patrick Zukeran, “Four Views of Revelation,” Internet. Accessed February 19, 2013. http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.5110361/k.5D09/Four_Views_of_Revelation.htm
4I believe that I am articulating the same basic viewpoint here as G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1999), 973-74, does when he distinguishes three levels of communication in the apocalyptic genre of Revelation. He distinguishes a linguistic level, a visionary level, a referential level, and a symbolic level of communication, 52-53. He complains that many interpreters “typically neglect the visionary and symbolic levels of communication by collapsing them into the referential, historical level.” This is approximately at least what I mean by visionary world, real world, and the gate of symbolic translation.
5George Eldon Ladd, Crucial Questions About the Kingdom of God (Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1998), 182.
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 | Feb 25, 2013 | Eschatology, New Testament, Systematic Theology
I was recently involved in symposium on the Book of Revelation sponsored by several churches in Reno, Nevada and held at Sierra Bible Church. Gary Demar defended a preterist, Jim Hamilton a futurist, and I an Idealist approach to the Book. The symposium consisted of three major presentations 55 minutes in length in the morning and three 20 minute responses and question and answer time in the afternoon. Here from my major presentation is my introduction a modified idealist approach to the Book of Revelation.
When I read Wikipedia’s description of the position I am supposed to be defending at this conference, I have to admit that it made me think twice. Here is a portion of Wikipedia’s description of Idealism:
Idealism (also called the spiritual approach, the allegorical approach, the nonliteral approach, and many other names) in Christian eschatology is an interpretation of the Book of Revelation that sees all of the imagery of the book as non-literal symbols…. It is distinct from Preterism, Futurism and Historicism in that it does not see any of the prophecies (except in some cases the Second Coming, and Final Judgment) as being fulfilled in a literal, physical, earthly sense either in the past, present or future, and that to interpret the eschatological portions of the Bible in a historical or future-historical fashion is an erroneous understanding.1
Now I know that Wikipedia is not the final authority about anything, but this still made me wonder what I had let Brian get me into!
Some of you may wonder what I am doing reading somebody else’s definition of Idealism in preparation for this conference. You may be asking, “You’re defending it. Don’t you know what it?” I am supposed to be the expert on it, right? Here is the problem. If you had walked up to me and asked me to name my view of the Book of Revelation before being invited to this conference, I probably would not have told you that my view is Idealism. I’m not sure what I would have called it, but it probably would not have been that. But now that I have looked in a little more detail at some of the literature on the subject, it appears that there are only four choices. You can be a historicist, and scarcely anybody is that today. You can be a preterist and, of course, that is what Gary has defended. You can be a futurist, and that is what Jim has defended. And if you are not any of those three things, then you have to be an idealist. OK! So I am an idealist, but I am quite certain I am not the kind of idealist described on Wikipedia and elsewhere. I was comforted, however, to discover that in not wanting to be the kind of idealist described by Wikipedia I was in good company. G. K. Beale writes:
The idealist approach affirms that Revelation is a symbolic portrayal of the conflict between good and evil, between the forces of God and of Satan. The most radical form of this view holds that the book is a timeless depiction of this struggle. The problem with this alternative is that it holds that Revelation does not depict any final consummation to history, whether in God’s final victory or in a last judgment in the realm of evil. The idealist notion encounters the opposite problem facing the preterist and historicist views, since it identifies none of the book’s symbols with particular historical events.
Having said this, Beale proceeds to describe the view of his commentary as “Eclecticism or a Redemptive-Historical Form of Modified Idealism.”2 I cannot put it any better than Beale. I will be presenting to you in this lecture, A Redemptive-Historical, Modified Idealist Approach to the Interpretation of the Book of Revelation.
Let me unpack this Puritan-length title a little bit. Defining Idealism in the same way as Wikipedia, Patrick Zukeran asserts: “According to this view, the events of Revelation are not tied to specific historical events.”3 My Idealism is different. It is a modified Idealism. To put this in a better way, it is a relative Idealism. That is to say, it is not tied to specific, historical events in the same way as preterism, historicism, or futurism. They find references to Nero, America, Russia, Napoleon, the Papacy, and Attack Helicopters in the Book of Revelation. I do not. Nevertheless, I do believe that it is vital to understand that certain, historical events are referenced in the Book of Revelation. And that brings me to another aspect of my title.
I spoke of my view as A Redemptive-Historical, Modified Idealist Approach to the Interpretation of the Book of Revelation. While the common events of history are not specified (in the visions of Revelation 4-22 at least), the great events of redemption are certainly in view. And these events are certainly historical. Let me postulate, then, that the visions of Revelation 4-22 do refer to historical events like the enthronement of Jesus in heaven as Mediatorial Priest-King, the present gospel or missionary age, the Second Coming of Christ in glory to judge wicked, the new heavens and new earth, and I think as well the brief period of global persecution of the church which precedes the Second Coming. These are specific and real, historical events and my kind of Idealism sees them as depicted in the Book of Revelation. In fact, I think this cycle of events forms the very backbone of the Book.
So I am here to defend a Relative or Modified Idealism. But this does not worry me too much. It puts me in about the same situation as both Gary and Jim. Gary defends not a full but a partial preterism. Having read large parts of Jim’s commentary, it is clear to me that he believes and is defending something much less than the consistent futurism of Dispensationalism. I read with pleasure and appreciation, for instance, his interpretation of Revelation 11-12 and found his comments about the meaning of the 70th week of Daniel both appealing and attractive. Here is the bottom line. Gary defends what we well might call a Relative Preterism. Jim defends what might well be called a Relative Futurism. So I am not embarrassed to say that I defend a Relative Idealism.
All this relativity makes possible, I hope, a reasonable discussion among us about the Book of Revelation true to the purpose of what Brian has called this conference. It is a symposium and not a debate. This relativity also, however, creates a difficulty for me and the other participants. In the midst of the modifications we each want to introduce to the more extreme variants of our respective positions it becomes more difficult to distinguish our positions from one another. What I propose to do to solve this problem, therefore, is to present the various principles of interpretation which control my kind of modified Idealism in conjunction with the one passage in regard to which I am quite sure we do differ, Revelation 20:1-10. By doing this, I may suggest in the clearest possible way the distinction between my Relative Idealism, and the Relative Preterism of Gary, and the Relative Futurism of Jim.
After reading and listening to the positions of both Gary and Jim, I believe they both want to say that Revelation 20:1-10 is about something different from—something that goes beyond—what is taught in the rest of the Book of Revelation. For both of them, it is my impression, the vision of Revelation 20:1-10 stands in a kind of contrast to, or at least goes beyond, the teaching or focus of the rest of the Book.
I think Gary would say that the rest of the Book is about the period of time surrounding the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, but Revelation 20 vastly expands the vision of the Book to the period following. At least if he agrees with his friend, Ken Gentry, that is what he thinks. He does not want to identify the thousand years with the 40 year period of time between Jesus’ crucifixion and Jerusalem’s destruction.
Similarly, I think Jim would say that the period in view in Revelation 20 is different than the period in view in Revelation 11 and 12 or the time in view in the rest of the Book. The rest of the book discusses the time leading up to the Second Coming of Christ, while Revelation 20 discusses what happens afterwards in a way unparalleled in Scripture.
For me in contrast, Revelation 20 is literally about the very same period of time about which the rest of the Book speaks. It is exactly about the 1260 days and 3 and ½ days of Revelation 11. It is exactly about the period of time discussed in Revelation 12. I will, therefore, illustrate my principles of interpretation from Revelation 20 in an attempt to distinguish my Relative Idealism, from the Relative Preterism of Gary and the Relative Futurism of Jim.
In the time that remains, then, I want to provide you with a number of principles of interpretation that constitute the hermeneutics of my Relative or Modified Idealism. The various definitions of strict or extreme Idealism to which I have previously referred emphasize that Idealism understands the Book of Revelation symbolically. They also go on to say that these symbols do not have any historical fulfillment. Please read Wikipedia’s definition once more.
Idealism (also called the spiritual approach, the allegorical approach, the nonliteral approach, and many other names) in Christian eschatology is an interpretation of the Book of Revelation that sees all of the imagery of the book as non-literal symbols….
Listen also to Patrick Zukeran:
However, there are several weaknesses of this view. First, this view denies the book of Revelation any specific historical fulfillment. The symbols portray the ever-present conflict but no necessary consummation of the historical process.4
My Relative Idealist approach to the Book of Revelation stands in contrast to such extreme Idealism. Of course, I do believe that the literary genre of the Book of Revelation is relatively symbolic as compared to most of the rest of Scripture. It is mostly apocalyptic. Further, I believe that a method of interpretation that takes this into account is necessary. But I do not want to describe this method of interpretation as either “allegorical” or “spiritual.”
Further, and as I have said, I do believe that both Preterism and Futurism have typically gone too far in identifying certain prophecies in Revelation with specific historical events. At the same time, I emphatically disown the kind of Idealism that according to Zukeran “denies the book of Revelation any specific historical fulfillment.” I also deny that its symbols “portray the ever-present conflict but no necessary consummation of the historical process.”
But having said all of this, I admit that my relative Idealism assumes a relatively more symbolic approach to the Book of Revelation than that typically associated with either Preterism or Futurism. With this in mind, I will present five principles of interpretation which guide my Relative Idealism in my following posts.
2G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 48.
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 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.
