Dr. Sam Waldron and Hyper-Preterism (Part 1)—by Travis Drum

 

 

In February of 2025 Dr. Sam Waldron, President of Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary, released a new book titled, The Doctrine of the Last Things: An Optimistic Amillennial View^[1]. Chapter 27 of this work is about everyone’s favorite new eschatological punching bag, which is obvious as it is titled, Hyper-Preterism—Has Christ Already Come? Upon reading the chapter, one is reminded of the scene in The Lion King where Simba asks Mufasa about the shadowy place, to which he responds, “That’s beyond our borders. We must never go there.” Dr. Waldron should’ve applied Mufasa’s advice before he “went there” with full preterism, which will become evident as we move along in this series of response articles.

 

To be clear, my intention in these articles is not to belittle or diminish the character or person of Dr. Sam Waldron. I believe he is my brother in Christ, and as my brother, I do not wish to harm him in any regard. In my view, he has essentially “hit a ball” on my side of the court by attacking my position, and what I seek to do here is “hit one back” in kind. As the reader, please understand that my heart is postured in love for Christ, His Word, and His Church, and my primary hope in this is to continue to advance the eschatological conversation in the direction of His truth.

 

On the very first page of the book Dr. Waldron argues for the importance of eschatology saying, “The whole meaning of the redemptive story depends on how the story ends. How the redemptive story ends cannot, then, be unimportant. And this means that eschatology cannot be unimportant or optional for the Christian.” I agree wholeheartedly with this quote. Eschatology matters! While I respect Dr. Waldron as a brother in Christ and appreciate his contributions to theology, I believe his treatment of preterism contains several serious problems. Therefore, in these articles, I want to walk through his arguments and show why the preterist view deserves more thoughtful consideration than he lends.

 

Poisoning the Well

 

Dr. Waldron comes out of the gate swinging in chapter 27 by laying the groundwork of why hyper-preterists are outside of the faith. Hyper-preterism is of course, a derogatory term often used for full preterism by its opponents. He argues this about the necessity of the future bodily return of Christ, “This doctrine is confessed in the major creeds of the church and cannot be rejected without departing from the orthodox faith.”—Dr. Sam Waldron. His sole prooftext is Acts 1:11 which is not now, nor has it ever been the “unanswerable” text for preterism.^[2][3] On the very next page we read, “To understand hyper-preterism, it is helpful to remind ourselves of the identity of preterism. Preterism was originally a method of interpreting the book of Revelation originating within Roman Catholicism…Much of postmillennialism has a strong preterist tendency.”

 

It’s worth noting that in this 500+ page volume there are countless footnotes and works cited throughout, but on this particular statement about preterism originating within Roman Catholicism, a single footnote cannot be found. If you read on (121 pages to be exact, but who’s counting?) you will find that he eventually does cite a single line from one book to support this claim, but why not do it here? Why not “show your work”^[4] alongside your claim so that the reader can test these things to see if they are true? In any case, it’s interesting that before ever touching an actual preterist argument, Dr. Waldron tries to “poison the well” of preterism by implying first that full preterists are outside of the faith for denying a future bodily return of Christ, and second that they (and partial-preterists) have “unbiblical” origins.

 

A “Non-Hyper Hyper-Preterist” Source

 

Finally, on the third page Dr. Waldron makes it to a preterist work he can engage with and he chooses to do so using J. Stuart Russell’s, The Parousia. He writes, “Preterism has come to be promoted in recent years as a system of prophetic interpretation useful in explaining New Testament prophecy in general. That is to say, it tends to find in the events of A.D. 70 or before the fulfillment of most New Testament prophecies. Hyper-preterism, however, finds the fulfillment of all New Testament prophecy in those events. Hyper-preterism is defended in a volume authored by J. Stuart Russell entitled The Parousia.” The work he selected for the basis of his argumentation is interesting for two reasons: first, because in choosing to interact with a theology that according to him has “come to be promoted in recent years” he opts to use a work that was originally published in 1878. This is the modern-day equivalent to reviewing Tesla by quoting a horse breeder from the 1800s. One would expect that a better choice for a recent full preterist work would be something from Mike Sullivan, Don Preston, or one of their companions; secondly, notice something Russell said in The Parousia speaking on Revelation 20. “We must completely regard this prediction of the loosing of Satan, and the events which follow, as still future, and therefore unfulfilled.”—J. Stuart Russell, The Parousia

 

As a reminder, Dr. Waldron’s own definition of a hyper-preterist is someone who, “finds the fulfillment of all New Testament prophecy in those events”, meaning the events of A.D. 70. If Russell believed Revelation 20 was yet to be fulfilled (which he clearly did) then he was not, according to Dr. Waldron’s own definition, a hyper-preterist. The question becomes then, why would he write a chapter on hyper-preterism using a work as his foundation that was not, by definition, a hyper-preterist work? A consistent reader is left with no other choice than to question the motives or legitimacy of Dr. Waldron’s research in this regard, and to deem Russell to be a “non-hyper-hyper-preterist.”

 

The Foundation

 

Although Russell was not a hyper-preterist, many preterists would agree with the arguments from his book that Dr. Waldron attempts to refute. On page 381 he lays out what he believes are Russell’s two primary reasons for holding to a preterist view. First, because of the language of imminence in the New Testament regarding the second coming, and secondly, because Russell believed three texts teach that the parousia would occur within the lifetime of the first-century disciples. These three texts have in recent years, come to be known as the “big three” and no, this isn’t a generic college football conference.

 

• Matthew 10:23 But whenever they persecute you in this city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you shall not finish going through the cities of Israel, until the Son of Man comes.

 

• Matthew 16:28 Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming into His kingdom.

 

• Matthew 24:34 Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

 

Speaking on these three texts, Dr. Waldron writes, “Impressive as these references may seem at first glance, none of them refer to Christ’s second coming or parousia as Russell maintains.” He then goes on to lay out his argumentation in reverse order.

 

Matthew 24:34 & Matthew 10:23

 

Regarding Matthew 24:34 he writes, “Matthew 24:34 does refer to the then-living generation of Jews, but an examination of the context shows (as John Murray argues, and as we have seen in a previous chapter) that there is a contrast present with verse 36. The words ‘all these things’ is contrasted with ‘that day and hour’ of verse 36. ‘That day and hour’ is a reference to Christ’s second coming. ‘All these things’ must, therefore, be (as the use of similar phrases throughout the discourse suggests) a reference to the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem. It is not the second coming of Christ, but all the things connected with the destruction of Jerusalem that occurs during the lifetime of the generation of Jews living when Christ spoke these words.” To simplify his argument, he essentially holds to what I call the classic “pivot” view, meaning that some or all of the events leading up to verse 35 are pertinent to Christ’s first-century disciples and A.D. 70, but then Jesus pivots in verse 36 to now be speaking of his yet “far future” parousia. It’s as if Jesus is informing the disciples about events they’d see, when all of the sudden DJ Casper can be heard singing, “Two hops this time” and Christ jumps ahead two thousand years in his prophetic utterances. In that quote, Dr. Waldron mentions a previous chapter, which is his (and John Murray’s) commentary on the Olivet Discourse: Chapter 25—Trouble, Triumph, and the Church. In that chapter, he lays out four possible views of the great tribulation and then affirms the pivot argument, writing, “The fourth view is—for lack of a better description—John Murray’s view. Murray regards the great tribulation mentioned in the passage as fulfilled, but the coming of Christ mentioned as yet future. He sees these two events as contrasted in the passage. This is the view I hold.”

 

He continues, “The preterist view has a similar problem with what appears to be a clear reference to the coming of Christ in glory in verses 29-31…First, if such language as we have in the Olivet Discourse can be explained so as not to require a second coming of Christ in glory, it seems hard to find any language in the New Testament which would not be capable of such explanation. Hence, the preterist interpretation endangers the orthodox doctrine of the second coming and is in danger of exegetically justifying its evil twin, hyper-preterism.” His comments seem to imply that preterists deny the second coming of Christ, which simply is not true. Preterism may argue with historicism, futurism, and idealism on the timing and nature of the second coming, but it does not in any way deny that Christ would come a second time. It’s like one group waiting every week for the winning Powerball numbers, and another group knowing they came out a long time ago, as scheduled. Either way, there’s still a winner and nobody is denying that.

 

In the next paragraph Dr. Waldron writes, “The problem with the preterist interpretation is that Jesus’s comments about the end or consummation of this age cannot be adequately explained short of wholesale hyper-preterism. Once again, the preterist interpretation leads directly to hyper-preterism.” Notice the logic embedded in this comment. He essentially starts with the premise that hyper-preterism is unorthodox and evil. In light of this, he draws the conclusion that it cannot be true, so a preterist interpretation is to be rejected. In terms of drawing theological conclusions, his logic is “putting the cart before the horse.” A good expositor does not approach the Bible with his pre-drawn conclusions and then cram them into the text, but rather he lets the text shape his conclusions. This is a classic example of begging the question and eisegesis.

 

Dr. Waldron works his way through chapter 25 offering his view of the Olivet Discourse, which can be summarized as follows:

• Matthew 24:4-14 describes the events between Christ’s first advent and when he will return in glory at some point in our future.
  • He writes, “These verses give an overview of the entire interadvental period (the period between Christ’s first and second advents).”
• Matthew 24:15-28 describe events that were fulfilled in A.D. 70.
  • He writes, “…15-28 focus on the event of most concern to Jesus’s Jewish disciples—the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.”
• Matthew 24:29-33 describe events that pertained to the first century Jews but are still yet to be completely fulfilled.
  • “These words make clear that ‘the tribulation of those days’ mentioned in Matthew 24:29 include not only the Jews’ falling by the edge of the sword, but also their being led into captivity, the times of the gentiles, and thus, the entire interadvental period.”
• As previously mentioned, he takes Matthew 24:34 as A.D. 70 but Matthew 24:36 to still be in our future.

 

To begin to dissect this view, let’s be reminded of a previous quote. “Matthew 24:34 does refer to the then-living generation of Jews, but an examination of the context shows (as John Murray argues, and as we have seen in a previous chapter) that there is a contrast present with verse 36…“All these things” must, therefore, be (as the use of similar phrases throughout the discourse suggests) a reference to the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem. It is not the second coming of Christ, but all the things connected with the destruction of Jerusalem that occurs during the lifetime of the generation of Jews living when Christ spoke these words.” (Emphasis mine). Dr. Waldron clearly gives the “things” of verse 34 as having a first-century fulfillment that are directly connected with the destruction of Jerusalem. The question to ask is, what things is Jesus referring to in verse 34?

 

Leading up to Matthew 24:34, we find the following predictions: false Christs (5), wars and rumors of wars (6), nation against nation, kingdom against kingdom, famines, earthquakes (7), tribulation and death, hated by all nations (9), falling away and betrayal (10), false prophets (11), lawlessness increased (12), endurance to salvation (13), gospel preached throughout the world and the end comes (14), abomination of desolation (15), great tribulation (21), false Christs and false prophets (24), the coming of the Son of Man (27), sun, moon, and stars darkened and heavens shaken (29), the sign of the son of man in heaven, all tribes mourning, Son of Man coming, gathering of the elect (30). It’s interesting to observe that Dr. Waldron takes verse 15-28 as fulfilled in A.D. 70 but does not believe this is descriptive of Christ’s second coming, despite verse 27 being a clear reference to his coming (parousia).

 

Beyond that, it’s important to ask the question, who is it that would see “all these things” fulfilled in A.D. 70? Is it not the same audience in 15-28 as it is in the rest of the predicted events Dr. Waldron places as future? Between verses 3-24 Jesus uses the word “you” approximately 14 times. Mark’s version of the discourse leaves no room to wonder.

 

And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asking him privately. Mark 13:3

 

If “you” is these specific disciples in verses 15-28 (which Dr. Waldron clearly believes), on what basis is it not the same “you” in the rest of the discourse that would see “all these things” fulfilled within a generation? In our age of information it takes very little research to find that we have both historical and biblical accounts for all of those things being fulfilled prior to A.D. 70. The disciples did hear of “wars and rumors of wars”, there were “false prophets” that arose, and Paul testified using 5 different Greek words (which we’ll examine in part 4) that the gospel did in fact go to the “whole world” all within that 40 year period leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem.^[5]

 

Beyond that, Dr. Waldron sees Matthew 10:23 as being fulfilled in A.D. 70 writing, “My conclusion is that the ‘coming’ of Matthew 10:23 is a reference to His sending of judgment upon Jerusalem in A.D. 70 through the Roman armies.” A comparison between Matthew 10 and Mark 13 yields parallel language in many regards. Note the following similarities:

 

 

Matthew 10:17   Delivered to courts/councils Mark 13:9 Matthew 10:17 Flogged/beaten in synagogues Mark 13:9 Matthew 10:18 Dragged/stand before governors and kings Mark 13:9 Matthew 10:19 Given what to speak by the Spirit Mark 13:11 Matthew 10:21 Put to death by family Mark 13:12 Matthew 10:22 Hated by all for Christ’s name sake Mark 13:13 Matthew 10:22 One who endures to the end will be saved Mark 13:13

 

In Mark’s discourse, all of these predictions come prior to verse 14 and the abomination of desolation, which makes them parallel verses to 4-14 of Matthew’s discourse. Both texts even predict death and being hated by all (Mat. 24:9; Mark 13:12-13), and include a promise of endurance to salvation (Mat. 24:13; Mark 13:13). There is no way to divide these accounts into describing different events or time periods. Dr. Waldron believes Matthew 24:4-14 are still future but Matthew 10:23 is A.D. 70. Logic necessitates, however, that if Matthew 10:23 and the events leading up to it (verses 16-22) are A.D. 70, AND Matthew 10:16-23 are parallel texts to Mark 13:1-13, AND Mark 13:1-13 are parallel texts to Matthew 24:4-14, then if one of them is A.D. 70, all of them are A.D. 70. This is hugely problematic for Dr. Waldron by (rightly) giving up Matthew 10:23 to A.D. 70. Why then does Dr. Waldron draw an arbitrary line in Matthew 24 and separate 4-14 as still yet to be fulfilled but 15-28 as being fulfilled in our past? In this writer’s opinion, it is because of verse 14.

 

And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. Matthew 24:14

 

Dr. Waldron knows that the only “end” in the context of this passage is the end-of-age reference in verse 3. To revisit a previous quote, The problem with the preterist interpretation is that Jesus’s comments about the end or consummation of this age cannot be adequately explained short of wholesale hyper-preterism. Once again, the preterist interpretation leads directly to hyper-preterism.” (Emphasis mine). In other words, unlike many postmillennialists who believe the end of the age was A.D. 70 but the parousia is still in our future, he is consistent enough to know that if you give the end of the age to A.D. 70, that necessitates full preterism. The problem is that rather than adopting the clear teaching of Scripture, he opts out and chooses to be inconsistent so that he can cling to his system. The entire amillennial paradigm is built around the two-age model and if you put the end of the age in A.D. 70, you’ve just blown the entire system up.

 

Conclusion

 

In closing, we’ve examined Dr. Waldron’s preliminary attempts to taint the view of full preterism and his view of the Olivet Discourse. We have shown that the only consistent reading of the discourse (and parallel texts) proves that Matthew 24:4-28 was fulfilled in the events of A.D. 70. In the next installment we’ll test a “direct refutation” to full preterism he found in Luke 21 and dig a little deeper into his “pivot” argument from Matthew 24:34 to 36.

^[1] Every quote from Dr. Waldron in the remainder of these four articles is from that book.

^[2] https://americanvision.org/posts/should-bible-prophecy-always-be-interpreted-literally/

^[3] https://www.allthingsfulfilled.com/pdf/inlikemanner.pdf

^[4] https://americanvision.org/posts/the-return-of-the-three-questions/

^[5] For an in-depth examination of these things, see Gary DeMar’s, Last Days Madness