Tuesday , May 23 2017
Breaking News
You are here: Home / Michael Sullivan / The Living Body Show 10/22/12 Re: The Criswell Millennial Conf. Review Part 2 Gentry’s Inability to Develop Daniel 12:2-3 in the NT
Listen to internet radio with FulfilledRadio on Blog Talk Radio

The Living Body Show 10/22/12 Re: The Criswell Millennial Conf. Review Part 2 Gentry’s Inability to Develop Daniel 12:2-3 in the NT

I was disappointed that at the Criswell conference on the millennium of Revelation 20 that Kenneth Gentry did not address the texts and argument/main point to my public question. My question was that since he now believes the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 was fulfilled spiritually, covenantally and corporately in AD 70, he now needs to address HOW (not shouting) the NT develops the imminent “not yet” judgment and resurrection of Daniel 12:1-3, 13.

1) Dan. 12:2-3/Matt. 13:39-43 — Jesus references the resurrection and glorification of Daniel 12:2-3 in His teaching on the gathering into the kingdom at the end of the age in Matt. 13:39-43. There are two references to Daniel 12: 1. the time of the end/end of the age. 2. the righteous shine as stars/the righteous shine as the sun. Gentry knows that his PP colleagues such as Joel McDurmon (a man who has recently criticized Criswell) and others such as DeMar, Leithart and Jordan takes Jesus’ statement on the “end of this age” as the end of the OC age in AD 70 and not at the end of time. The Jews only knew of two ages “this age” was the OC age of the law and prophets and the “age to come” was the NC age ushered in by Messiah. Jesus’ “this age” He was in and is addressing as far as the harvest/gathering/resurrection here was to take place at the end of the OC age. in AD 70 not the end of time.  Gentry pleaded the 5th.

2) Dan. 12:2/Matt. 24:1-34 — Again (as in Matt. 13:39-43) “the end of the age” or “the end” is Daniel’s “time of the end.” Gentry is confused on what the “end of the age” is in the OD. Sometimes its the end that took place in AD 70 when debating dispensationalists like Ice or Amill’s, and  sometimes its the end of history when trying to refute Full Preterism. Gentry (and now Beale following R.T. France) claims that the coming of Christ in Matt. 24:30 took place in AD 70. But this is simply a reiteration of what Jesus was teaching on the end time gathering of Matt. 13:39-43/Matt. 24:30-31. Beale needs to reconcile his two positions: 1. In his commentary on 1-2 Thessalonians he points out the parallels between Matt. 24-25/1 Thess. 4-5 and state these are the same event and refer to Christ’s final coming and the resurrection/gathering/catching away event. 2. But now he is saying Matt. 24:30-31 was fulfilled in Jesus’ “this generation” in a spiritual way. As a futurist he can’t have it both ways, but obviously a Full Preterist can and does accept both propositions.

3) Dan. 12:2 (OG) LXX/John 5:28-29 — According to Jesus, the resurrection “hour” of Daniel 12:1-2 was Jesus’ resurrection doctrine in John 5:28-29. Gentry has criticized Blaising in their written debate on the millennium that Dan. 12:2/John 5:28-29 is teaching “one” resurrection and this refutes the premillennial view of “two” resurrection separated by a literal thousand years. So Gentry needs to address four issues on this connection: 1. Gentry needs to now prove these are not the “one” and same resurrection (his old view), and 2. why is it wrong if Blaising has two resurrection doctrines separated by a thousand years IF Gentry is now teaching two resurrection doctrines separated by thousands of years (AD 70 and then the end of time)? 3. If John’s theology of “the hour” in (1 John 2:17-18) and (Rev. 14:7) took place in AD 70, then why is John’s “hour” in John 5:28-29 a different one? 4. Gentry claims in his book/debate over the book of Revelation that the eschatological “not yet” phrase of Jesus’ “the hour is coming” in (John 4:21-24) was fulfilled in AD 70. Therefore, the burden of proof is now upon him to demonstrate why this same phrase in the next chapter does not apply to the same “not yet” time period.

4) Dan. 12:2/Acts 24:15 YLT WEY — Paul taught there was “about to be” a resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous. He also taught in Acts that he taught no other things except those that could be found in the law and prophets. Daniel 12:2 is the ONLY place in the “law and prophets” that discusses a resurrection for both groups.

5) Dan. 12:2 (OG) LXX/Romans 13:11-12 — Paul’s “at hand” “hour” to “wake out of sleep” are direct references to Daniel 12:2 (OG) LXX. Paul’s “hour” is not a different one than Jesus’ or John’s.

6) Dan. 12:1-13/Revelation 20:5-15 — Daniel was told to now seal up this vision of judgment and resurrection because the time of fulfillment was “far off” while John is told the opposite, to not seal up the vision of this same judgment and resurrection because the time was “at hand.” The book(s) were opened and the time of judgment and resurrection of the dead came in an “at hand” time frame while John was alive.

7) Synthesis Full Preterism combines Gentry’s and Beale’s views: 1. The resurrection of Daniel 12:2 was fulfilled in AD 70 BUT the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 is the resurrection of John 5:28-29. 2. The resurrection of Daniel 12:2 was fulfilled in AD 70, BUT the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 is the same resurrection as is described for us in Acts 24:15. 3. And relevant to the conference – the resurrection and judgment of Daniel 12:1-2 was fulfilled in AD 70, but the resurrection and judgment of Daniel 12:1-2 is the same end of the millennium judgment and resurrection as is depicted in Revelation 20:5-15.

About Mike Sullivan

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*