Dr. Waldron in his second blog entry in the "Unfinished Business on Horner, Swanson, and Historic Premillennialism" has apparently begun to re-assert his position that the Premillennialism of Spurgeon, Ryle and the Bonar’s:
. . .form an interesting transitional or mediating viewpoint between Historic Premillennialism and Dispensationalism. Here I am affirming that the views of these men (Spurgeon et al) are not typical of Historic Premillennialism. (as re-stated in part one of his new series of entries).
The immediate question at hand was whether or not Justin Martyr (c. 100-165) and George Eldon Ladd (1911-82) in their expressions of Historic Premillennialism allowed for a return of Israel to the territorial homeland in relation to the millennial kingdom. Waldron originally made the points that, "they not only accepted the idea of the church as the new Israel at the same time, but also rejected the idea that there was a territorial future for national Israel in the promised land." In a previous entry here I tried to demonstrate that this was not so clearly the case and provided some quotes from both to demonstrate that. Now, I was not dogmatic on either and particularly couched my conclusion on Ladd by saying, "In his writings Ladd is never definitive." Waldron concludes that:
I conclude that my statements about Ladd and possibly Justin were not sufficiently nuanced. Ladd in particular thought that it was “possible” that the Jews restored to the land might become a Christian nation. I continue, however, to maintain (with Barry Horner) that Ladd and Justin Martyr were not (to use Horner’s term) “judeocentric” in their eschatology.
And with that assessment I would entirely agree and I don't think anywhere I pretended to assert that either were "judeocentric" (which particuarly in the case of Justin Martyr would have been a fool's errand).
Now, lest it be forgotten, I am of the Dispensational Premillennial postition myself, not the Historic Premillennialism that I have been discussing (although it would certainly be my second choice eschatologically speaking). Waldron, however, has attempted to make the point that traditional Historic Premillennialism in its classic or majority statements (At this point I'm not sure which he is arguing for, perhaps both) did not believe in a future restoration of Israel to it's land. He also makes the point that the views of Spurgeon, Ryle, the Bonar’s, et al, were a "mediating position" between Historic Premillennialism and Dispensational Premillennialism. In our last entry I presented a few points that I think speak against this idea and here I'd like to present a few additional ones.
A weak point from silence, but still a point, I think is that in the traditional Historic Premillennial position there is seen a "national conversion of Israel." This view is not only prevelant (if not dominant) in Historic Premillennialism; but also in Amillennialism (as Waldron admitted he had followed John Murray at one time in this belief); and also Classic Post-Millennialism. I noted previously that Charles Hodge called the future national conversion of Israel a doctrine that is "according to the common faith of the Church" (Systematic Theology 3:805). For Hodge, the "common faith of the church" seems to mean either in accordance with the Westminster Standards or the larger sphere of all the orthodox creeds of Church history. My point from silence is that when a "national conversion" of Israel is spoken of it may go without saying that the same Jews will be gathered as a "nation" in a locale. If it speaks of Jews scattered to the four corners of the world coming to Christ in the millennial event; how would such a conversion be recognized apart from the general revival of the time? Even Hodge acknowledged that the Scripture contains, "a promise of the restoration of the Jews as a nation." Again, not a strong or maybe even a compelling argument, but one still worth consideration.
Now, another point I have raised a couple of times that Dr. Waldron has not interacted with yet, is the fact of the "Restoration Movement" in English Puritanism. The Premillennial Faith was largely recovered among the English Protestants and after the Reformation and more specifically the English Puritans.
Here I will recommend three articles, all by N. I. Matar (formerly of the American University of Beirut):
"The Idea of the Restoration of the Jews in English Protestant Thought: Between the Reformation and 1660." Durham University Journal (1985)
"The Idea of the Restoration of the Jews in English Protestant Thought: 1661-1701." Harvard Theological Review 78:1-2 (1985)
“The Controversy Over the Restoration of the Jews: From 1754 Until the London Society for Promoting Christianity Among the Jews.” Durham University Journal (1990)
It also goes without saying that neither of the institutions nor their journals would be bastions of Dispensational or even Historic Premillennial thought. Matar also tends to view the Restoration Movement dominantly in political constructs and is a little weak in acknowledging the strength of the underlying theological arguments (although he does not ignore them).
These articles should be read and digested if one is interested in this discussion; but a couple of points from Matar's HTJ article. He states that, "The Restoration would be the sign that God was fulfilling the Old Testament prophecies. Given the high number of non-conformists in this period who favored the Restoration, it is not difficult to see how that "miracle" of the Jews overcoming the Turks and converting to Christianity would have supported their [The English Puritans] religious hope" (p. 125). He points out that men like Joseph Mede (1583-1632) took a "literal approach" to interpreting Biblical prophecy which drove them to not only a national conversion of the Jews but also a return to their land, which Matar earlier called, "the Pauline expectation of the millennial kingdom," centered on the interpretation of Romans 11.
The hope of the Historic Premillennialists here was, as Matar notes, "The Restoration was to advance Christianity, not Judaism, since once the Jews were converted and restored [to their land], their Judaism would have been completely and definitively refuted" (p. 133).
I think the dominant, if not fundamental, position of Historic Premillennialism is that the Jews would not only be converted as a nation, but as a nation they would occupy their land. If nothing else, that position predates John Nelson Darby (1800-82) and the articulation of the Dispensational position, by considerable time and cannot be considered a "mediating position."
A Quick Addendum: In the recommendation of books on eschatology, I would rate Ladd's The Blessed Hope: A Biblical Study of the Second Advent and the Rapture (Eerdman's 1956) and The Presence of the Future: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism (Eerdman's 1974) as front line works. If you want to maintain amillennialism, that's fine; but you'll be hard pressed to convince me you have made a thoroughly studied decision if you haven't read these two works. Likewise, from a Dispenational Premillennial position, Alva McClain's The Greatness of the Kingdom (Moody Press, 1965) needs to be read by anyone who actually wants to understand that position (at least how I, in large part, affirm it).
It is a minor annoyance, but one I can express here (since it's my blog), and it is the innummerable times someone seeking to convince me (and others) of amillennialism by saying, "if you would just read: _____" filling in the blank with Hoekema, or Beale, or Riddlebarger, or even Sam Waldron; "then certainly you would be convinced and abandon your Dispensationalism." I once was standing near Dr. MacArthur, when one such well-meaning gentlemen made such a pitch to him. MacArthur nicely replied that he had, in fact, read each book that this individual recommended. The gentleman walked away and said, "I just don't understand." I've had the same experience and almost invaribly I will ask have they read one of the three works I just noted. And, of course, they haven't; they are not even aware of them.
Now, I know the converse is also true; that there are Dispensationalists and Historic Premillennialists who have not read substantive works in opposition to their belief system. This fact is a disservice to all sides of the debate.