|
Copyright 2008
~ Check out the interview with Michael Sullivan on
RCM Radio ~
The Westminster Confession of Faith
states that, "The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is
the Scripture itself; 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 and known by other places that speak more
clearly. [1] J.I. Packer understands this to mean "that we must give
ourselves in Bible study to following out the unities,
cross-references and topical links which Scripture provides. [2] There
is nothing controversial within the Reformed community about the above
principles. Reformed believers all strive to be faithful to the
principle of "the analogy of Scripture."
This being the case, why then are there so many differing opinions
within the Reformed community when it comes to the question of how to
form a sound eschatology? There are perhaps as many differing
interpretations of eschatological texts as there are denominations.
There is a need to bridge the gap and bring healing to this
eschatological division that has taken place in Reformed and
Protestant churches.
What is the cause of the division? It is widely assumed that the cause
is the enigmatic nature of the texts in question. Though there is no
disagreement that there are difficult eschatological texts, I submit
in this article that the problem lies not in the vagueness of
Scripture, but rather in our unwitting betrayal of the principle of
the analogy of Scripture.
There is a strong preterist tradition within Reformed eschatology.
This tradition argues that the eschatological statements of imminence
in the New Testament must be taken literally because there are no
contextual indicators leading us to interpret them in any other way.
As Gary DeMar put it, "...any student of the Bible who does not
interpret these time texts to mean anything other than close at hand
is in jeopardy of denying the integrity of the Bible."
[3]
To put a finer point on it, R. C. Sproul has suggested that any
eschatology which denies a literal interpretation of the New Testament
time texts has adopted a liberal or neo-orthodox view of God and time:
"When F.F. Bruce speaks of faith making the time be ‘at hand,' this
sounds all too much like Rudolf Bultmann's famous theology of
timelessness, which removes the object of faith from the realm of real
history and consigns it to a super temporal realm of the always
present hic et nunc." [4]
Sadly, this same view is so commonly articulated among Reformed and
Evangelical believers [5] that few seem to recognize its liberal,
mystical and exegetical insupportability. In the interest of
preserving eschatological futurism, many have compromised the
principle of Scriptural analogy by sweeping away the plain and obvious
meaning of the imminence texts. In so doing, conservatives are
unwittingly handling the Scriptures like Bultmann.
In an effort to mitigate this liberalism, some have become partially
preterist, suggesting two returns of Christ - one in A.D.70 and then
another yet-future final coming and resurrection. The obvious problem
with this view is that, "Paul looked for one climactic future event,
the return of Jesus Christ, the blessed hope." [6]
The partial preterist side of the "house divided" understands that in
the A.D. 70 return of Christ in His generation, God accomplished the
"gathering" and "redemption" of His church. Jesus was straightforward
and clear that "all these things" were going to take place in His
generation. Partial preterists thus swim bravely against a strong tide
of "newspaper exegesis."
On the other hand, Evangelical and Reformed theologians who reject
partial preterism are nevertheless faithful to the principle of the
analogy of Scripture when they link the imminent "gathering" in
Matthew 24:31 and Mark 13:27 to Paul's "gathering" and "catching away"
("rapture"/resurrection) in I Thessalonians 4:17 and II Thessalonians
2:1. When they tie the imminent "redemption" in Luke 21:28 to the
"redemption of the Body" and of "the creation" in Romans 8:18-23, they
rightly reject the exegetical breaking asunder of Scriptures that are
thematically one.
In the remainder of this article, I will offer a brief examination of
these texts as well as a response to the "house divided" approach of
Keith Mathison and his co-authors in their critique of
"Hyper-Preterism" titled, When Shall These Things Be? (WSTTB?).
[7] Mathison and his co-authors are a microcosm of the church. Though
they enjoy unity in the belief of a yet-future "second coming" and
resurrection of the dead, their eschatological house is divided.
Some believe the eschatology of the Bible is mostly fulfilled. Others
believe it is mostly or wholly unfulfilled. Their disagreements with
each other are not rooted in the difficulty of the texts, but rather
in the rejection of the sure foundation of sound Scriptural analogy.
In setting aside the plain sense of thematically congruent Scriptures,
they have constructed their eschatological house on exegetical sand,
and it therefore "cannot stand."
"Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power
and great glory. Now when these things begin to happen, look up and
lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near " (Luke
21:27-28). Appealing to the principle of the analogy of Scripture,
John Murray and other Reformed theologians understand Paul in Romans
eight to be building upon the "redemption" that Jesus discussed in the
Olivet discourse: "Now in Luke 21:28 . . . (t)his word ‘redemption' (apolutrosin),
when used with reference to the future, has a distinctly
eschatological connotation, the final redemption, the consummation of
the redemptive process (cf. Romans 8:23; I Corinthians 1:30; Ephesians
1:14; 4:30). Hence analogy would again point to the
eschatological complex of events." [8]
We cannot brush off Murray's comments lightly when he connects these
texts to the resurrection and redemption of Romans eight. But is it
exegetically sound to say that the redemption of Romans 8:18-23
occurred in Jesus' generation?
According to most Reformed eschatological paradigms, Romans eight is
teaching a biological resurrection and molecular transformation of our
corpses and of the entire universe during the return of Christ at "the
end of time." However, when we consider the preterist side of Reformed
and Evangelical eschatology with regard to the restoration of creation
in the various related texts (Matthew 5:17-18; 24:29, 35; Ephesians
1:10; II Peter 3; I John 2:17-18 and Revelation 21:1), we soon
discover that in context, these passages are referring to the
temple's destruction or to the civil and religious worlds of men -
either Jews or Gentiles. [9] The civil and religious rulers of the
old-covenant system or world, along with the temple, were the "sun,
moon, and stars," which made up the "heaven and earth" of the world
that perished in A.D. 70. [10]
In context, the time was "at hand" for the "elements" to be
burned and for the world of righteousness to take its place (I Peter
1:4-12; 4:5, 7, 17; II Peter 3). Peter was describing a change of
covenantal worlds. As John Owen and John Lightfoot taught, Peter was
not referring to a future return of Christ for the purpose of
destroying the planet. [11] He was describing a transformation that
was to be accomplished at Christ's Parousia in A.D. 70. Kenneth Gentry
and James Jordan also understand the passing of the "world" and the
heavens and earth (I Jn. 2:17-18; Rev. 21:1) to refer to Christ's
return to end the old-covenant system in A.D. 70. It is also
understood within Reformed and Evangelical theology that the "times of
fulfillment" to reconcile things in "heaven and on the earth"
(Ephesians 1:10) is referring not to the planet earth and angels, but
to the union of Jews and Gentiles in Christ. This was the "mystery" of
the gospel in which the "whole family" of God, in heaven and on earth,
would participate.
Lightfoot associated the "earnest expectation of the creature" and the
"whole creation groaning" with the mind and heart of man, and not with
the planet Earth - not even poetically. [12] He referenced the
"vanity" and "decay" of the creation (vs.20) to the groaning from the
"corruption" of sin found in the hearts and minds of mankind (II Peter
1:4; II Corinthians 11:3; 15:33). [13] And Lightfoot is on solid
ground here. Not only is there lexical evidence to interpret "vanity",
"corruption", and "decay" as ethical and moral putrefaction in the
heart and mind of man, but contextually the passage has nothing to do
with hydrogen or oxygen or squirrels longing for a better day when
they won't get hit by cars.
Still, one might object that the ‘redemption' associated with the
coming of Christ in Luke 21:27-28 has a clear time text ("this
generation") associated with it (vs. 32) but the "redemption of the
body" in Romans eight does not. Therefore, one might conclude, the two
passages are not necessarily parallel. Those who argue this way
suggest that the redemption in Luke 21 might simply refer to relief
from persecution and nothing more. The premise of their objection,
however, is false. There is an imminence text associated with the
redemption of the body in Romans eight.
Romans 8:18 reads, "For I reckon that the sufferings of the
present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory about to be
revealed in us" (Romans 8:18, YLT; cf. NSRV, AV, & WEY: "soon
to be manifested"). It is important to note that the Greek word
corresponding to "about to be" (Romans 8:18) is mello.
Reformed partial preterists such as R.C. Sproul and Kenneth Gentry
understand the word mello in the book of Revelation to refer
to Christ's return in A.D.70. Sproul also says that it is not
unreasonable to apply the imminence indicators found in Romans13:11-12
("...for now salvation is nearer to us than when we believed.The
night is almost gone, and the day is at hand. Let us therefore lay
aside the deeds of darkness...") to earlier chapters in Romans
that do not explicitly have time texts. (Sproul, Last Days,
pp. 99, 138-140)
If mello is a time-indicator that needs to be honored, and if
we can apply the time texts in Romans 13:11-12 to earlier chapters,
then we cannot responsibly ignore this approach in Romans eight.
Further, claims that the teaching of "the" judgment and resurrection
of the living and the dead were not given with imminence indicators
directly tied to them are simply not true:
"Having hope toward God, which they themselves also wait for, that
there is about to be a rising again of the dead, both of
righteous and unrighteous," and, "But when he dealt
with the subjects of justice, self-control, and the judgment
which is soon to come, Felix became alarmed..."
(Acts 24:15, YLT/WEY; 24:25, WEY/YLT, cf. Acts 17:31, YLT/WEY; WUESTNT;
Emphases added). [14]
"The sufferings of this present time." As
much as I can relate to R.C. Sproul Jr., losing his hair and gaining
some weight around his midsection (WSTTB? ix), his appeal to
the "sufferings" and "the redemption of the body" in our text have
nothing to do with those kinds of issues. The context of the
"groaning" of these first-century Christians can be found in the
previous chapter. The sufferings Paul has in mind here were
eschatological - the birth pains that were to precede Christ's return
in A.D.70 (Matt. 24:8; Rom. 8:22). They had to do with man groaning
under the inescapable tyranny of sin brought about by being condemned
in Adam under the Law of God. For Paul, this produced a "death" but it
was not a physical death - he was still writing. Death in these
chapters (Romans 5-6) had nothing to do with the idea of the fleshly
corpse of man biologically dying as a result of Adam's sin. [15]
"Bondage," according to the immediate context, had to do with
spiritual death and groaning under the condemnation of the Law (cf.
Romans 7:2, 7, 15). The sufferings in Romans eight, then, referred to
the eschatological persecutions that preceded Christ's return (Dan.
7:21-22; Matt. 24:9, 27-31; 10:17-23) and not to present day
Christians suffering the traumas of birth defects, aging, cancer, etc.
Conclusion
The "salvation" and "redemption" associated with Christ's second
coming in A.D.70 entailed much more than a physical flight to the
wilderness of Pella, as some commentators have proposed. Christ's
Parousia in A.D. 70 was a redemptive and soteriological event that
occurred "in" and " within" the minds, consciences
and hearts of the church, when God consumed by fire the Adamic world
of Satan, Sin, Death and Condemnation, consummately purging His
church of sin through the Cross of Christ (Rom. 8:18-23; 11:26-27;
13:11-12; Heb. 8-10). The "redemption" of Luke 21:28 is the
"redemption of the body" in Romans 8:18-23. Both the imminence of
the time texts and the spiritual nature of their fulfillment require
this interpretation.
-
[1] Westminster Confession, I. ix.
- [2] J.I. Packer, The Interpretation of Scripture, from
‘Fundamentalism' and the Word of God (Inter-Varsity Press, 1958),
pp. 101-114. http://www.bible-researcher.com/packer1.html
-
[3] Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness OBSESSION OF THE MODERN
CHURCH, p.393, American Vision, Atlanta, Georgia, 4th
revised, 1999, emphasis added.
-
[4] R.C. Sproul, THE LAST DAYS
ACCORDING TO JESUS, pp.108-109, Baker Books, 1998, emphasis
added.
-
[5] See for example, Anthony Hoekema, THE
BIBLE AND THE FUTURE, p. 126, Eerdmans pub., 1979.
-
[6] Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for
AMILLENNIALISM UNDERSTANDING THE END TIMES, p.130, Baker Book
House pub., 2003, emphasis added.
-
[7] This is a co-authored book written by Keith A. Mathison, Kenneth
L. Gentry, Charles E. Hill, Richard L. Pratt Jr., Simon J.
Kistemaker, Douglas Wilson, and Robert B. Strimple, WHEN SHALL
THESE THINGS BE? A REFORMED RESPONSE TO HYPER-PRETERISM, P&R
Publishing, 2004. David Green, Edward Hassertt, Jesse Corti and I
are currently co-authoring a response to this book.
-
[8] John Murray, COLLECTED WRITINGS OF JOHN MURRAY 2: Systematic
Theology, p.389, Banner of Truth Pub., 1977. Unfortunately
Murray was inconsistent when it came to Jesus' teaching that all
things in His discourse would be fulfilled in His generation. Had
Murray faithfully followed the analogy of Scripture in this regard,
he would have seen two things: 1. Christ's coming on the clouds and
the de-creation language in the discourse was metamorphic language
describing the fall of religious and civil powers, as John Owen and
other reformed theologians have seen. 2. The coming of Christ, the
passing away of "heaven and earth," the redemption, the resurrection
of the dead and the judgment were all "about to be" fulfilled in
Jesus' generation (Rms.8:18-23; Acts 17:31, 24:15 YLT WEY).
-
[9] John Brown, 3Vols., Banner of Truth Publications, see Vol. 1 pp.
170-174, [1852] 1967. H.T. Fletcher-Louis (contributing author),
Eschatology in Bible & Theology, pp.145-169, IVP pub., 1997.
-
[10] Fletcher, ibid., pp. 145-169. DeMar, ibid., pp. 141-154
-
[11] John Owen, The Works of John Owen,
Banner of Truth pub., Vol.9 pp. 134-135; John Lightfoot,
COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT FROM THE TALMUD AND HEBRAICA,
Vol.3, p.452, Hendrickson pub, 2003.
-
[12] "...this vanity is improperly applied to
this vanishing, changeable, dying state of the creation. For vanity,
doth not so much denote the vanishing condition of the outward
state, as it doth the inward vanity and emptiness of the
mind." The Romans to whom this apostle writes, knew
well enough how many and how great predictions and promises it had
pleased God to publish by his prophets, concerning gathering
together and adopting sons to himself among the Gentiles: the
manifestation and production of which sons, the whole Gentile world
doth now wait for, as it were, with an out stretched
neck. John Lightfoot, COMMENTARY ON THE NEW
TESTAMENT FROM THE TALMUD AND HEBRAICA, Volume 4, p. 157,
Hendrickson pub., emphasis added.
-
[13] Lightfoot, ibid., pp. 158-159
-
[14] Gentry argues, "...when used with the aorist infinitive -as in
Revelation 1:19- the word's predominant usage and preferred meaning
is: ‘be on the point of, be about to.' The same is true when the
word is used with the present infinitive, as in
Rev.3:10. The basic meaning in both Thayer and Abbott-Smith is: ‘to
be about to." (Kenneth L. Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, Dating the
Book of Revelaiton, pp. 141-142, ICE Pub., 1989, emphasis added.)
Gentry is correct. The problem however is that when the word "mello"
refers to the resurrection and judgment of the living and dead in
Acts 24:15 and 24:25, it is used with the present infinitive.
So Gentry boldly ignores the word in those texts.
-
[15] Tom Holland, CONTOURS IN PAULINE THEOLOGY,
pp.85-110, Mentor Imprint Christian Focus Pub., 2004. Holland is a
Reformed theologian whom sees Paul's "body" of flesh, sin, and
death not referring to our physical flesh but to the corporate
body of Adam as contrasted to the corporate Body of Christ - the
church. He counters Gundry's individual views of soma in
Paul's writings. He also argues for "consistency" in Paul's use of
corporate terms. I recommend this book to any serious student of
Reformed theology.
|
