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 1, 2017 | Book Reviews, Eschatology
Part 1
Appreciation
In my last post, I mentioned that there are a number of things for which I can express genuine appreciation in Waymeyer’s book. Here are some of them:
First, I agree with Waymeyer’s rejection of eschatological agnosticism. In his preface, he condemns those who avoid the topic of eschatology and “even seem proud of their agnosticism” (vii). He avers that “Scripture reveals too much about the subject of eschatology for Christians to be content to be in the dark, especially those who preach the Word and shepherd the flock.” I could not agree more. In fact, I do agree more! For me, as I will argue, eschatology is even more central to Christianity and the gospel than it is for Waymeyer. Still, I have heard too many jokes making light of eschatology and too many people teasing about being “Pan-millennialists” (because everything will “pan” out alright in the end). Such humor misses, I think, the importance of eschatology in the Bible. The Bible is a story—yes, a true story—but a story nonetheless. Everything in a story depends on how the story ends. Eschatology tells us how the biblical story ends. That is how important eschatology is!
Second, and in his Preface again, Waymeyer expresses his foundational commitment to the doctrine of “sola scriptura at the heart of reformed theology” and goes on to say that it “should drive us to a careful exegesis of the relevant biblical passages … about the end times” (viii). Well said! My disagreement with Waymeyer is not about this fundamental principle, but about what constitutes the “careful exegesis” of which he speaks.
In the third place by way of appreciation let me compliment Waymeyer on his identification of what he calls “the Two-Age Model” as at the heart of the modern Amillennial polemic against Premillennialism. He says: “One of the strongest arguments for the amillennial view involves what is known as the “two-age model,” an eschatological framework high-lighted by Geerhardus Vos in the early twentieth century” (1). Waymeyer actually notes this by way of a quotation from my book. As he quotes me, I do believe that Vos’ contributions are “epochal” in their importance. I congratulate him on seeing the importance of this point in the debate clearly. Later he notes that “none of the major premillennial works in recent years has directly and substantially addressed this amillennial argument” and that “a premillennial critique of the two-age model is long overdue” (7). Once more, I think Waymeyer is seeing the contours of the argument clearly in this assertion.
In the fourth place, I believe that Waymeyer is to be thanked for his attempt to present fairly and at some length Amillennial arguments on the above point and on other points throughout his book (2-7, 34-40, 50-51, 78-79, 88-90, 107-110 etc.). It seems to me that Waymeyer has made a commendable attempt to treat his adversaries’ arguments fairly and thoroughly. It is, of course, a different thing to suggest that he has been wholly successful in this attempt. I will point out in my critique deficiencies in his attempt. Yet he has made a serious attempt to treat our arguments accurately. This is very good and much better than previous Premillennial polemics. All this leads me, however, to my last commendation.
In the fifth place, Waymeyer has maintained an objective and Christian tone in his argument. That is to say, he treats his Amillennial opponents as serious, Bible-believing Christians and refrains from the kind of disrespectful and frankly un-Christian tone of too many prophetic polemics in the past. As I have said elsewhere[1], however seriously we may disagree with Dispensationalism or Premillennialism, and however consequential we may think the logical and practical implications of their positions are, the argument between the four major views of eschatology held by Christians (Postmillennialism, Amillennialism, Historic Premillennialism, and Dispensational Premillennialism) is historically an argument among Christians. It is, in other words, an argument among those who hold the doctrinal core of beliefs necessary for historic orthodoxy. It is those professed “Christians” who have denied the doctrines of the future judgment, the future resurrection of the flesh (body), and the future, visible, bodily Second Coming of Christ that have denied (and departed from) the faith once delivered to all the saints. It is not Amillennialism, Premillennialism, or Postmillennialism that has departed in radical error from the faith once delivered to all the saints.
Part 3
[1]See both my MacArthurs’s Millennial Manifesto (Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2008), 1-4; More of the End Times Made Simple (Calvary Press, 2009), 13-31.
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 admin | Aug 2, 2013 | Eschatology
Earlier this year, Dr. Sam Waldron participated in a symposium of three views of the book of Revelation. The video and audio of this discussion is now available through the ministry American Vision. Here is a taste of the symposium:
Symposium: noun \sim-?p?-z?-?m
a : a social gathering at which there is free interchange of ideas
b : a formal meeting at which several specialists deliver short addresses on a topic or on related topics
c : a collection of opinions on a subject; especially : one published by a periodical
d : discussion
In February of 2013, three biblical scholars set out to debate discuss three separate views of Revelation in Reno, Nevada.
- Dr. Sam Waldron, academic dean of MCTS and professor of systematic theology
debated discussed the Idealist position.
- Gary DeMar, M. Div, RTS
debated discussed the Preterist (partial) position.
- Dr. James Hamilton, Asst. Professor of biblical studies, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
debated discussed the futurist position.
What happened however turned out not to be a typical talking head debate symposium on the book of Revelation.
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 | 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.
