In my studies of Islam I have been focusing in on arguments coming from such men as Shabir Ally whom allege that one of the reasons that “prove” Christians have a corrupted NT is that it depicts a Jesus that was a “false prophet.” For Shabir, the NT cannot be trusted in its revelation of Jesus as a “prophet,” since it depicts Him teaching that His Second Coming and end of the world would take place within the lifetime of some of his first century audience and or within their “this generation” (Matt. 16:27-28; Matthew 24; with Paul following this “failed” hope in such passages as 1 Thess. 4:12-17).
James White debated Shabir Ally on a few occasions and was an utter embarrassment in representing Christianity because he addressed virtually all of Shabir’s arguments except this one and the NT passages Shabir brought up (Matt. 16:27-28; Matt. 24; 1 Thess. 4:12-17)!
This is a good depiction of James White’s “head in the sand” “apologetic” of ignoring to deal with Matthew 16:27-28/Matthew 24/1 Thessalonians 4-5 and NT imminence in general. He also says he “dreads” discussing or debating eschatology (which is what he actually says in the Sunday School lessons on Matt. 24 – which he mentions in his debate with Ally). How sad that he “dreads” this subject in teaching it to his church and then ignores it in public debate!
I have tried to reach out to other Christian “apologists” to the Muslim community such as James White, Sam Shamoun, Anthony Rogers, David Wood, and Robert Spencer whom either failed to address this argument in debate (at all as White has), or in my estimation have not dealt with these arguments sufficiently or exegetically. Therefore, I have challenged these men to a public debate. Thus I will do what they obviously cannot do or are unwilling to do with their Muslim opponents – that is, actually present honestly and defend Christ’s teachings in the gospels and that of the NT which posit Christ’s Second Coming, end of the (old covenant) age/world,” judgment, and resurrection of the living and dead to be truly imminent and fulfilled by AD 70. I also will be contacting Shabir Ally and request a formal debate on this subject exclusively since James White was such an embarrassment and “dreads” to deal with this very important subject.
Since “Reformed” men like James White have actually treated their commitments to the WCF or the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith to be on the same level as Roman Catholics have embraced their traditions and confessions – White simply won’t accept that Full Preterism has solved the problem he “dreads” (eschatology) to address in debates with Muslims and Bible studies – Selah. Whenever Full Preterism comes up Mr. White always seems to recommend the book, When Shall These Things Be? A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism – never personally taking any debates with Full Preterists (at least that I know of). I have made an effort several times to inform Mr. White that I have co-authored a book that responded to the book he recommends on a consistent basis whenever the topic comes up and that I would like to debate him. On FB he simply now “blocks” my posts (as has Sam Shamoun and Anthony Rogers have) and ignores my personal messages to him because they expose how shallow he truly is on this subject and that he can’t and won’t debate Full Preterism. I pretty much have lost all respect for the guy at this point. News flash Mr. White – we are no longer in the 80’s and 90’s where you can “block” and pretend that Full Preterism doesn’t exist or that it is a view you need not debate.
I find it amazing that men like Hank Hanegraaff “the Bible Answer man” and his “apologetic” ministry screens Full Preterist questions and challenges on his show and won’t debate me or the Full Preterist view either. I literally had to drive down to the man’s studio and wrote out a question on Daniel 12:2 (“If you say the Tribulation was fulfilled in AD 70 then according to the context [“all these things” vs. 7] the resurrection of v. 2 must have been fulfilled at this time – how do you answer this?”) and even then he wouldn’t answer the question or challenge on air! I had an informal debate with him and his assistant after the show for almost 2 hours whereby I answered ALL of their questions/challenges and they told me they would “get back with me” to answer mine and they NEVER did! I eventually did an open and public letter to them asking why they claimed they would get back with me and never did and then eventually gave each of them a copy of my/our book and they STILL haven’t answered our challenges or debated us. And now men like James White, Sam Shamoun, Anthony Rogers claim to be public “apologists” and have to run and hide and “block” people asking questions they can’t answer or who challenge them to a debate? Wow. Yet on their web sites they claim to be willing to answer questions and challenges that arise from the articles they post! They call us “heretics” and yet won’t debate us. They will all tell Christians they should go and get the Book of Mormon, the Watch Tower, the Quaran and read and study these materials (with the Bible) so that they can interact with these “heretical cults” and YET when it comes to Full Preterism they are SCARED to death that you get a copy of my/our book (“House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology…”) and read it. And yet they are willing to debate all of these other groups except Full Preterism. Think about it folks.
My interaction with Sam Shamoun and Anthony Rogers of Answeringislam.org
As I said in my opening, I had been listening to some debates between Christians and Muslims on the internet and of course had previously known of Islam borrowing a version of liberal and atheist arguments to “prove” Jesus was either a false prophet or not God due to an alleged failed Second Coming to “end the world” in His generation. So when I came across a Muslim site, answering-christianity.com (an obvious spinoff or want to be copy of answeringislam.org) and saw this point being made by a Muslim I wanted to quote it and address it in one of my articles. In that article the Muslim uses Matthew 16:27-28/Mark 8:38-9:1; Matthew 24:1-35; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8; Revelation 22:6-7, 10-12, 20 to “prove” his assertion that “Jesus broke his promise about his Second Coming.” Since the article was addressed to a one Sam Shamoun, I wanted to contact this individual and introduce myself as a Full Preterist theologian (offer him a free copy of our book) and explain how I have addressed these texts and “argument” and was curious where, how, and if he had responded to them?
I was shocked by Sam Shamoun’s immature and hateful rhetoric to me on FB. To make a long story short (I have saved the interaction), Sam immediately wanted to challenge me on if I believe Jesus is going to literally and physically return to planet earth. So I referred him to two articles I wrote on that very subject which spell out my answer very directly. I also asked Sam a question – “Do you believe the coming of Christ in Matthew 16:27 and Matthew 24 is the same coming of Christ on the clouds in Acts 1:11?” Even after answering Sam’s question by directing him to two of my articles (with Sam not answering my question), Sam called me a “coward heretic” and “worse than a Muslim” because they at least believe in a physical future return of Jesus to this earth. Yes, I believe in the sovereign and free grace of Jesus Christ, His Deity, the Trinity, the sufficiency and inspiration of Scripture, and yet I’m “worse than a Muslim.” You just can’t make this stuff up – wow.
So since Sam made a very big mistake by calling me a “coward” (a Christian / Full Preterist / Irishman) and “worse than a Muslim” – I have (on David Wood’s FB page) and am once again challenging him from my site as well to a public debate. We will quickly see who the real “coward” is and who can exegetically deal with liberal, atheist, and Muslim “arguments” on the issue of an alleged failed Second Coming of Jesus in the first century! We will also see who ends up sticking their head in the sand on their prophet (as Muslims are forced to do of Muhammad’s predictions) predicting “the end” and last “hour” to be fulfilled within the lifetimes of his first century audience. And logically I don’t see how Sam can deny my request to debate. First, he claims he is involved in an “apologetic” ministry so I expect him to be able to defend his position publicly. Secondly, if he debates Muslims and I am allegedly “worse than a Muslim” – then obviously there is an urgency and necessity that should be greater to debate me over against a Muslim. Only makes sense. And lastly, he called me a “coward,” so let’s allow the public to witness who the coward really is here.
Since Sam cowardly and immaturely ran off and blocked me from messaging him on FB, I asked my friend and co-author David Green to contact Sam and ask him what his response has been to Muslim’s who claim the Jesus of the Gospels is a “false prophet” because He didn’t return in the first century based upon such passages as Matthew 16:27-28 and Matthew 24.
Sam’s response thus far has been two-fold: First, Sam directed Dave (and indirectly me) to something someone else has written on this subject from his site (Anthony Rogers). Wow, I thought Sam was so bold and yet he can’t direct us to something he personally has written on the subject?!? Secondly, I asked David to ask Sam if he agrees with Anthony Rogers (the article Sam referred us to) that the coming of Christ in Matthew 16:27 and in Matthew 24 was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70 and this was Sam’s response:
“Yes I do. And Anthony agrees with me that this doesn’t mean that Jesus won’t return physically, bodily to the earth, since he and I both affirm that. What we deny is that Matthew 24 is referring to his second coming necessarily. With that said, I believe that Matthew 16:27 is a reference to Christ’s second coming to the earth.”
I think everyone can see that Sam’s response is confusing. Does he agree with Rogers that Matthew 16:27 was fulfilled in AD 70 spiritually – he answers initially “yes.” But then later claims the verse is referring to Christ’s literal and bodily Second Coming. At least that’s how I read it. Then he and Rogers seem to agree with Partial Preterists such as Keith Mathison and Gary DeMar whom teach the coming of the Son of Man in the OD is consistently referring to AD 70 and not the Second Coming event (not “necessarily”). Hopefully Sam can clarify his position and that of Rogers since Rogers has conveniently stopped his series right around Matthew 24:35-36 (which is where the rubber really meets the road in any discussion of the OD and is where the debate between PP and FP really begins).
My guess is that Anthony Rogers (like myself) saw how poorly White did in this area of his debate with Ally and wanted to try and address some of these issues from a Partial Preterist perspective (a view I used to hold to). So Mr. Rogers began a series of articles (mostly on Matthew 24) entitled, Coming on the Clouds of Heaven: A Reply to Shabir Ally’s Execrable Blasphemies and Calumnies Against the Son of Man Part I. I asked Mr. Rogers some simple questions about his article (which this web site and that of David Wood’s says can be done), and Anthony Rogers claimed he was too busy to provide such – referring me to Ken Gentry who hasn’t been able to answer the same questions and challenges we gave him in our book (going on 6 years now). Since Mr. Rogers was unable to answer these questions he “blocked” me from asking anymore. And these men claim to be “apologists” “always being ready to give an answer”?!? Amazing.
Outline for this series of articles responding to these men
Part 1 – In this article I will be giving a detailed exegesis of Matthew 16:27-28/Mark 8:38-9:1 proving that Jesus did in fact promise that His Second Coming would take place within some of the lifetimes of the first century crowd He was speaking to — and in AD 70 was faithful to keep that promise. Since Sam Shamoun has admitted Matthew 16:27 is the Second Coming event (something James White would also agree to), if I can prove that verse 27 is inseparably connected to verse 28 and are discussing the same Second Coming event, then I will have proven that Jesus’ Second Coming was fulfilled by AD 70.
Part 2 – This article will deal with how the coming judgment and resurrection of the dead (the time or hour of the end – not the end of time) in Daniel 12:1-13 is developed by Jesus to be fulfilled at the end of the Old Covenant (OC) age in AD 70 (cf. Matt. 13:39-43/Matt. 24:3, 30-31/Luke 20:27-40/John 4-5:28-29). Since the “last hour” is a subject John picks up we will also spend some time on 1 John 2:18 in connection with the “day and hour” of (Matt. 24:36). I will prove that since Reformed Partial Preterists see a spiritual, progressive, covenantal, corporate, resurrection of the living and dead taking place at the end of the OC age (ie. in AD 70) in these texts, and that the Reformed Amillennial position is that these texts address ONE end time judgment and resurrection event — the two positions form Full Preterism.
We also will take a look at passages concerning the “last hour” in the Quran and Hadiths whereby Muhammad (and thus Islam) have made false predictions that this event would be fulfilled within a 100 years – or within the lifetimes of those Muhammad was speaking to. Thus Muhammad was a false prophet and Islam a false religion because Jesus had already fulfilled the “last hour” promise, and in AD 70 He proved that not only was a faithful Prophet, but God – having come back upon the clouds in the glory of the Father.
Parts 3a-c. – Will be an exposition of Matthew 24-25 (something that Anthony Rogers was incapable of finishing in his response to Shabir Ally). Since James White mentions his Sunday School lessons on Matthew 24, I went a head and listened to them and will critique them in that article as well. I will also demonstrate that Reformed theologians actually form Full Preterism in Matthew 24-25 for the Church since they affirm these two positions:
1. The coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 24-25 is the ONE Second Coming event to close the “end of the age” (Classic Amillennial view – James White).
2. The coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 24-25 was spiritually fulfilled in AD 70 which brought an end to the OC age (Partial Preterist view – Anthony Rogers / Sam Shamoun).
Part 4 – Will be an exposition of 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 and Acts 1:6-11.
Parts 1-4 will affirm and demonstrate that the ONE Second Coming, judgment and resurrection of the living and dead events were fulfilled at the end of the OC age in AD 70 and therefore James White, Anthony Rogers, Sam Shamoun (and others) need to stop presenting a futuristic Jesus that is in reality a “false prophet” to the atheist, bible skeptics, liberals, and Muslims in their “apologetic” ministries. And this will also silence the criticism that Jesus was not able to fulfill these promises when and how He promised (Shabir Ally’s affirmative that the Jesus of the NT was a “false prophet”).
An Exposition of Matthew 16:27–28
For the Son of Man is about to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. Assuredly, I say to you there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.
Anthony Rogers agrees with me that the coming of Christ in Matthew 16:27 was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70 and is exegetically connected to verse 28. Sam Shamoun claims that verse 27 is the “Second Coming.” So between the two of them they form my position – The Second Coming in verse 27 was spiritually fulfilled in some of the lifetimes of Jesus’ first century audience in verse 28!
But since Rogers didn’t do an in-depth exegsis of the passage showing how they are connected and Sam claims the coming of Christ in Matthew 24 was fulfilled in AD 70, let’s show how these two verses are connected (not separated as Sam is attempting to do).
Argument #1 (immediate context) – For the Son of Man is about to Come
I don’t remember Rogers doing any work on mello in Matthew 16:27. Young’s Literal Translation (YLT), the Darby Bible, Wuest’s Expanded Translation of the New Testament, and Weymouth’s New Testament in Modern Speech all translate Jesus’ return here as “about to come” or “soon to come.” These translations reflect the consistent usage of the Greek word mello in Matthew’s gospel, and its predominant usage in the New Testament. Most Partial Preterists don’t really want to get into translating mello as “about to be” or “soon” unless they are in the book of Revelation debating Dispensationalists or other futurists. But as I documented in my chapter in HD we showed their problems with mello in Romans 8:18-23 and Acts 24:15. We will be visiting those texts later.
My point here is that Christ’s imminent coming in verse 27 is consistent with Christ’s coming in the lifetime of “some” in the crowd who were listening to him in verse 28.
After having waited thousands of years for the coming of the Messiah and His kingdom, the span of forty years (AD 30–70) was a relatively short time.
Argument #2 (immediate context) – Verily I say unto you
Again, I didn’t see Rogers really spend any time here developing Jesus’ phrase “verily I say unto you” which tightens and unites verses 27-28 together even further (destroying Sam and White’s position on this text). Jesus uses the term “verily,” “truly,” or “most assuredly” many times in the gospels. The Greek word is “amen,” and it means “absolutely,” “really,” “may it be fulfilled.” It is never used to introduce a new subject (an empty claim that some futurists have tried to make with no evidence). Dispensational author and editor of another multi-authored book seeking to refute preterism, Thomas Ice, says of Matthew 16:27 and 28 that these “are two separate predictions separated by the words ‘truly I say to you.’” (Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice, The End Times Controversy: The Second Coming Under Attack (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2003), 87). But Mr. Ice fails to produce a single passage in which Jesus’ phrase, “Verily I say unto you,” separates one subject from another. Maybe Sam or White can produce one?
To the contrary, the phrase always signals an amplification of the previous thought – thus more exegetical evidence that the two verses are referring to the same AD 70 fulfillment and event!
Argument #3 (immediate context) – Some standing here shall not taste of death until
Some (such as Thomas Ice) have made the mistake in thinking that Jesus was only talking to the 12 disciples but according to Mark’s account, “ . . . He called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said . . . ” (Mk. 8:34–9:1). This is the background to Peter’s questing of the Lord as to if John was going to be alive to witness His return (while he would be martyred) in John 21:21-23. Some standing there listening to Christ would die of natural causes before the end of the OC age in AD 70 and others would be martyred prior to His Second Coming and the arrival of the Kingdom (cf. Matt. 10:17-23; Matt. 24:9; Dan. 7:21-22).
Rogers (in the article Sam ironically recommends on this subject) has already done a good job refuting Sam’s position, in that it makes no sense to apply verse 28 to the transfiguration event or others which were so short in duration from the time He spoke these words – that it would make very little sense for Jesus pointing out that some would obviously die before they would see verse 28 fulfilled.
Argument #4 (immediate context/parallels) – Until they see the kingdom of God already come in power
“…There, are, certain of those here standing, who shall in nowise taste of death, until they see the kingdom of God, already come in power.” (Mark 9:1 Rotherham Translation).
Rogers relies on the work of Kenneth Gentry so I was surprised to see him not deal with the Greek of Mark 9:1.
According to Mark’s account, Jesus’ teaching is that some of the disciples within the crowd he was addressing would live to actually be able to looked back on this historic event, knowing that Christ’s Second Coming and His kingdom had already come in power. (Literally, “until they see the kingdom of God having already come in power.”). Another of our critics Kenneth Gentry at least concedes this point citing J.A. Alexander:
Here “come” is “not, as the English words may seem to mean, in the act of coming (till they see it come), but actually or already come, the only sense that can be put upon the perfect parti-ciple here employed.” (Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., He Shall Have Dominion (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1992), 215–216, emphasis added).
The Greek word here for “see” is eido. As with the English word, eido not only refers to physical sight, but it can also mean “perceive” or “understand.”
Through observing with the physical senses, “some” of Jesus’ contemporary audience would be able to look back on the destruction of the old covenant kingdom’s temple and city in AD 70 and “perceive” that Christ’s Second Coming and His kingdom had arrived among and “within” them (Lk. 17:20–37; Col. 1:27; Jn. 14:2–3, 23, 29).
Jesus tells us that the Church would be alive on the earth post AD 70 (no literal “rapture” teaching folks) and be able to look at the historical events of AD 66 – 70 and know that He already fulfilled His Second Coming promise (contrary to the Muslim, skeptic, and Atheist claims that He didn’t fulfill His promise). We have the sure words of Jesus, not just historical references from Josephus and others (which Rogers references). Selah.
Argument #5 – (immediate context/parallel) – Christ comes within the shameful AD 30 – AD 70 “this adulterous and sinful generation”
Another caveat while here in Mark 8:38-9:1 is that Jesus addresses that His coming would take place within His contemporary “this adulterous and sinful generation.” Sam claims that the coming of Christ in Matthew 24 was fulfilled in the AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation” (Matt. 24:27-34) and therefore it should not be a strange thing for Sam to understand that he is teaching the same thing here in Mark 8:38/Matthew 16:27 as well.
That contemporary generation rejected God/Jesus as their Messiah and eschatological Groom (and High Priest) committing “adultery” (“we have no king but Caesar”) and therefore according to the OT Law she was to be stoned and burned to death in the events of AD 66 – AD 70 (Rev. 17-19). Sam Shamoun, was not the “coming” of Christ throughout the book of Revelation said to be fulfilled as that contemporary generation (Matt. 24:27-34/Mark 8:38-9:1) was ending or in an AD 70 “soon,” “shortly,” “at hand” time period (Rev. 1:1, 3:11, 22:6-7, 10-12, 20)? Therefore, we can know that the coming of Christ in Matthew 16:27/Mark 8:38 was fulfilled in AD 70, in that this is when Christ came and was ashamed of that adulterous Jewish generation!
Argument #6 (broader context of Matthew) – The analogy of Scripture teaches us that Matthew 16:27-28 is Jesus’ same teaching in Matthew 24 but condensed
Matthew 16:27–28 (and its parallels, Mark 8:38–9:1; Luke 9:26–27) cannot be divided into two different events, according to the typical futurist approach (Sam’s and probably James White’s position). Using the analogy of Scripture we can see from the chart below, Matthew 16:27 is united to Matthew 16:28. Both verses speak of the same timeframe and event that Jesus spoke of in His undivided Olivet Discourse.
|Matthew 16:27-28 & Parallels||The Olivet Discourse|
|1. Christ comes in glory (Luke 9:26)||1. Christ comes in glory (Matt. 24:30)|
|2. Christ comes with angels (Matt. 16:27)||2. Christ comes with angels (Matt. 24:31)|
|3. Christ comes in judgment (Matt. 16:27)||3. Christ comes in judgment (Matt. 24:28-31;25:31-34)|
|4. Christ and the kingdom come in power (Mark 8:38)||4. Christ and the kingdom come in power (Luke 21:27-32)|
|5. Some of the disciples would live (Matt. 16:28)||5. Some of the disciples would live (Luke 21:16-18)|
|6. Some of the disciples would die (Matt. 16:28)||6. Some of the disciples would die (Luke 21:16)|
|7. Christ would be ashamed of some in His generation (Mark 8:38)||7. All of this would occur in His generation (Matt. 24:34)|
If Sam Shamoun agrees with Rogers and other Partial Preterists such as DeMar and Mathison that the coming of Christ in Matthew 24-25 is not addressing the Second Coming (“not necessarily” Sam’s term), then claiming the coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 16:27 is Jesus’ literal and bodily future coming while His in Matthew 24 is not – just won’t fly. And by the way DeMar and Mathison don’t even attempt this distinction.
Argument #7 (analogy of Scripture similar language used by another NT writer) – A comparison of Matthew 16:27 with Revelation 22:12
Since Sam Shamoun has directed us to Anthony Roger’s article and agrees with Rogers that the coming of Christ in Matthew 24 was fulfilled in AD 70 I am assuming he also agrees with Rogers that the coming of Christ throughout the book of Revelation was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70? If so, here is another argument that Rogers does not give on Matthew 16:27-28 to support his Partial Preterist view on the passage and one that Sam and White need to address as well.
|Matthew 16:27||Revelation 22:12|
|“The Son of Man is about to come in the glory of His Father with His angels,…”||“Behold I am coming soon.”|
|“then He shall reward every man according to his works”||“and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be”|
Here once again our opponents form our position:
Classic Amillennial view (James Wright?): The “imminent” coming of Christ upon the clouds as a thief throughout the book of Revelation is the ONE Second Coming bodily return of Jesus of which “every eye” will literally “see” Him.
Partial Preterist view (Anthony Rogers / Sam Shamoun / Gentry): The imminent coming of Christ upon the clouds as a thief throughout the book of Revelation is Christ’s spiritual coming “perceived” and “understood” as being fulfilled in AD 70 by those first century “tribes of the land” Jews that had “pierced Him” (Rev. 1:7).
Full Preterism (Synthesis “Reformed and always reforming”): The imminent coming of Christ upon the clouds as a thief throughout the book of Revelation is the ONE Second Coming event, by which He came spiritually and “every eye” (of the Jewish “tribes of the land” that had “pierced Him”) “perceived” and “understood” to be fulfilled in AD 70.
Argument #8 (considering OT echo’s or source material) – Isaiah 40 and Isaiah 62
It is also significant to consider the OT source material whereby Christ came to fulfill the law and prophets. Probably the main OT source for Matthew 16:27-28 is found in Isaiah 40 and 62. In Isaiah 40 God comes to “reward” in judgment and salvation (Isa. 40:10) is now attributed to Jesus (“the Sovereign Lord”). John was the one preparing “the way” of the Kingdom through an imminent Second Coming of Christ or fiery “great and dreadful day of the Lord” (Matt. 3:7-12/Isa. 40/Matt. 11:10/Mal. 3:1—4:5). In other words John the Baptists eschatology IS Jesus’ eschatology and both point to an imminent fulfillment in AD 70.
This theme is picked back up in Isaiah 62:10-12, except this time the context of the chapter involves the “highway” leading to the eschatological marriage and inheriting the New Jerusalem / New Creation. The problem for our Partial Preterist friends (Rogers and Shamoun) is that they would have to concede that the marriage, and arrival of the New Jerusalem and New Creation was fulfilled “shortly” at Christ’s spiritual (non-bodily) coming in the book of Revelation 1:1—22:6-12, 20. If the eschatological marriage was fulfilled in AD 70 (Rev. 19:9; 21:1ff), then so was the resurrection since the eschatological banquet follows the marriage in Jewish weddings (Isa. 25:6-8/1 Cor. 15:54-55). We will address the resurrection in 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15 later on. But my point for now, is that since Rogers takes the judgment and rewarding of “every man” in Matthew 16:27 to be fulfilled at Christ’s spiritual coming in AD 70, the fulfillment of this is in Isaiah which develops this time of rewarding and judgment to be the time of the marriage and resurrection!
And it gets worse for Rogers and Shamoun because they agree that the coming of Christ in Matthew 24 was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70, and therefore the coming of the Son of Man is the time of the marriage (Matt. 25:1-10, 31). And since Rogers seems to be following the Partial Preterist (no two coming(s) or sections of Matthew 24-25) views proposed by that of Gary DeMar and Keith Mathison in his articles thus far, this begs the question as to how was the judgment of the sheep and the goats (“every man” of Matt. 16:27 and Rev. 22:10-12) and Satan’s judgment fulfilled at His coming in Matt. 25:31ff.?!?
Therefore, my questions to these men are similar to those given to Keith Mathison in our book – how many eschatological marriages and resurrections do Partial Preterists teach to match their two Second Coming(s) view? I’m still waiting for an answers to these questions so maybe Rogers will step up to the plate?
Concluding thoughts on Matthew 16:27-28
Shabir Ally (Muslim application):
We have examined Shabir Ally’s assertions that Jesus in the Christian NT Scriptures is a “false prophet” and have his theory to be false and in fact the opposite to be the truth. Jesus’s Second Coming did take place within some of the lifetimes of those Jesus was speaking to (Matt. 16:27-28/Mark 8:38-9:1). The Christian can look back upon this historical event and know that Christ and His Kingdom have “already” come. According to Isaiah 40:10 Jesus came as the “Sovereign Lord” (God). This was also in fulfillment of Daniel 7:13-14 as well which in the (OG) LXX depicts the one like a Son of Man coming upon the clouds “as the Ancient of Days” which is how He came “shortly” in AD 70 (cf. Revelation 1:1, 7-18)! In Daniel 7:14 Jesus is to be “worshiped” because He is (and in AD 70 proved to be) a reliable Prophet AND the only Faithful and True God. Selah.
James White / Sam Shamoun / Anthony Rogers (Futurist application):
Where is James White’s exegesis of Matthew 16:27-28/Mark 8:38-9:1? It sure was not present anywhere in his debate with Shabir Ally (at least that I listened to). Hopefully Mr. White will mature from “dreading” this subject and actually attempt some exegesis and debate it sometime soon with Bible skeptics, Muslims and debate Full Preterists? That would be a refreshing approach rather than trying to “block” Full Preterists and ignoring their debate challenges. Just a thought.
We have looked at Sam Shamoun’s view which attempts to separate Jesus’ coming in Matthew 16:27/Mark 8:38 from the following verses in Matthew 16:28/Mark 9:1 and have found them to be exegetically lacking (to be polite) when examining the immediate context and that of using the analogy of Scripture (within Matthew’s Gospel, rest of the NT, and then the OT).
I asked Mr. Shamoun if the coming of Christ in Matthew 16:27 was the “literal” “bodily” Second Coming that he understand Acts 1:11 to be teaching and his answer is essentially “yes.” But when we ask him for where he addresses Muslim arguments on these texts he refers us to no exegetical article he has provided on this verse – no, he refers us to an article on his site written by Anthony Rogers. When we go there we learn that the coming of Christ in Matthew 16:27 was a spiritual coming of Jesus fulfilled in AD 70. So what have we learned so far from these three men on Matthew 16:27-28? We learn that they don’t refute Full Preterism – they actually form it:
1. Sam Shamoun/James White – Matthew 16:27 is the Second Coming event.
2. Anthony Rogers – Matthew 16:27-28 is actually Christ’s spiritual coming that was fulfilled in AD 70.
3. Michael Sullivan (Synthesis of 1 – 2 “Reformed and always reforming”) – Matthew 16:27-28 is the Second Coming event and it was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70.
Sam Shamoun and James White have some exegetical work to do in answering my 8 arguments that demonstrate Matthew 16:27-28 stand together and prove that the Second Coming, judgment and resurrection of the living and dead were fulfilled in AD 70. Will they ever respond? If they don’t respond to us and Muslim critics, should they be considered Christian “apologists”?!? I’ll let you decide that. But let’s move on to Matthew 24-25 to further prove that James White and men like Kenneth Gentry and Anthony Rogers have no apologetic against the liberal and Muslim claims nor can they address the Full Preterist challenge in that Jesus taught that the resurrection of the dead would take place at the end of the OC age in AD 70.
I will once again give an exegesis of “the end of the age” in Matthew 13 and Matthew 24 demonstrating how the resurrection gathering and judgment was fulfilled in AD 70 and how my opponents don’t refute my position, they actually form it:
1. James White – The coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 24:27-30—chapter 25 is the ONE NT’s Second Coming event that takes place at the end of the ONE “end of the age” in our future.
2. Anthony Rogers/Sam Shamoun – The coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 24:27-30—chapter 25 was fulfilled spiritually to close “the end of the (old covenant) age” in AD 70.
3. Michael Sullivan (Synthesis of 1 – 2 “Reformed and always reforming”) – The coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 24:27-30—chapter 25 is the ONE NT’s Second Coming event fulfilled spiritually to close “the end of the (old covenant) age” in AD 70.
PART 1 – Debate Challenge and Response to: James White, Shabir Ally, Sam Shamoun, and Anthony Rogers – Matt. 16:27-28/Mark 8:38-9:1 http://fullpreterism.com/james-whites-embarrassing-failure-to-address-matthew-1627-28-matthew-24-and-1-thessalonians-416-17-in-his-debate-with-shabir-ally-and-my-public-challenge-to-debate-shabir-ally-james-whit/
PART 2 – Debate Challenge and Response to: James White, Shabir Ally, Sam Shamoun, and Anthony Rogers – “Time/Hour of the End” = “End of the Age” Resurrection (Dan. 12=Matt. 13=Luke 20:27-40=Matt. 24:30-31, 36=John 4-5) All Fulfilled In AD 70 http://fullpreterism.com/debate-challenge-and-response-to-james-white-shabir-ally-sam-shamoun-and-anthony-rogers-part-2-the-end-of-the-age-matthew-13-matthew-24/
PART 3a. – Debate Challenge And Response To: James White, Shabir Ally, Anthony Rogers, Sam Shamoun – All The Signs, Abomination That Causes Desolation, Tribulation, Times Of The Gentiles – “In Fulfillment Of All That Has Been Written” (Matt. 24:1-25/Luke 21:20-24) http://fullpreterism.com/part-3-a-debate-challenge-and-response-to-james-white-shabir-ally-anthony-rogers-sam-shamoun-matthew-241-25/
Part 3b. – Debate Challenge And Response To: James White, Shabir Ally, Sam Shamoun, And Anthony Rogers – The Coming Of The Son Of Man (Matt. 24:27—-25:31) Fulfilled By Ad 70 http://fullpreterism.com/part-3b-debate-challenge-and-response-to-james-white-shabir-ally-sam-shamoun-and-anthony-rogers-the-coming-of-the-son-of-man-matt-2427-2531-fulfilled-by-ad-70/
Part 3c. – Debate Challenge And Response To: James White, Anthony Rogers, Sam Shamoun, Shabir Ally: Matthew 24-25 “This Generation” And Division Theories Refutedhttp://fullpreterism.com/part-3c-debate-challenge-and-response-to-james-white-anthony-rogers-sam-shamoun-shabir-ally-matthew-24-25-this-generation-and-division-theories-refuted/
Part 4 – Debate Challenge And Response To: James White, Anthony Rogers, Sam Shamoun And Shabir Ally (1 Thess. 4:16-17 & Acts 1:9-11) http://fullpreterism.com/part-4-debate-challenge-and-response-to-james-white-anthony-rogers-sam-shamoun-and-shabir-alley-1-thess-416-17-and-acts-19-11/
 Abdullah Smith, Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun Did Jesus Contradict Himself? http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/rebuttal_to_shamoun_1.htm