by Sam Waldron | May 9, 2017 | Book Reviews, Eschatology
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
First Criticism: Prophetic foreshortening must not be applied to New Testament prophecy.
We have already seen Waymeyer’s assertion that hermeneutics is primary in the debate between Amillennialists and Premillennialists. (8) I agree and will give first place in my criticisms to my disagreement with Waymeyer’s hermeneutical principles. My first criticism has to do with his notion that we may attribute the double fulfillment or prophetic foreshortening characteristic of Old Testament prophecy to New Testament prophecy. (11, 13, 91, 111)
It is a commonly recognized hermeneutical principle with regard to Old Testament prophecy that it has a kind of flat perspective about the future. Often events that differ vastly in time are predicted together or next to each other in Old Testament prophecy. Waymeyer describes this principle as follows: “As most biblical interpreters recognize, sometimes a given prophecy will predict two or more future events and present them in such a way that it appears they will occur simultaneously, and yet later revelation clarifies that a significant gap of time separates them. Commonly referred to as “telescoping,” “prophetic perspective,” or “prophetic foreshortening,” this phenomenon is often compared to seeing two mountain peaks off in the distance—initially they appear to be right next to each other, but a closer look reveals that they are separated by a valley.” (13) Waymeyer is correct when he goes on to assert: “Most amillennialists recognize this use of prophetic perspective.” (13)
Waymeyer proceeds to apply this principle of prophetic foreshortening to New Testament prophecy. He applies it to the New Testament doctrine of the kingdom to argue for a gap in some prophecies which allows for a millennial kingdom in the age to come. (92) He also applies it to passages which seem to predict that the resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous occur at the same time in order to argue that progressive revelation reveals a telescoping of two far separated events into one. (111)
In my view the application of the prophetic foreshortening or flat perspective of Old Testament prophecy to New Testament prophecy is misguided and has serious consequences. Here I have to admit, however, that some of my fellow amillennialists have not seen the fallacy of applying the principle of prophetic foreshortening to New Testament prophecy. For instance, I have documented in my interpretation of Matthew 24 (in More of the End Times Made Simple) the serious difficulties and even (in my opinion) incomprehensibilities produced by an application of this principle to the Olivet Discourse by some of my amillennial friends.
Thus, though I have no wish to entangle myself in a dispute with both premillennialists and amillennialists, I must insist that the application of prophetic foreshortening to New Testament prophecy is simply wrong. In my next post, I will set before my readers two conclusive arguments for this assertion and against the idea that prophetic foreshortening is characteristic of New Testament prophecy.
Part 5
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | May 5, 2017 | Book Reviews, Eschatology
Part 1, Part 2
Overview
In my first two posts, I have attempted to introduce and express appreciation for Waymeyer’s Amillennialism and the Age to Come. Here I want to provide an overview of the book and its argument.
Chapter 1 is introductory. An overview of the entire book may be provided by an analysis of that chapter. The headings found in that chapter usefully summarize it.
The Two-Age Model of Amillennialism speaks of it as “one of the strongest arguments for the amillennial view. It also notes the importance of Riddlebarger’s A Case for Amillennialism in presenting it as an argument against Premillennialism.
The Two-Age Model of Amillennialism presents a summary of biblical evidence for the two-age model.
The Two-Age Model as an Interpretive Grid makes the point that “amillennialists have increasingly regarded this model as the hermeneutical lens through which the rest of Scripture, including Revelation 20, should be viewed.” (4)
The Two-Age Model as an Amillennial Argument affirms that amillennialism views it “as a decisive refutation of the kingdom of premillennialism.” (6)
The Need for a Premillennial Response draws the conclusion that Premillennialists must respond to this argumentation. Waymeyer says: “Because any compelling defense of premillennialism must respond to the strongest and most recent argumentation of its theological opponents, a premillennial critique of the two-age model is long overdue.” (7)
Revisiting the Hermeneutical Foundation argues that “Such a critique must begin in the realm of hermeneutics. Waymeyer finds two hermeneutical problems with the two-age argument for amillennialism. “The first problem concerns identifying Revelation 20 as an unclear passage.” (8) “The second problem concerns the use of the two-age model as an interpretive grid.” (9) He warns that such a use of the two-age model “silences the contribution of those passages by forcing them to conform to his theological system.” He adds: “In this way, systematic theology is used to determine exegesis rather than vice versa.” (9)
Reconsidering the Starting Point states that the best way to approach this issue is “to trace the doctrine of the coming kingdom throughout biblical revelation. …. In the process, it must be recognized that later revelation often supplements and thereby clarifies previous revelation by providing broader context or additional detail, but it never changes the meaning of earlier passages in the process.” (11)
The Clarifying Role of Revelation 20 leads Waymeyer finally to say that Revelation 20 “as the fullest and most comprehensive presentation of the eschatological events surrounding the Second Coming … should be allowed to clarify previous revelation about the coming kingdom.” (12)
The Approach of the Critique provides, then, an overview of Waymeyer’s book after the introductory chapter. “The first section (chapters 2-5) focuses on the Old Testament, with an exegesis of several prophetic passages which predict a period of time that is distinct from the present age and the eternal state. …. The second section (chapters 6-10) transitions to the New Testament and responds directly to the three ways that the two-age model is used as an argument against premillennialism. …. The final section of his critique (chapters 11-14) focuses on Revelation 20:1-6.” (14-15) Waymeyer then states the conclusion of his argument: “If Revelation 20 clearly teaches an earthly reign of Christ between the present age and the eternal state, there must be some way to harmonize this intermediate kingdom with the two ages in the New Testament.” (15)
Part 4
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.
