THEN
I have always been a Southern Baptist. I was saved in a SBC church and surrendered to God’s call to preach in that same church five years later. Later, I attended Liberty Univ. and graduated from an SBC college and from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. I was a defender of Progressive Dispensationalism and a confused 4 point Calvinist.
I actually preached a stronger Calvinistic message than most SBC churches were accustomed to hearing. And unlike most SBC preachers, I never really preached on the end times much. In fact, when I preached through the Book of Revelation I always preached just one sermon that would cover chapters 6 through 19. Hey, I believed in a pre-trib rapture so why bother with the details of the Tribulation!
Through the years, the more I studied and the more I expounded the Word of God, the more Calvinistic I became. It has never caused me a problem in my SBC circles, and those of you who know me know that I am not ashamed to be a known as a Calvinist. I am a church-planting, evangelistic, pastor-theologian 5-point-plus Calvinist who wishes everybody was one.
NOW
But let me tell you about something that happened to me in the recent past. As I studied church history and historical orthodox Christianity, I found the rumors about Dispensationalism being a recent phenomenon to be true. Not only that, I realized how that Dispensationalism had entirely skewed my theology too many ways to count. I discovered Covenant theology and began to marvel at its comprehensiveness. I virtually devoured it, spending untold hours reading everything I could from men that I respected and trusted. I had always read books about CT and various Millennial views,but those books were usually written by men who were Dispensational. I had never really taken the time to let Covenant theologians speak for themselves. Although I wasn’t convinced at first glance, every new understanding led to new questions. I became a practical Pan-Millennialist for a while — the only thing I knew for sure was that it would all pan out!
Finally, when I emerged from my studies, I had went from being a Reformed Baptist who was a Pre-tribulational-Rapture Progressive-Dispensational theologian to being a Reformed Baptist who is an Amillennial Covenant theologian. I know that is a radical change, but trust me it wasn’t hard. It hurt somewhat — all those years, all those sermons. (I will discuss my amillennial views in a later post.)
But now so much of what I had once just chalked up as “mystery” now made theological sense. I understood the Tribulation to have literally happened in the first century as Daniel, Jesus, Paul, Peter, and John had prophesied. I understood the kingdom to have come spiritually in the hearts of God’s people as He saves the elect, Jew and Gentile from the “four winds of the earth.” I understood Satan’s power to be bound in submission to the authority of the church, unable to prevail against the Gospel’s progress. I understood the “rapture” and “second coming” to be the same second and final advent of our Lord who will at that time complete the Redemption story and judge everyone once and for all “according to the books” and create a new heaven and earth. I understood all the covenants of the Old Testament and their continuity and unity. But what caught me off guard the most is the realization that all God has ever promised to His children is for me – not some future geo-political ethnic group on the other side of the world. My prayer for the Jews is that they get saved and thus enter into this spiritual kingdom that I am living in now. I now understand what I have always expected to be true – God doesn’t have two sets of children; there is one set of children, one set of saints, one body, one bride, one elect. Oh! the beauty of God’s plan of Redemption!
For me Covenant theology is an hermeneutic, an approach to understanding the Scripture—an approach that attempts to biblically explain the unity of biblical revelation. Covenant theology is both a biblical and systematic theology.
COVENANT THEOLOGY DEFINED
Covenant theology is the Gospel set in the context of God’s eternal plan of communion with his people, and its historical outworking in the covenants of works and grace (as well as in the various progressive stages of the covenant of grace). Covenant theology explains the meaning of the death of Christ in light of the fullness of the biblical teaching on the divine covenants, undergirds our understanding of the nature and use of the sacraments, and provides the fullest possible explanation of the grounds of our assurance.To put it another way, Covenant theology is the Bible’s way of explaining and deepening our understanding of:
(1) the atonement [the meaning of the death of Christ];
(2) assurance [the basis of our confidence of communion with God and enjoyment of his promises];
(3) the sacraments [signs and seals of God’s covenant promises — what they are and how they work];
(4) the continuity of redemptive history [the unified plan of God’s salvation].When Jesus wanted to explain the significance of His death to His disciples, He went to the doctrine of the covenants (see Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, 1 Corinthians 11). When God wanted to assure Abraham of the certainty of His word of promise, He went to the covenant (Genesis 12, 15, and 17). When God wanted to set apart His people, ingrain His work in their minds, tangibly reveal Himself in love and mercy, and confirm their future inheritance, He gave the covenant signs (Genesis 17, Exodus 12, 17, and 31, Matthew 28, Acts 2, Luke 22). When Luke wanted to show early Christians that Jesus’ life and ministry were the fulfillment of God’s ancient purposes for His chosen people, he went to the covenants and quoted Zacharias’ prophecy which shows that believers in the very earliest days of ‘the Jesus movement’ understood Jesus and His messianic work as a fulfillment (not a ‘Plan B’) of God’s covenant with Abraham (Luke 1:72-73). When the Psalmist and the author of Hebrews want to show how God’s redemptive plan is ordered and on what basis it unfolds in history, they went to the covenants (see Psalm 78, 89, Hebrews 6-10).
Covenant theology is not a response to dispensationalism. It existed long before the rudiments of classical dispensationalism were brought together in the nineteenth century. Covenant theology is not an excuse for baptizing children, nor merely a convention to justify a particular approach to the sacraments (modern paedocommunionism and baptismal regenerationism). Covenant theology is not sectarian, but an ecumenical Reformed approach to understanding the Bible, developed in the wake of the magisterial Reformation, but with roots stretching back to the earliest days of catholic Christianity and historically appreciated in all the various branches of the Reformed community (Baptist, Congregationalist, Independent, Presbyterian, Anglican, and Reformed). Covenant theology cannot be reduced to serving merely as the justification for some particular view of children in the covenant (covenant successionism), or for a certain kind of eschatology, or for a specific philosophy of education (whether it be homeschooling or Christian schools or classical schools). Covenant theology is bigger than that. It is more important than that.
“The doctrine of the covenant lies at the root of all true theology. It has been said that he who well understands the distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, is a master of divinity. I am persuaded that most of the mistakes which men make concerning the doctrines of Scripture, are based upon fundamental errors with regard to the covenant of law and of grace. May God grant us now the power to instruct, and you the grace to receive instruction on this vital subject.” Who said this? C.H. Spurgeon — the great English Baptist preacher! Certainly a man beyond our suspicion of secretly purveying a Presbyterian view of the sacraments to the unsuspecting evangelical masses.
Covenant theology flows from the trinitarian life and work of God. God’s covenant communion with us is modeled on and a reflection of the intra-trinitarian relationships. The shared life, the fellowship of the persons of the Holy Trinity, what theologians call perichoresis or circumincessio, is the archetype of the relationship the gracious covenant God shares with His elect and redeemed people. God’s commitments in the eternal covenant of redemptive find space-time realization in the covenant of grace.
J. Ligon Duncan III, PhD, Senior Minister,
First Presbyterian Church, Jackson, MS.
Posted with the permission of Dr. Duncan.
I agree with S. M. Baugh [1] who said that Covenant theology is “not incidental to Reformed theology — it is Reformed theology.” Baugh also noted, “Covenant is the fabric of the whole Bible. Once this fundamental schema of covenant in the Scriptures comes clear, all the patterns of God’s relations with the sons and daughters of Adam unfolds into a rich tapestry unifying the Scriptures. “[1] S.M. Baugh (Ph.D., UC Irvine) is associate professor of NT at Westminster Theological Seminary in California.
Of course, many of my brothers and colleagues are not CT, much less Post-Mill, but these issues are definitely not ones that would cause me to break fellowship. In fact, I have a comprehensive understanding of all the prominent Protestant positions and have respect for them all in different ways. Do you have any idea how many charts I could draw??!!
I am a true Baptist of the Puritan kind. I pray for a revival of Biblical and systematic theology among the SBC pastors due to the inerrancy victories. I am confident in God’s providence, joyfully victorious in God’s kingdom and optimistic about the future.
I love to be taught God’s Word, and I love teaching it to faithful men who will teach it also.
Tweet
Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers.
Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University.
You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.
Wow… I suppose you’ll still get into Heaven… probably.
Any books you’ve found helpful on the subject of Covenant Theology? I’m a recovering charismatic and really interested in exploring the wonderful world of orthodoxy.
-Drew
Good luck going back to louisiana. =)
Yes! I made it before Dan said something smart-alecky!
Seriously, come to Tennessee and let’s talk about this stuff.
Being a baby-baptizin’ Pressie, obviously I find your testimony wonderful to read.
Actually, what interests me (which has already been spoken about by commentators) is the move into postmillennialism.
I’m amil. To me, the return of Jesus could be at any time. I don’t need to wait around for various apocalyptic signs (as pre-mils do) or for the world to become more Christianised (as post-mils do). To me, the only position that can be held in which believers await the imminent return of the Lord is the amil position – there’s too many “other things” that pre and post mil adherents have to wait to see before Jesus comes back.
Postmillennialism seems to focus greatly upon the gradual Christianisation of the world – the idea being that Christ will return immediately after the last unbeliever is saved. This seems to go against the biblical witness of people being unprepared for Christ’s return when he turns up.
Mind you, my understanding of postmillennialism is pretty rusty these days, so please punch holes in my understanding if it is required.
I have a book about the four different millennial views written by four different people – proponents of each belief… Dispy Premil, Historic premil, amil and postmil. I don’t know who the dispy was, but the historic premil was George Ladd, the amil was Anthony Hoekema and the postmil was Lorraine Boettner.
The book essentially followed this structure: a presentation made by a proponent, followed by a critique from each of the three other contributors, followed by a defence from the original writer. After that, the next position is examined.
When it came to Boettner’s postmil article, Ladd’s response was short and to the point. “There is no point in debating this particular subject”, he said “when the author just doesn’t use scripture to back up his claims”.
I thought that I was the only one.
Salient, what is the name of that book?
Wow, so quite a lot has changed since this post, huh?
You’ve made that leap since October?
Whoops, ThirstyDavid beat me to the link. Sorry about that.
I would certainly love for you to interact with your own arguments in this post.
SDG
Jason it is a pleasure to read of another who has come to the same understanding of scripture as I do. And yes Jeremy that means I too hold to a post-millenial view point.
As a Baptist who refuses to read almost anything published after the 1800′s I find dispensationalism a little to far fetched to believe. In the pulpit I refuse to preach on end times theology. Maybe I am a coward, though I know that I am not theologically (5 pointer) but end time stuff does not matter that much to me. I will live, mabe be called up into the air, but more than likely just die and receive my reward that way.
Wow, Jason…my own testimony is remarkably similar brother! Except I slid all the way into Presbyterianism (shame on me)
And I stopped short at Amil…but an optimistic Amil…I believe there may be a massive world wide Revival just before the 2nd coming…but I am ready for Jesus to come whenever…the sooner the better as far as I am concerned.
God bless you brother!
grace and peace,
TEXpresby
http://jonathanedwards.blogspot.com
To those of you who have had their laughs at my “rapture post”, I ask you to consider several things:
1. I don’t apologize for learning.
2. A closer look at my “rapture post” will reveal the concerns I already had with a position that I defended.
3. A closer look will also reveal that the majority of my arguments were against other dispy and pre-millennium positions.
And as I read the comments so far I do notice already a lot of misunderstandings about Post-Mill theology. Like all other theological camps, there are a variety of positions within each. So I will warn you not to automatically assume that you know what a man believes just because of a label.
Stay tuned for some up-coming posts and we will discuss all of this in detail. May we all continue to learn and grow in our knowledge of God’s Word and love for His Gospel. To that I hope we can all say, AMEN.
Jason,
I was leaning postmil for a long time. I was very influenced by Bahnsen and Boettner(sp?). I would like to explain to you sometime how I landed amil after the dust settled.
I can’t wait to get into this. I, for one, am happy for you Jason. You have rejected the unbiblical mjority position on biblical interpretation, but you messed up stopping at post-mil.
The book One Salient Oversight references is “The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views” edited by Robert Clouse. The dispensational view is represented by Herman Hoyt (I don’t know Hoyt, but Ladd, Hoekema, and Boettner were probably the leading proponents of their respective positions at the time).
Jason,
I suppose I am having a bit of a chuckle, but that’s only because the other post I linked was not that long ago. Of course you shouldn’t apologise for learning or changing your mind. If I was to list all the beliefs I’ve recanted, you could have a good, well deserved laugh at my expense.
I look forward to reading your posts on this subject.
For the record, it took me more than a year to depart from my dispy views once I put it on the “chopping block” of my study.
Dear Brother Jason,
Thank you very much for this post. I am on a similar journey, but not as far down the path as you have come. Would you please recommend the books and articles that have been the most helpful? As a matter of fact, would you please box them up and mail them to me?
Love in Christ,
Jeff
1. Anonymous (E.F.), The Marrow of Modern Divinity [with Thomas Boston’s notes] – The Marrow is a thorough-going expression of federal theology, not only valuable for its historical significance but for its insights for preaching and applying the covenants. Boston’s notes make it even more worthwhile.
2. Thomas Boston, A View of the Covenant of Grace, Collected Writings, Vol. 8 – A representative treatment of the subject by the famous “Marrow Man”.
3. Thomas Boston, A View of the Covenant of Works, Collected Writings, Vol. 11 – Boston’’s exposition of the pre-fall relations between God and Adam place him squarely in the tradition of Reformed federal theology. His understanding of the theological implications of the covenant of works is evident throughout, and his searching (and moving) pastoral applications are those of both a seasoned shepherd and an astute theologian.
4. James Buchanan, The Doctrine of Justification – Buchanan’s established study of justification reveals the necessity of the covenantal framework for a proper understanding of this cardinal doctrine of the Reformation.
5. Hugh Martin, The Atonement – Another theological treasure from a Free Church of Scotland minister, this work relates the covenant theology to the Biblical doctrine of the atonement, and (implicitly) responds to various contemporary (nineteenth-century) errors on the subject.
6. Herman Witsius, An Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man – Recently republished with a lengthy commendation by J.I. Packer, this is a exemplary presentation of continental covenant theology.
The following works are by twentieth-century scholars (save for Fairbairn, who is included on merit) who have ably carried the Reformed tradition of covenant theology into a new era. Some of the volumes and articles are historical in nature. Others are exegetical or theological. They represent a quality sampling of the best Reformed, conservative scholarship on the covenants available today. The pastor and diligent layman will find here treasures both old and new.
1. O. Palmer Robertson, Christ of the Covenants – The best book-length, conservative, scholarly, exegetical treatment of covenant theology to appear in the past hundred years. Robertson utilizes the insights of G.E. Mendenhall and Meredith Kline, and steers a middle course between John Murray’s and Meredith Kline’s divergent views on the unilateral/bilateral nature of the divine covenants.
2. Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology – The standard conservative treatment of biblical theology (“the study of special revelation from the standpoint of the history of redemption”). Not easy reading, but rewarding nevertheless.
3. Geerhardus Vos, “The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology” in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation – A good historical overview of the history of the doctrine of the covenants in the Reformed tradition (it is nicely complemented by Louis Berkhof’s helpful sketch in his Systematic Theology 211-213, 265). This article is not the last word on the subject but a good start.
4. Patrick Fairbairn, Typology of Scripture (19th century) – Classical covenantal exposition of the subject of biblical typology by a great nineteenth-century Scottish Presbyterian Old Testament scholar.
5. Patrick Fairbairn, The Interpretation of Prophecy (19th century) – Fairbairn again brings his formidable powers to bear on the subject of the proper method of interpretation of prophecy. This book (along with his other great works Typology, Hermeneutics Manual, and The Revelation of Law in Scripture) are sturdy treatments of themes which have been neglected or mishandled in our own time.
6. Meredith Kline, By Oath Consigned – In this book, as in his Treaty of the Great King, Kline draws on the twentieth-century discoveries regarding Near-Eastern treaty forms to elucidate the biblical doctrine of the sacraments. Kline is helpful and innovative, but sometimes eccentric.
7. John Murray, The Covenant of Grace – This seminal pamphlet by John Murray provides a good introduction to covenantal thought for the beginner. The more advanced student will pick up quickly on Murray’s stress on the unilateral nature of the divine covenants (he is following Vos).
8. John Murray, “Covenant Theology” in Collected Writings, vol. 4 – Another useful historical introduction to Covenant Theology, though Murray’s own reticence about the covenant of works does show through at points.
9. Donald Macleod, “Covenant: 1” in BoT 139:19-22; “Covenant: 2” in BoT 141:22-28; “Federal Theology—An Oppressive Legalism?” in BoT 125:21-28; and “Covenant Theology,” in Dictionary of Scottish Church History and Theology (Downers Grove: IVP, 1993), 214-218. – In these articles, Macleod shows himself to be an able twentieth-century expositor and defender of the traditional federal theology of the Westminster standards. In the later two articles, he specifically responds to the standard “new” (neo-orthodox) criticisms of covenant theology.
10. John von Rohr, The Covenant of Grace in Puritan Thought – The best available historical-theological survey of the federal theology of the Puritans. It successfully avoids the “Calvin versus the Puritans” mythology and provides a helpful review of current (and errant) theories on the development of covenant theology.
11. Geerhardus Vos, Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation – A collection of the writings (not all related to the covenant idea) by one of the most distinguished recent propopents of covenant theology. Vos’s evident exegetical powers combined with his historical-theological competence (traits not often seen in tandem in Biblical studies specialists today) make his works quite valuable and formidable enough to still demand a reckoning with. He was a major influence on John Murray.
In addition to the above-recommend texts, the following books provide interesting historical and theological discussions of the covenants and covenant theology:
O.T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church
A study of the biblical doctrine of the church in the OT and NT from a covenantal perspective, designed to respond to old-style dispensational errors (especially the “church as the ‘great parenthesis’” doctrine).
C. Bass, Backgrounds to Dispensationalism – An informative historical account of the origins of old-style dispensationalism, as well as a critique (especially with regard to John Nelson Darby.
C.A. Blaising & D.L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism* [* written from a Dispensationalist perspective.] A presentation of a new form of dispensationalism, and a comparison of it with what it calls ‘classical’ and ‘revised’ forms of dispensationalism. Blaising and Bock define these three forms of dispensationalism with reference to the “two purposes of God/two peoples of God theory.” Classical dispensationalism, then, holds to this theory, revised dispensationalism significantly modifies this theory, and progressive dispensationalism jettisons this distinction altogether. An important book for any evangelical who wants to intelligently dialogue with modern day dispensationalists of whatever ilk.
John Gerstner, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth – A controversial polemical work critiquing dispensationalism. It is a scaled-down version of a massive treatment that Gerstner had been working on for years. It could still use some editing, evidences some theological quirks, and was poorly received in the dispensational community (surprise, surprise!) but nevertheless contains a number of insightful points of critique.
John L. Mackay, The Covenants of the Bible – A new work produced by the Professor of OT at the Free Church of Scotland College in Edinburgh. Mackay’s lecture at the Banner of Truth Conference on Covenant Theology is probably the best brief introduction, overview and analysis of covenant theology available on tape.
O. Palmer Robertson, Covenants: God’s way with his people
This is the “Sunday School version” of Christ of the Covenants produced for Great Commissions Publications. It has some material not found in Christ of the Covenants and is easily understandable.
C.C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today* [* indicates a book written from a Dispensationalist perspective.] Ryrie’s attempt to respond to the criticisms of dispensationalism which have been leveled by evangelical covenant theologians.
David Weir, The Origins of Federal Theology
A former-Th.M thesis (St Andrews) and one of the better historical treatments of the origins of covenant theology. Nevertheless, there are gaps in this treatment and Weir himself is sometimes too reliant on the revisionist Torrance historiography of covenant theology.
Below are Eschatology books:
R.C.Sproul, The Last Days According To Jesus – A Must Read!!
Stanley Gundry, Three Views of the Rapture – A book that debates the three major premillennium views of the rapture.
Matthew Waymeyer, Revelation 20 and the Millennial Debate
Stanley Grenz, The Millennial Maze – This is another book that compares the evangelical options.
C.Marvin Pate, Four Views on the Book of Revelation – Debate between the Preterist, Idealist, Progressive Dispy, and the Classical Dispy views.
Robert Thomas, An Exegetical Commentary on Revelation, I & II – One of the best Pre-trib explanations of the Book of Revelation.
Of course there are many great web sites that one can go to, you can start with a simple Wikipedia search of Postmillennialism or Partial Preterism.
Hey One Salient Oversight, What is the name of that book with the 4 views????
Joey
Gene, I look forward to our talks. Just so that you will know: on the one hand I look for continuity between the already and the not yet in terms of the reign of God’s kingdom on earth [in a way that most amils don't], and yet on the other hand do not conceive of a “golden age” in the way that classic postmillennialism does – I see a simultaneously increasing opposition to the kingdom growing alongside an ever advancing and expanding kingdom.
Jason,
Congratulations for coming out of the closet on this issue. Seriously, you’ve done your homework. I’ve been challenged again to examine my position.
Covenant Theology is great! Wonderful stuff. I’m happy for you in this regard. However I want to say just one thing about the new eschatology you have adopted.
Given the poor quality of much of what passes for teaching in dispensational circles, I’m not suprised that you tossed it out.
But POST MIL!! Please!!
Amillenialism can at least present a hermeneutic that is internally consistent and one that tracks well with the overall course of history.
Post Mil made some sort of sense for about 3(mid 17th-the end of ww2) centuries when most people, including christians believed that christianity would spread and spread until the kingdom of God was set up on earth.
After that even the liberals largely abandoned it.
It only began to revive in in the late 1980′s with the rise of the ” Christian Reconstruction Movement”.
In choosing Post Mil you have exchanged a bad eschatology for a worse. That which has been in error for a thousand years has never had a moments truth.
I look forward to your growth continuing and you becoming an Amil just like the rest of us real Calvinists.
printed with permission from Kenneth Gentry
Eusebius (A.D. 260-340), the “father of church history.” In his classic Ecclesiastical History he details Jerusalem’s woes in A.D. 70. After a lengthy citation from Josephus’s Wars of the Jews, Eusebius writes that “it is fitting to add to his accounts the true prediction of our Saviour in which he foretold these very events” (3:7:1-2.) He then refers to the Olivet Discourse, citing Matthew 24:19-21 as his lead-in reference and later Luke 21:20, 23, 24. He concludes: “If any one compares the words of our Saviour with the other accounts of the historian concerning the whole war, how can one fail to wonder, and to admit that the foreknowledge and the prophecy of our Saviour were truly divine and marvelously strange” (3:7:7).
Another ancient document applying Matthew 24 to A.D. 70 is the Clementine Homilies (2d c.): “Prophesying concerning the temple, He said: ‘See ye these buildings? Verily I say to you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another which shall not be taken away Matt. 24:3; and this generation shall not pass until the destruction begin Matt. 24:34….’ And in like manner He spoke in plain words the things that were straightway to happen, which we can now see with our eyes, in order that the accomplishment might be among those to whom the word was spoken” (CH 3:15).
Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 150-215) discusses Daniel’s seventieth week as a past event: “The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away, and Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius. And Vespasian rose to the supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place” (Miscellanies 1:21). The famed premillennialist Tertullian (A.D. 160-225) writes of the Roman conquest: “And thus, in the day of their storming, the Jews fulfilled the seventy hebdomads predicted in Daniel” (An Answer to the Jews, 8).
Even the Book of Revelation is applied to A.D. 70 by many in antiquity. In his Interpretation of the Revelation Andreas of Cappadocia (5th c.) noted that “there are not wanting those who apply this passage to the siege and destruction of Jerusalem by Titus” (Rev. 6:12). Later he commented: “These things are referred by some to those sufferings which were inflicted by the Romans upon the Jews” (Rev. 7:1). According to noted church historian Henry Wace, Andreas’s commentary is “the earliest systematic exposition of the book in the Greek church.” Andreas himself informs us that he wrote it in order “to unfold the meaning of the Apocalypse, and to make the suitable application of its predictions to the times that followed it.”
Arethas of Cappadocia (6th c.) also provides us a commentary on Revelation which, according to Wace “professes to be a compilation” though “no mere reproduction of the work of his predecessor, although it incorporates a large portion of the contents of that work.” Arethas specifically applies various passages in Revelation to A.D. 70 (Rev. 6-7).
Jumping ahead in history, we find the Spanish Jesuit Alcasar (1614) who greatly systematized the preterist approach to Revelation. About this same time great reformed preterists flourished, such as Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) and Jean LeClerc (1657-1736). In fact, one of the finest intellects of the Westminster Assembly was a strong preterist: John Lightfoot (1601-1675). In his Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica (1674; rep. 1989) Lightfoot offered a fine preterist exposition of Matthew 24 (2:308-321), with allusions to 2 Thessalonians 2.
Moving even closer to our own day, the great hermeneutics scholar Milton S. Terry (1840-1914) published much on the preterist scheme. His preterist convictions abundantly appear both in his classic text Biblical Hermeneutics (1885; rep. 1974) and in a separate work Biblical Apocalyptics (1898; rep. 1988). The renowned Swiss-American church historian Philip Schaff (1819-1893) also published a preterist view of Revelation in his classic History of the Christian Church (1:825-852).
One of the finest preterist commentaries on Revelation ever published was Commentary on the Apocalypse by the noted American Congregationalist, Moses Stuart (1780-1852). The still popular commentary on Revelation by Methodist scholar Adam Clarke (1762-1832) follows much of Lightfoot’s commitment to an A.D. 70 focus, as does that found in The Early Days of Christianity by renowned Anglican historian, F. W. Farrar (1831-1903). Baker Book House recently republished The Message from Patmos (1921, rep. 1989) by David S. Clark, father of Presbyterian apologist Gordon S. Clark.
Entering our own generation, several reformed expositions have helped fuel the current revival of preterism. J. Marcellus Kik’s The Eschatology of Victory (1971) developed the Olivet Discourse in great detail for us. Even more recent works include: David Chilton’s The Great Tribulation (1987), Gary DeMar’s Last Days Madness (1991), and Kenneth Gentry’s Perilous Times (1998).
The first phase of the current revival of preterist commentaries on Revelation include The Time Is At Hand (1966) by Jay E. Adams and Search the Scriptures: Hebrews to Revelation (1978) by Cornelis Vanderwaal. More recently still we have The Days of Vengeance (1987) by David Chilton, Revelation: Four Views (1996) by Steve Gregg, and my contribution to Marvin Pate’s Four Views on the Book of Revelation and my forthcoming A Tale of Two Cities (1999). R. C. Sproul’s The Last Days According to Jesus (1998) employs preterism as an apologetic tool in defense of the integrity of the prophecies of Jesus (Olivet) and John (Revelation).
Just as premillennialism has cultic (e.g., Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses), dispensational (e.g., Scofield and Ryrie), and historic (e.g., Ladd and Kromminga) expressions, so preterism has three main divisions today.
Liberal preterists (e.g., James Moffatt, Expositor’s Greek Testament 1940) generally view prophecies of A.D. 70 as ex eventu pronouncements, that is, as “after the event” pseudo-prophecies. Revelation especially is deemed an editorialized compound of various Jewish and Christian oracles generated from historical responses to Jerusalem’s destruction. Liberal preterists correctly recognize the A.D. 70 focus of many judgment prophecies, but wrongly deny the predictive nature of inspired prophecy. Their works often contain valuable historical and grammatical gems that may be sifted from the rubble of critical exegesis.
Hyper-preterists (e.g., J. S. Russell’s, The Parousia, 1887, rep. 1983, 1997) provide many fine insights into preteristic passages. Unfortunately, they go too far by extending valid observations gathered from temporally-confined judgment passages (texts including such delimitations as “soon” and “at hand”) to passages that are not temporally constrained and that actually prophesy the future Second Advent of Christ. This school of preterism tends to focus all eschatological pronouncements on A.D. 70, including the resurrection of the dead, the great judgment, and the second advent of Christ. Consequently, they leave the stream of historic orthodoxy by denying a future return of Christ and are even pressed by system requirements to deny the bodily resurrection of Christ. This view has developed a cult-like following of narrowly focused and combative adherents.
Evangelical (and reformed) preterists (e.g., R. C. Sproul) take seriously the time texts of Scripture and apply those prophecies to A.D. 70, a redemptive-historical event of enormous consequence. They argue that there God finally and conclusively broadened his redemptive focus from the Jews to all races (Matt. 28:19), from the land of Israel to all the world (Acts 1:8), and from the temple-based worship to a simpler spiritual-based worship (John 4:21-24). Where such time markers are absent from eschatological texts, though, evangelical preterists apply the prophecies to the Second Advent at the end of history. The judgments in A.D. 70 are similar to those associated with the Second Advent (and to the Babylonian conquest in the Old Testament) and are actually adumbrations of the Second Advent.
As Talisen has pointed out, the book I was referring to is called “The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views”.
Here’s the page from Amazon.
I am amazed by this change in Jason Robertson. I have even blogged about it:
Fide-o is no longer “Truly Reformed”
As I do not wish to make myself look like more of an Idiot than I already do I just have one question that I need answered so that I can understand what’s happenned here.
Are you now Post Mil or a Partial or Full Preterist?
(Pls for give my comment about you becomming an Amil when you grow up. That was a joke.)
Berean, don’t feel bad about the jokes. I actually expected some of my Dispy friends to pounce on me, but nothing like that happened. So I feel blessed.
Now concerning my eschatology. I realize that my “Postmil” label in my post above is actually not an accurate label. I used that term as meaning in reference to my view of the Second Coming as opposed to my previous Dispy view. Consider it a “Post-Dispy CT-Rookie” mistake.
My actual eschatological view seems to be more amillennial since I do not believe in the “Golden Age” or popular forms of Theonomy among Postmillers.
I plan to post on this issue alone in the near future to clear things up. And I plan to add an addendum to the post above to make sure in the future that this issue is more clear — for those who care.
Thank you for clearing that up. I fully accept the Amil Position as orthodox.
I have posted again on my own blog
clarifying this.
As you can tell I have strong feelings against the preterist and Post Mil positions and your comment on my blog clarifying your position for me was most gracious given the emotion expressed in my original Post.
Thank you
GBA ( God Bless America )
SDG
I edited the post (see the blue) to read more accurately. And may I say to all my Dispy colleagues (some who are pre-trib and the rest who are pre-mill) that I do not think that those systems of theology are heretical or dangerous or stupid or anything like that. I realize the historical friction but that is common in all theological discussions.
My point is that it is not personal. I do not think that my sermons that reflected that system harmed the church at all. The gospel was not affected.
You know, I’m currently entertaining the postmillenialist position, but agreeing with Eusebius that he stood at the beginning of it.
It doesn’t make for too happy a millenium, but it does explain a lot of things…
Kyle, I know what you mean by the “not too happy” statement. I wrote on this subject about six months ago — about the fact that our eschatology is consumer-driven. I think Dispensationalism is a major cause of that. It caused the evangelical world to focus so much on the “victoy”, the “success”, the “wealth and power” interpretations of the millennium. But once you fully understand the “postmill rapture” or Amillennium position you realize that all of the victories and wealth are spiritual. In fact, the sad commentary in a way is that the Dispys are missing out on the joy of the Millennium by focusing on this physical world. (in my humble, ex-dispy opinion)