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 during the 20^th century.  I hope to convince those who have already abandoned dispensational futurist eschatology in favor of preterism (regardless of any particular brand) of the need to completely re-examine the Creation Science paradigm. As preterism grows to eclipse dispensational futurism in American Christianity, I believe this re-examination will lead naturally to the wholesale abandonment of Creation Science ideas.

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.

(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 20^th 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 20^th 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 of God expand in our day.  The problem in this case is not the sincerity or spiritual goals of those within the movement. Nor is the problem their dedication to the cause. The problem is that the movement has backfired on its proponents.

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 19^th century interpretative genius, Milton S. Terry, and his book, “Biblical Apocalyptics,” Mr. Martin offers the following:

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 with all its pantheistic idolatry of the creation … We are so used to reading Genesis in terms of the intramural origins debate among Christians or the creation-evolution debate that we have totally missed the reality that the apocalypse of creation is a powerful unveiling of the meaning, essence and goal of covenant life between God and man … Christians desperately need to change their focus from the supposed scientific implications of creation and instead feed off the apocalyptic vision of creation which demands covenant faithfulness in all aspects of life and dimension of God’s world.

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.

THE END