Thoughts and Selections from Tim Martin’s “Beyond
Creation Science: How Preterism Refutes
a Global Flood and Impacts the Biblical Origins
Debate”
By Walt Hibbard
Many
preterists have come to assume that the acceptance of the traditional
understanding of the extent of the Flood of Noah’s day requires a
global-encompassing deluge that covered every continent and rose to the highest
mountains of the world. This view
teaches that every human being and land animal on the face of the earth was
wiped out, and that only Noah’s family of eight people survived that monumental
catastrophe.
Timothy P.
Martin, coming from a dispensational background and embracing of the popular
Creation Science movement, has found through diligent study that there is much
more involved in studying this doctrine than a mere “surface reading” of the
texts of Genesis. There is an urgent
need to examine the language to determine how key words are used elsewhere in
the Bible. This has brought Mr. Martin
to the conclusion that the Genesis account is describing a great Flood which was
regional but not worldwide.
He views the
preterist movement as a good working out of the grammatico-historical
hermeneutic in passages such as our Lord’s Olivet Discourse, II Peter 3, and the
Book of Revelation. However, he has been
disappointed to find that many preterists still cling to interpretative ideas in
other passages that are inconsistent with the careful and studied work that they
have done in the prophetic areas. Mr.
Martin believes that the early chapters in Genesis need to be re-studied with
the same care as the prophetic material.
I consider
this new book, which Mr. Martin began to write prior to 2001, to be an important
and eye-opening study that preterists need to examine carefully. The Creation Science people are already quite
happy with their hyper-literal system and this prevents many of them from
embracing preterism; they are consistent!
But preterists who accept the global flood are betraying the hermeneutic
principles that brought them initially into the preterist movement; namely,
recognizing the covenantal manner in which God deals with his people, choosing
them out of the great masses of worldwide humanity.
Now, here
are several clips from Tim Martin’s book – his own words in this debate:
(Taken from
Pg. 5 and 6 of the Necessary Introduction)
This book is a critique of the main Creation Science
presupposition from the perspective of covenant thinking. I hope to demonstrate
a methodological, theological and historical correlation between the rise of
Creation Science ideology and the prevalence of dispensational theology in
America
This critique of the Creation Science movement is a call to
consistency. My argument is simple. It is time for those committed to a general
preterist understanding of Matthew 24, 2 Peter 3, and Revelation to think
through the logical implications of their beliefs as they relate to the rest of
the Bible.
(From Pg. 11
& 12 of Covenantal Exegesis of Genesis 7)
The flood may be global if these
same constructs support that conclusion as used elsewhere in Scripture. It is also possible the flood may not be
global in physical detail if these same constructs are used elsewhere in cases
we know were regional. In other words, if we are self-consciously
covenantal, we will not first ask, “What is the literal meaning of this text?”
nor “What does science say about a global flood?” We will first say, “Let’s examine these same
constructs as used elsewhere in the Bible and interpret this Scripture in light
of the rest of Scripture.”
There are three textual keys to
understanding the language of this passage (Gen. 7:17-23
). First of all, the term “earth.” Secondly, the phrase “all the high mountains
under the entire heavens” must be understood.
Thirdly, the related phrases “Every living thing that moved on earth
perished” and ”Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out” must
be compared to similar use in Scripture.
Let’s look at how all three are used elsewhere in the Bible.
). First of all, the term “earth.” Secondly, the phrase “all the high mountains
under the entire heavens” must be understood.
Thirdly, the related phrases “Every living thing that moved on earth
perished” and ”Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out” must
be compared to similar use in Scripture.
Let’s look at how all three are used elsewhere in the Bible.
(From Pg. 47
& 48 of the Recent Rise of New Flood Geology)
How many Christian conservatives would have looked at The Genesis Flood a little more
carefully if they were aware up front of its Adventist roots? How many preterists will re-examine Creation
Science once they discover it is the direct product of radical, modern futurism?
Most Creation Scientists today remain
completely unfamiliar with George McCready Price. Given the choice between Josephus and his
regional flood comments going back millennia and George McCready Price and his
global flood geology formulated in the early 20th century, the choice
is easy for any reasonable preterist.
The time has come to move beyond Creation Science.
Preterism refutes a global flood and
therefore discredits the entire Creation Science movement. It negates Creation Science ideology by
textual and theological analysis of the biblical language. Historical investigation reveals its ignoble
background in hyper-futurism. A large
factor in the future success or demise of the Creation Science movement will be
the growth of preterism. Wide acceptance
of preterism among American Christians will inevitably prove fatal to the
Creation Science paradigm. The
popularity of Creation Science in the 20th century will likely
guarantee its grave will be marked for future generations as one more example of
counter-productive cul-de-sac thinking related to dispensationalism.
Conclusion
This brief
review of Timothy P. Martin’s book is intended to whet the appetite of
Christians, especially preterists, to take a closer look at what many, including
this reviewer, believed was the only acceptable interpretation of the early
chapters of the Book of Genesis. Compare
the language of Genesis with the language of the Olivet Discourse, 2 Peter 3 and
the Book of Revelation, and then strive for a more consistent, and thereby, a
more accurate understanding of those early historical accounts. And be sure to keep in mind that it is always
wise to constantly be taking a closer look at those time-honored conclusions of
traditional Christianity, since a true and biblical understanding has nothing to
fear from honest exegetical investigation!
THE END
How Does the Regional Flood Impact the
Origins Debate?
By Walt Hibbard
_________________________
As we have
already seen from the material in Timothy P. Martin’s book reviewed above, the
hyper-literal interpretation of the biblical Flood is untenable. And if so, what can we say about the
implications as they relate to the first two chapters of Genesis? I wish to quote Mr. Martin’s book further,
this time on pg. 66-67:
The Creation Science movement was a result of sincere
Christians desiring to defend the credibility of the Bible in the face of modern
skepticism and unbelief. That motive is
one that should be evident in all Christians who name Jesus Christ as Lord of
all and wish to see the Kingdom God
Reading the Bible according to the methods of Creation
Science ideology will convince those who read the Bible carefully of the fallibility of the
Bible. It leads logical people to
unbelief and ultimately to atheism.
Just a few pages
ahead, on pg. 72, he writes:
At this time, I do not believe it is possible to replace
Creation Science ideology with any particular old-earth creationist view in some
simplistic, cut and paste process. What
I would like to offer the thoughtful reader is an introduction on how to pursue
the mammoth origins issue in light of the paradigm shift to
preterism.
Then on pg. 111
of his book, and with support from the 19th century interpretative
genius, Milton
The key Milton Terry offers in his work on apocalyptics is
that our textual understanding of Revelation and Genesis are mutually dependent
and related to each other … And this is where I believe preterism has so much to
offer to the biblical origins debate. If
preterism represents an advance in biblical understanding of Christian eschatology, particularly the
apocalyptic genre of Scripture, then that advance will have tremendous
implications in our understanding of Genesis.
Put simply, as we understand the covenantal redemptive focus and Hebraic
nature of biblical prophecy better, we
will naturally acquire the theological tools to better understand the creation
account in Genesis. The key to
unraveling the origins debate in the modern church is eschatology …Just as
biblical prophecy communicates through the big picture of Hebraic apocalyptic
poetry, so the creation account in Genesis follows the same form and structure.
(Emphasis his)
Quoting Milton
Terry from pg.43 of his book, we read:
But if these opening chapters of the Bible are a revelation
of God’s creative relation to the world, may they not be apocalyptical in
character? Is it not fitting that the
canon of Scripture should open as well as close with an
apocalypse?
Then on pg. 113,
Mr. Martin makes this interesting comparison:
Let us begin our textual comparison with the seven-fold
pattern of the creation days. This
pattern is repeated seemingly endlessly through the book of Revelation. All the apocalyptic events in Revelation are
categorized in this same seven-fold structure and what’s more, they mirror the creation
order.
Following this
theme, we read on pg. 117 of Mr. Martin’s book:
Another evidence of the apocalyptic nature of the creation
account is its prominent use of repetition and recapitulation. Many have pointed out the repeated examples
of repetition and recapitulation in John’s Apocalypse. In fact, it is common in all biblical
apocalyptic. The book of Revelation
constantly repeats events of great covenantal significance and with each
repetition enlarges on the redemptive historical work of Jesus
Christ.
Lest the reader
fears that reading the book of Genesis from this viewpoint will remove the
element of real history from the biblical account, Mr. Martin writes on pg.
122:
The concern that this relegates the Genesis record to
anti-historical myth is unfounded for another important reason. There is a common misconception fostered by
literalists regarding the nature of apocalyptic language. Literalists often complain that all
non-literal methods rule out historical events.
But the fact that a text is apocalyptic in nature does not in anyway prohibit historical
events to underlie it.
Drawing to the
conclusion of his book, we read Mr. Martin’s words concerning the purpose of the
creation account as understood from an analytical and textual
perspective, on
pg. 122-125:
The creation of the universe is obviously a historical
event, as is the creation of Adam and Eve.
They are real, historical humans who were created innocent, yet they
sinned and broke the covenant relationship between God and man. While this is perfectly compatible with
apocalyptic, it is equally clear that a plain, historical record is simply not
the purpose of the creation account.
That it all happened according to the wisdom and benevolence of God is
the point. How it all happened in
scientific detail and physical phenomena is not in the priority of apocalyptic
communication … Put simply, the
apocalypse of creation is about worship and covenant relationship, not
science. Understood this way, it is
just as relevant to God’s people today as it was in Moses’ day as
Israel was leaving
Egypt
And there we
find the challenge to our erstwhile literal interpretation of Genesis. Tim Martin has done
an immeasurable service to the Christian community by offering this book for
study and consideration. It is the hope
of this reviewer that none of us will shrink from our responsibilities as
Christians to test these teachings in the light of the preterist-biblical
hermeneutic. And then perhaps we can
come up with a fuller and more accurate view of God’s plan for His people as
recorded in His Word, both in the beginning as set forth in Genesis, as well as
in the book of Revelation. Both are
inspired revelations of His old and new creational work that only apocalyptic
language could ever adequately give
expression and meaning to.
....
No comments:
Post a Comment