In his interaction with Barry Horner (Future Israel) and my ETS Paper of 1999, "Charles H. Spurgeon and the Nation of Israel: A Non-Dispensational Perspective on a Literal National Restoration." Dr. Waldron has seemed to misunderstand my responses to his Blog. Recently he stated:
I sense in all this interaction that Swanson and Horner do not agree about what counts as “judeocentic” eschatology. Horner rejects Justin and Ladd as supercessionist. Swanson seems desirous of claiming them.
To briefly repeat the background, Dr. Waldron has asserted really just one main point; that is, the Historic Premillennialism of Charles Spurgeon, J. C. Ryle, the Bonar’s (Andrew, Horatius and James); which affirms a national future in Palestine for the nation of Israel, is a "mediating position" or a position which is not in the mainstream of the Historic Premillennial position. To that end he put forward Justin Martyr and George Eldon Ladd as the "two premier representatives" of Historic Premillennialism in his view. Waldron then claimed that neither of them believed in a future territorial restoration of Israel. I pointed out, with a couple of quotations from each, that Waldon's conclusions here were perhaps not as solid as he would have liked. Ladd, particularly, at least held out the possibility of a territorial restoration. Waldron ultimately stated 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.
This brings us up to date. Waldron's problem on the point of "judeocentric" is perhaps based on my lack of clarity in this discussion, so let me re-state myself.
In relation to Martyr and Ladd the point I was making was not that they were "judeocentric" in their eschatology (I stated earlier that this would be a fool's errand); but rather I was arguing against what I continue to view as Waldron's misunderstanding of Historic Premillennialism in relation to a territorial restoration of Israel. Waldron would like to see HP devoid of any notion of a territorial future for Israel (he also no longer accepts a "national conversion" of Israel in the end times). However, what I have been attempting to demonstrate from several angles is that a territorial restoration of Israel has a rather long history and is well-embedded within the HP tradition. Ergo, the beliefs of Spurgeon, Ryle, and the Bonar's on this point is not an aberration but within the mainstream of HP belief.
The misunderstanding may also come from an assumption that I have been arguing an affirmation of Dispensational Premillennialism on the part of these individuals. Again, as I previously stated, nothing could be further from the truth. None of them were Dispensational. I noted that Spurgeon spoke against the key tenets of Dispensational Theology (which Waldron acknowledged).
The significant difference between Historic Premillennialism and Dispensational Premillennialism is "the nature of the millennial kingdom." That is, the millennium the culminating period of time on earth for the Church (Historic Premillennialism)? or The Nation of Israel (Dispensational Premillennialism)? The Dispensational view is that the millennium is "Judeocentric;" that is, this time is the fulfillment of God's Old Testament promises to Israel, particularly in the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants. Christ rules personally as king in Jerusalem over the world and the Nation of Israel is pre-eminent. Historic Premillennialism sees the millennium as the culmination of the Church Age with Jesus personally reigning as King in Jerusalem over the world and the church is pre-eminent.
Where Waldron seems confused is that within Historic Premillennialism there is absolutely no inconsistency in seeing the Jewish people restored to their land as a nation and nationally converted to Christ and the Gospel. Israel will be, as Ladd hints at, "a truly Christian nation." They will be one of the many nations on earth. Affirming such a position does not make one "judeocentric." As one person mentioned to me, it apparently makes some Covenantalists uncomfortable to have any overlap in eschatological beliefs with Dispensationalism. Biblically and exegetically I can understand a lot of the differences; but this recent movement to deny a future national conversion of Israel and a future territorial restoration of Israel, I find to be exceptionally odd and a little troubling.
Here I agree entirely with Horner, it is a form of anti-semiticism; not a violent or persecuting one, but it is a reality nonetheless. It is a position which, to quote Charles Hodge again, is out of accord with, "the common faith of the church."
As to the view that Horner and I differ on what "judeocentric" is; I've read his book about four times and I don't see where we differ in the sightest. Waldron again stated, "Horner rejects Justin and Ladd as supercessionist. Swanson seems desirous of claiming them." This is not the point at all. I am "claiming" Justin Martyr and George Ladd as affirming, or at least allowing for, what is a traditional Historic Premillennial position, the national conversion and territorial restoration of Israel in the millennium. They are still both supercessionist (the view that the Church replaces Israel). The idea of supercessionism is much more nuanced than Waldron seems willing to allow for (see my friend and colleague Dr. Michael Vlach's work on this at his Theological Studies page; and more recently in his article in The Master's Seminary Journal, "Rejection Then Hope: The Church's Doctrine of Israel in the Patristic Era" 19:1 [Spring 2008], 51-70) for further detailed studies on this issue.
To summarize my points on this long discussion:
I look forward to the continued interaction and trust I have been able to bring a level of clarity to my position on these points. I am also anxious for interaction and any possible correction to some of the historical points I have put forward.