“For the Son of Man will (or is “about to…” YLT) 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” (Mt. 16:27-28).
“For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has [“already” Rotherham Translation] come with power” (Mrk. 8:38—9:1).
“For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste of death until they see the kingdom of God” (Lk. 9:26-27)
Kenneth Gentry in an article on Mt. 16:27-28 is seeking to re-define what a “orthodox preterist” is on this crucial text.[1] His position is that v. 27 is the second coming of Christ to end world history when He rewards all men, and v. 28 is referring to Christ coming to manifest His kingdom reign in the fall of Jerusalem. For Gentry to interpret v. 27 as referring to AD 70, is equivalent to interpreting the passage as a “hyper-preterist” or “liberal” would.
Partial Preterist Gary DeMar quickly wrote an article responding to Gentry pointing out that plenty of commentators interpreted Christ’s coming in judgment to reward every person in Mt. 16:27 as referring to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 or see vss. 27-28 as the same AD 70 judgment including: Adam Clarke, Henry Hammond, and even Gentry’s favorite partial or “orthodox preterist” commentator John Lightfoot.[2] Ouch!
We must also point out other contemporaries of Gentry such as Keith Mathison who not only takes both Mt. 16:27-28 together as referring to Christ coming in judgment upon Jerusalem but uses the passage as a foundation to support his position that Christ came in judgment and flaming fire to give the first century Thessalonians “relief” and their persecutors “trouble” and “wrath” in AD 70 (2 Thess. 1:7-9).[3] This is interesting in that most “orthodox preterists” see this coming in fire as the Second Coming event that ends the millennium of (Rev. 20:5-15)! Is Gentry going to accuse these men and his own editor of When Shall These Things Be? A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism (WSTTB?), as giving a “hyper-preterist” or “liberal” interpretation of Mt. 16:27-28 and 2 Thess. 1:7-9?!? Well, since Gentry’s appeals to “orthodox preterism” went nowhere fast let’s look at some more important exegetical issues that Gentry also conveniently ignores.
Matthew 10:17-23 / Daniel 7:10-25 and Matthew 16:27-28
How would the disciples have understood Jesus’ teaching in Mt. 16:27-28 concerning His “coming” based upon their understanding of the OT and Jesus’ teaching on this subject in previous occasions? Many commentators correctly see Jesus’ reference to Him as the “Son of Man” “coming” and the “end” as referring to Dan. 7:13 and the “end” being (Dan. 9:26; Dan. 12:4). Indeed, in both Daniel 7 and Matthew 10 the contexts are harmonious in that there would be intense persecution before the saints would inherit the kingdom at Christ’s coming in judgment upon the clouds in the days of the fourth kingdom (Rome) and in the lifetime of the disciples in AD 70. The disciples would not have run out of cities of refuge as they fled from their persecutors before the Son of Man came upon the clouds in judgment in fulfillment of the persecutions and coming of the Son of Man prophesied in Dan. 7:13-25. And as in Dan. 7:13-25 the Messiah ruling in His kingdom and the saints inheriting the kingdom at this time is also present in the context of Mt. 10. The kingdom was “at hand” and involved a “day of judgment” (Mt. 10:7, 15).
Dan. 7:10-25 is also the OT prophecy behind the coming of the Son of Man in judgment to reward men along with the kingdom being manifested here in Mt. 16:27-28. Many Partial Preterists correctly connect the “coming of the Son of Man” in judgment in Mt. 10:22-23 and Mt. 16:27-28 as one and the same AD 70 coming of Christ event as do Full Preterists. There are good reasons Gentry skipped over Mt. 10:7-23 and Dan. 7 as the background and source for His teaching here in Mt. 16:27-28!
Matthew 3:7-12 / Isaiah 40:3-10 / Malachi 3-4 and Matthew 16:27-28
Gentry believes John’s eschatology in Mt. 3:3-12 is referring to Christ coming in AD 70. Like Jesus in Mt. 10:7 John begins his eschatology in this chapter with “the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (v. 2). The kingdom would be manifested in an “about to” come “wrath” (v. 7 Greek mello), that was so imminent God’s ax was already laid at the root of the trees (v. 10), and his winnowing fork [of the last phase of harvest] was in His hand ready to separate and reward the righteous by gathering them into the barn/kingdom (v. 12).
John was to “prepare the way” of salvation and judgment found in Isaiah 40:3-10 which would be when Messiah would come to “reward” and perform “recompense” (Isa. 40:10). Jesus is likewise drawing upon and fulfilling Isa. 40:10 in Mt. 16:27.
Another issue here is that if John’s eschatology was fulfilled in AD 70, then we must examine the other way of judgment John came to prepare the way of and that is in (Mal. 3—4:2-5) which would result in Christ coming like the “Sun of Righteousness with healing in His wings.” Gentry would affirm this coming of Christ was fulfilled in AD 70 but has recanted that Christ coming in Mt. 24:27 was fulfilled in AD 70. But when we follow a correct translation of Mt. 24:27, we can see this is the SAME AD 70 coming of Christ as the sunshine shinning from the east to the west in His generation,
“For as the sunshine comes out from the east and is seen even in the west, thus will be the coming of the Son of Man” (Mt. 24:27 Aramaic English New Testament)
Contextually, there is a contrast being made between the false prophets and Messiah’s hiding in a dark secretive “inner room” of the temple in the previous verse, with Christ being revealed openly and dramatically as the sun and daylight itself is. The events of AD 67 – AD 70 made it as clear as DAY who the true Messiah was/is!
Matthew 13:39-43 / Daniel 12:1-7 and Matthew 16:27-28
Orthodox Partial Preterists such as Joel McDurmon and Peter Leithart teach that the “end of the age” and harvest judgment found in the parable of the wheat and the tares was fulfilled in Jesus’ contemporary generation at the end of the old covenant age in AD 70.[4] Of course Jesus is citing the resurrection and judgment of the dead found in Dan. 12:2-4 to be this event. And ironically Gentry concedes the resurrection of Dan. 12:2 was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70 and has nothing to do with a physical resurrection. This is what he wrote me on Facebook concerning Dan. 12:2,
“Dan. 12 is NOT dealing with bodily resurrection but national resurrection (as does Ezek. 37). Dan. 12 sees “resurrection” of Israel in the birth of the Christian Church, which is the New Israel. Thus, it bears similarities with Ezek. 37 and the resurrection of the dry bones of Israel.”[5]
“Orthodox preterist” James Jordan agrees with Gentry on Dan. 12:2 and goes further saying this is when Daniel himself was raised from Hades / Abrahams bosom to inherit eternal life in God’s presence at the AD 70 parousia of Christ.[6] One could [and many have] easily conclude from these “orthodox preterists” such as McDurmon, Leithart, Jordan, and Gentry, that the non-physical resurrection of Daniel 12 was fulfilled at the end of the old covenant age in AD 70. To concede as an “orthodox preterist” system that the resurrection of Dan. 12:2-3 as fulfilled at the end of the old covenant age in AD 70 is no small admission since it is the resurrection of John 5-6; 1 Cor. 15; Acts 24:15YLT; and the end of the millennium judgment and resurrection of the dead in Rev. 20:5-13!
Remember, Dan. 12:1-2 is the “appointed time” of “the end” when the “books would be opened” and thus the dead raised and judged during the “3.5 years” Tribulation “when the power of the holy people would be completely shattered” (Dan. 12:1-7LXX). Along with Dan. 7:10-25 and Isa. 40:10 being the prophetic backbone of Mt. 16:27-28 we can add Dan. 12:1-7 which Gentry concedes was fulfilled by AD 70. Notice the “not yet” eschaton of Dan. 12:1-4LXX prophesies ONE “appointed time” to ONE “end” – not one in AD 70 that will be a “type” of another “appointed time” and “end” at the end of alleged “world history.” Gentry’s hyper-creedalism causes him to read things into the text that are not there, thus “adding” to the Word of God and seeking to make null and void Jesus’ teaching due to his “traditions.”
An Exegesis of Matthew 16:27-28
Christ was “about to come” (v. 27YLT)
Jesus uses the Greek word mello which Gentry used to see as primarily being translated as “about to be” and referring to AD 70. Gentry once had high praises of the Youngs Literal Translation when it came to translating mello as “about to be” in (Rev. 1:19YLT). He correctly argued that,
“When used with the aorist infinitive—as in Revelation 1:19, mello’s predominant usage and preferred meaning is: ‘be on the point of, be about to.’ The same is true when the word is used with the present infinitive, as in Rev. 3:10. The basic meaning in both Thayer and Abbott-Smith is: ‘to be about to.”[7]
Gentry was correct. The problem, however, is that when the word mello refers to the resurrection and judgment of the living and dead in Acts 17:31YLT; 24:15YLT and 24:25YLT, it is also used with the infinitive. Gentry noticed takingmello in Revelation and elsewhere as referring to AD 70 would lead him out of “orthodox preterism” since the end of the millennium is what was in John’s “about to be” future according to (Rev. 1:19YLT). This and other passages connected the resurrection with an AD 70 “about to be” or “at hand” time frame (cf. Acts 24:15YLT; Rms. 8:18-23YLT; 2 Tim. 4:1YLT; 1 Pet. 4:5-7, 17) and that was just too many passages to surrender to AD 70 while trying to convince and keep those “orthodox” publishing contracts that his views weren’t really leading others into “hyper-preterism.”
The YLT, DARBY, WUESTNT, and WEY translations correctly translate Jesus’ return here as “about to come” or “soon to come.” These translations are accurate since this is the consistent usage of the Greek word mello in Matthew’s gospel, let alone its predominated usage in the rest of the New Testament. Let’s briefly see how mello is used in Mathew’s gospel:
A). In Mt. 2:13 WEY, Herod is “about to” seek to kill Jesus, and therefore Joseph and Mary need to “escape.” Mello here is communicating a near imminent danger, not just a certain or general danger to be aware of.
B). As pointed out earlier, in Mt. 3:7 GNT, John was preaching to the Pharisees concerning a “wrath about to come.” The GNT of mello here as “about to” is supported by the immediate context in that John was preaching a kingdom that was “at hand” (Mt. 3:2), in which both the wrath and kingdom would be manifested imminently because God already had His ax at the root of the trees (Mt. 3:10) and His harvesting winnowing fork was already in His hand (Mt. 3:12). This “winnowing fork” was the tool used at the end of the harvest period to separate the wheat from the chaff. Jesus likewise teaches that the “end of the [Old Covenant] age” resurrection harvest gathering would be fulfilled in His contemporary generation (cf. Mt. 13:39-43/Mt. 24:3, 31-34).
C). In Mt. 17:10-13, mello is used twice. The first occurrence refers to the Jews expecting Elijah “about to” come to prepare the way for Messiah. In other words, Elijah was the one the entire nation understood to be “about to come” in their day, and the text tells us that he had already come in the person of John the Baptist. The second occurrence of melloin this passage is not referring to the general fact that Jesus was going to suffer, but that He was “about to” suffer and be mistreated as John the Baptist was.
D). In Mt. 24:6 WEY, “before long” the disciples would begin hearing of a general sign of “wars and rumors of wars,” but Jesus said the “end” (of the old covenant age) was not yet. Jesus gave general signs that they would begin hearing about in their near future, while the two specific ones (the Great Commission – Mt. 24:14) and the “armies surrounding Jerusalem” (Lk. 21:20) would mark that Christ’s Second Coming was indeed “near.”
To conclude this point, Christ’s “about to” coming (Mt. 16:27) is consistent with Christ’s coming in the lifetime of “some” of the crowd listening to him in the next verse – 28! After thousands of years of the world and Israel awaiting the Seed of the woman, or the coming of the Messiah and His kingdom, the span of some of the crowd’s lifetime was a short time for them to wait and thus it was “about to” be fulfilled.
“Verily I say unto you” (v. 28)
Every time this phrase is used by Jesus it is connecting what was said before with what will follow and is emphasizing a point. So, in v. 27 Jesus was “about to come” in the Father’s glory to judge and the obvious question would be – “how long”? And so with emphasis, Jesus says it’s so soon that some of you standing in this crown will not die before you witness it.
The coming of Christ & the kingdom (vss. 27-28)
Matthew 24-25 and Matthew 16:27-28
Jesus in the Olivet Discourse (Mt. 24-25 / Lk. 21) will connect His coming and arrival of the kingdom and His reign within the first century generation. And we should point out that Gentry’s division theory of Matthew 24-25 is completely artificial and has been debunked by other “orthodox preterists” two being Gentry’s co-authors in WSTTB? — Doug Wilson and Keith Mathison. Doug correctly teaches the “end of the age” (Mt. 24:3) is the end of the old covenant age and not the end of world history as Gentry argues. Doug does not agree with Gentry in his division theory or that Mt. 24:27 is the final second coming. All of these coming of the Son of Man passages are referring to AD 70 up to Mt. 25:31. But once we get to Mt. 25:31 then we have “orthodox preterist” Keith Mathison conceding this coming is as well referring to AD 70.[8]
The plot thickens even more for the “orthodox preterist” in that James Jordan correctly identifies the “gathering of the elect” of (Mt. 24:30-31) to be when the righteous OT dead and NT martyrs (the dead) were raised out of Hades / Abrahams bosom to inherit eternal life and God’s presence at the AD 70 parousia of Christ event which is now consistent with his interpretation of the resurrection of Daniel himself to be in AD 70 according to Dan. 12:2-3, 13.[9] Unfortunately, Mr. Jordan did not develop the “end of the age” and “gathering” of (Mt. 13:39-43) as the same “end of the age” and “gathering” of (Mt. 24:3, 30-31) to be one and the same resurrection at the end of the old covenant age. Nor did he point out the OT passage Jesus is referring to which the Jews understood to be the end of the age “harvest” “gathering” resurrection event of (Isa. 27:9-13) which inseparably connects the resurrection event to the fall of Jerusalem (the judgment upon the “fortified city”) as does Jesus in Mt. 24:3-34 and as Daniel does in Dan. 12:1-7.
Another important exegetical issue to point out here is that Mark and Luke only record ONE coming of the Son of Man to be fulfilled in AD 70. Did they not get Gentry’s memo that Jesus was teaching two – one being fulfilled in AD 70 that was a “type” of another one at the end of world history? No, Matthew appealing to a Jewish audience uses recapitulation and more parables than in Mark and Luke’s accounts. Gentry’s appeals to place the coming of the Son of Man in Mt. 24:27 as the end of world history is pure desperation along with his artificial division theory of the Olivet Discourse. Again, “orthodox preterists” such as Keith Mathison and Gary DeMar have put that theory to rest.
One can readily see how the coming of the Son of Man in both Mt. 10:17-23 and Mt. 16:27-28 form Jesus’ fuller teaching of His AD 70 coming in Mt. 24–25:
|
Matthew 10:17-23/16:27-28 & Parallels |
Matthew 24/Mark 13/Luke 21 |
| 1. Delivered up to local councils and synagogues (Mt. 10:17) | 1. Delivered up to local councils and synagogues (Mrk. 13:9) |
| 2. Brought before governors and kings to be witnesses to the Gentiles (Mt. 10:18) | 2. Brought before governors and kings to be witnesses to the Gentiles (Mrk. 13:9) |
| 3. Holy Spirit would speak through them (Mt. 10:19-20) | 3. Holy Spirit would speak through them (Mrk. 13:11) |
| 4. Family members would betray and kill each other, all men would hate disciples, but he that would stand firm to “the end” would be “saved” (Mt. 10:22) | 4. Family members would betray and kill each other, all men would hate disciples, but he that would stand firm to “the end” would be “saved” (Mrk. 13:12-13) |
| 5. The disciples would not have run out of cities of refuge to flee to as they were being persecuted preaching the gospel to the cities of Israel before the Son of Man would come. (Mt. 10:23) | 5. The disciples (and later Paul) were to preach the gospel to the then known “world” and “nations”at that time before “the end” (of the OC age) and coming of the Son of Man would take place. (Mt. 24:14/Mrk. 13:10) |
| 6. Christ comes in glory (Lk. 9:26) | 6. Christ comes in glory (Mt. 24:30) |
| 7. Christ comes with angels (Mt. 16:27) | 7. Christ comes with angels (Mt. 24:31) |
| 8. Christ comes in judgment (Mt. 16:27) | 8. Christ comes in judgment (Mt. 24:28-31;25:31-34) |
| 9. Christ and the kingdom come in power (Mrk. 8:38) | 9. Christ and the kingdom come in power (Lk. 21:27-32) |
| 10. Some in the crowd would live (Mt. 16:28) | 10. Some in the crowd would live. (Lk. 21:16-18) |
| 11. Some in the crowd would die (Mt. 16:28) | 11. Some in the crowd would die. (Lk. 21:16) |
| 12. Christ was “about to come” and would be ashamed of some in His contemporary “this generation” (Mt. 16:27YLT/Mrk. 8:38) | 12. All of this would occur and be “near” and “at the door” in His contemporary “this generation” (Mt. 24:33-34/Lk. 21:27-32) |
Then we can see how Jesus’ teaching in the Olivet Discourse forms Paul’s eschatology:
|
If A (Matthew 24) is = B (1 Thessalonians 4-5) |
||||
| Christ returns from heaven | 24:30 | 4:16 | ||
| With voice of Arch Angel | 24:31 | 4:16 | ||
| With trumpet of God | 24:31 | 4:16 | ||
| Caught/gathered together with/to Christ | 24:31 | 4:17 | ||
| “Meet” the Lord in the clouds | 24:30 & 25:6 | 4:17 | ||
| Exact time unknown | 24:36 | 5:1-2 | ||
| Christ comes as a thief | 24:43 | 5:2 | ||
| Unbelievers caught off guard | 24:37-39 | 5:3 | ||
| Time of birth pangs | 24:8 | 5:3 | ||
| Believers not deceived | 24:43 | 5:4-5 | ||
| Believers to be watchful | 24:42 | 5:6 | ||
| Exhorted to sobriety | 24:49 | 5:7 | ||
| Son/sunlight shinning from e. to w. / Sons of the Day | 24:27, 36, & 38 | 5:4-8 | ||
|
And if B (1 Thessalonians 4) is = to C (1 Corinthians 15) |
||||
| The sleeping to be raised | 4:13-14 | 15:12-18 | ||
| The living to be caught/changed | 4:15-17 | 15:51-52 | ||
| Christ’s coming (Greek: Parousia) | 4:15 | 15:23 | ||
| At the sound of the trumpet | 4:16 | 15:52 | ||
| Encouraged to stand firm | 4:18 | 15:58 | ||
| Same contemporary “we” | 4:15-17 | 15:51-52 | ||
|
Then A (Matthew 24 & Parallels) is = to C (1 Corinthians 15) |
||||
| Christ to come (Greek: parousia) | 24:27 | 15:23 | ||
| His people to be gathered/changed | 24:31 | 15:52 | ||
| To come with the sound of a trumpet | 24:31 | 15:52 | ||
| To be “the end” (Greek telos, the goal) | 24:3, 14 | 15:24 | ||
| Kingdom consummation (goal reached) | Luke 21:30-32 | 15:24 | ||
| All prophecy fulfilled at this point | Luke 21:22 | 15:54-55 | ||
| Victory over the Mosaic Law/temple | Mt. 24:1 | 15:55-56 | ||
| Same contemporary “you” or “we” | Mt. 24:2ff | 15:51-52 | ||
|
Two or More Things that are Equal to Another Thing are Also Equal to Each Other |
||||
| Mt. 24 | 1 Thess. 4 | 1 Cor. 15 | ||
| At His coming (24:27-31) | At His coming (4:16) | At His coming (15:23) | ||
| At the trumpet (24:31) | At the trumpet (4:16) | At the trumpet (15:52) | ||
| Dead raised, all gathered (24:31) | Dead raised (4:16) | Dead raised (15:35-44) | ||
| All living gathered (24:31) | Living caught together to Him (4:17) | Status of living changed (15:51) | ||
Some “orthodox preterists” such as Phillip Kayser or Mike Bull follow the lead of “orthodox preterist” Milton Terry (that Gentry profits off) and see the coming or parousia of 1 Thess. 4:15-16 and 1 Cor. 15:23 as also fulfilled in AD 70. And since “orthodox preterists” such as James Jordan correctly now see the coming of Christ and the “gathering of the elect” in (Mt. 24:30-31) as the resurrection of the dead, why wouldn’t this be the SAME coming of Christ and resurrection of the dead described in 1 Thess. 4-5 and 1 Cor. 15?!? Note the parallels in the above chart. Aren’t these crucial texts also the fulfillment to the resurrection of Dan. 12:2-3 that “orthodox preterists” Gentry and Jordan teach were fulfilled spiritually in AD 70 (see chart below)?!?
|
If A (Mt. 24/Lk. 21) is = to B (Daniel 12:1-7, 13) |
|||
| Tribulation as never before 24:21-22 | Tribulation as never before 12:1 | ||
| Evangelism 24:14 | Leading others to righteousness 12:3 | ||
| End of the [OC] age 24:3, 14 | Time of the end 12:4 | ||
| Resurrection & inheritance of the kingdom 24:31; 13:43; Lk. 21:31-32 | Resurrection & or inheritance of the kingdom 12:2-3, 13/Mt. 13:43 | ||
| Jerusalem surrounded, trodden down/times of the Gentiles (AD 67 – AD 70) Lk. 21:20, 24 | Consummation – 3 ½ years when power of the holy people is shattered 12:7 | ||
|
And if B (Daniel 12:1-7, 13) is = to C (1 Cor. 15) |
|||
| Resurrection unto eternal life 12:2 | Resurrection unto incorruptibility or immortality 15:52-53 | ||
| time of the end 12:4 | time of the end 15:24 | ||
| When the power [the Mosaic OC Law] of the holy people is completely shattered 12:7 | Victory over “the [Mosaic OC] Law” 15:26 | ||
| At the “end” of the OC age, OT dead would be raised at the same time the NT righteous living would shine in the kingdom 12:2-3, 13 | If the dead of the OT are not raised, neither would those who died in Christ be raised & living unforgiven 15:15-18 | ||
|
Then A (Mt. 24/Lk. 21) is = to C (1 Cor. 15) |
|||
| Christ to come (Greek: parousia) at sound of a trumpet 24:27-31 | Christ to come (Greek: parousia) at sound of a trumpet 15:23, 52 | ||
| “The end” (Greek telos, the goal) 24:3, 14 | “The end” (Greek telos, the goal) 15:24 | ||
| Kingdom (goal reached) Lk. 21:31-32 | Kingdom consummation (goal reached) 15:24 | ||
| All prophecy fulfilled at this point Lk. 21:22 | All prophecy fulfilled at this point 15:54-55 | ||
| Victory over the Mosaic Law/temple 24:1 | Victory over the Mosaic Law 15:55-56 | ||
| Same contemporary “you” or “we” 24:2ff. | Same contemporary “you” or “we” 15:51-52 | ||
| “All” of the elect (even the dead) gathered (or raised) in the kingdom 24:31; Lk. 21:28-32 | “The [OT] dead” raised with the dead “in Christ” 15:15-18 | ||
|
Two or more things that are equal to another thing are also equal to each other |
|||
| Matthew 24/Luke 21 | Daniel 12:1-7, 13 | 1 Corinthians 15 | |
| Gather/raise “all” (dead & living) the elect at “end” of OC age 24:3, 31 | OT dead raised with NT saints at the end of OC age 12:2-4, 13/Mt. 13:43 | OT dead raised with NT dead & living at “the end” of the OC age 15:15-18, 24, 51 | |
| All OT prophecy fulfilled when Jeru-salem surrounded & times of Gentiles (3 ½ yrs.) fulfilled Lk. 21:22-24 – AD 67 – AD 70 | Judgment and resurrection of the dead fulfilled at the end of the OC age, in a 3 ½ year period when Israel’s power shattered | Resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3, 13; Hosea 13:14 and Isaiah 25:8 fulfilled at the end of OC age & in the lifetime of Paul’s 1st cent. audience 15:51, 54-55 | |
“Orthodox preterists” teach the resurrection of Dan. 12 was a progressive, covenantal, corporate bodily resurrection, that resulted in the dead ones (OT and NT saints) being raised out of Hades in AD 70. Yet others argue the resurrection of Dan. 12 is purely future and is the resurrection of 1 Cor. 15. Yet I have “bridged the gap” in this “orthodox preterist” debate by showing that 1 Cor. 15 was ALSO a progressive, covenantal, corporate bodily resurrection, that resulted in the dead ones (OT and NT saints) being raised out of Hades in AD 70.[10]
Rev. 22:10-12 / Dan. 7:10-13 / Dan. 12:1-2 and Mt. 16:27
John tells us that the “appointed time” (Greek kairos) was “near” (Rev. 1:3) to the prophecy of Dan. 12:1-4LXX [Greek kairos] in that John, unlike Daniel, was told to NOT seal up the vision because its fulfillment was “near” (cf. Dan. 12:9, 13 / Rev. 22:10). So, the “prophecy” of the resurrection of Dan. 12 that was far off from Daniel was now “near” for John and the first century church. This included Christ coming “soon” at the beginning of Revelation (chapters 2-3) to “reward” (remember Mt. 16:27!) the Churches with the “Tree of Life” and New Creation found in Rev. 20–22:7-12. Gentry being an “orthodox preterist,” concedes the New Creation is the new covenant new heavens and earth that we are currently in and that others are coming into the New Jerusalem where there is “no more the death” (Rev. 21:4). He also concedes the Church was married to Christ in AD 70 when God divorced his old covenant wife. This means we are on Mount Zion where “death has been swallowed up” (Isa. 25:6-9). The “rewarding of each person according to what they have done” at Christ’s “soon” coming in (Rev. 22:7-12) is parallel to Christ’s “about to be” coming “to reward each person for what they have done” in the lifetime of the first century church in AD 70 per (Mt. 16:27-28). This is not difficult to prove on an exegetical level. It is only “difficult” and causes one to be “unsettled” on the text because one wants to be considered a scholar in Futurist “orthodox” hyper-creedal circles and keep his “orthodox” funds coming in–with this becoming more of a priority than exegeting God’s pure Word.
“…in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of man also shall be ashamed of him, when he cometh…” (Mk. 8:38).
This passage is not dealing with Jesus’ listeners sleeping with women other than their wives. It is referring to Israel being known as committing spiritual and covenantal adultery by rejecting the Messiah / Groom standing right in front of them. While Christ does not specifically mention Jerusalem’s divorce and remarriage directly in our text, it is implied in Him being “ashamed” of His contemporary “adulterous generation” at His Second Coming event, which necessitates both of these eschatological motifs., and one of Jesus’ OT sources here, addresses Him coming with His “reward” and the eschatological wedding motif (cf. Isa. 62:4-5, 11).
Under the old covenant, God was married to Israel (cf. Israel Ex. 19-24). This marriage was both pictured as a monogamous marriage (God married to a Mother/Israel) and then, after the splitting of the northern kingdom and the southern kingdoms, a polygamous marriage. The picture then becomes God taking two daughters (or sisters) as His wives: 1) Israel (Aholah / Samaria capital of Israel) and 2) Judah (Aholibah / Jerusalem capital of Judah; cf. Jer. 31:31-32; Ezek. 1:1-4; 1 Kings 11:9-13). These two sisters were notorious for their adultery and playing the prostitute (cf. Ezek. 23:3;Jer. 3).
Although God divorced Israel through the Assyrian captivity, He remained married to His other harlot wife, Judah, from which line Jesus would come. Judah/Jerusalem was judged by the Babylonian captivity but never divorced (Ezek. 23:22-45).
The book of Hosea describes God divorcing Israel through the Assyrian captivity. He divorced her and put her to death by burying her like a seed in the land of the Gentiles. Hosea also predicts Judah’s harvest divorcement / judgment in her last days. But there is hope in that Hosea also predicts a time when God will betroth her in the desert and thus re-marry Israel in those same last days.
Under the old covenant, a wife caught in adultery would be stoned and the wife of a priest would be burned. In Revelation 19 the harlot wife of Old Covenant Jerusalem was both stoned and/or burned!
Therefore, Jesus in Matthew 16:27/Mark 8:38 was describing the judgment of the “adulterous generation/wife” in an “about to be” AD 70 time frame. Concerning the phrase “be ashamed of,” the adulterous old covenant wife would be left without a wedding garment, stripped naked and left ashamed (Rev. 17:6), while His new covenant wife would be clothed in Christ’s righteousness as His New Jerusalem or “house from above” – unashamed and “further clothed” with costly gold, gems, etc… (cf. Mt. 22:1-14; Rev. 3:18; 19:8/2 Cor. 5:1-21; Rev. 21:11ff.).
Again, Gentry conceding that the eschatological divorce to old covenant wife/Jerusalem and the marriage to the new covenant wife/Jerusalem was fulfilled in AD 70 in Rev. 17-21 necessitates the resurrection of Isa. 25:6-9 being fulfilled in AD 70 – when “death would be swallowed up” which is what Paul quotes in (1 Cor. 15:54-55)!
Mrk. 8:38 is nothing more than old covenant Jerusalem being the adulterous/harlot wife of God in Rev. 17-19 [in seed form] that would be judged and divorced at Christ’s “soon” coming in AD 70. She would be “rewarded” with divorcement and judgment. Thus another exegetical connection between Mrk. 8:38–9:1 / Mt. 16:27-28 as the SAME AD 70 coming of Christ to judge and reward!
Perpetual and Uninspired Types / Anti-types
Gentry gets angry when Dispensationalists and Amillennialists try and double-fulfill or give multiple types and anti-types to his AD 70 fulfillments, but when pressed against a wall, he tries the same game with crucial texts like Mt. 16:27-28. Gentry claims (v. 28) is an AD 70 coming of Christ and judgment that is a “type” of (v. 27). I have demonstrated this is exegetically untenable and will quote Gentry’s own words that his approach here is “purse theological assertion” and has “no exegetical warrant.”[11]
While the OT did develop prophetic “types,” the NT inspired authors taught the “appointed time” for that type / anti-type fulfillment in the OT was “near” and would “all” be fulfilled within Jesus’ generation (cf. 1 Cor. 10:11; 1 Pet. 1:4-12/4:5-7, 17; Rev. 1:3; Lk. 21:22-32; Rev. 10:6-7). “Orthodox preterists” event concede the “heaven and earth” of (Mt. 5:17-18) was the old covenant system and thus “all” the “jots and tittles” of the OT Law and Prophets were fulfilled at that time as well which would include Dan. 12:2-3; Hos. 13; and Isa. 24-28. The NT is the fulfillment of the OT and does not come up with NEW and more type / anti-type prophetic material. Good try though Mr. Gentry.
Liberal and Orthodox Preterist Views on Mt. 16:27-28 / Mrk. 8:38–9:1
“…There are certain of those here standing, who shall in nowise taste of death, until they see the kingdom of God, already comein power” (Mrk. 9:1 Rotherham Translation).
In Mark’s parallel account, we learn that some within the crowd Jesus is addressing would live to see His return and His kingdom coming in power. Mark uses the perfect participle while Matthew uses the future tense. In other words, Mark is saying that some of the disciples would live to be able to look back on this event knowing that the coming of the Lord and His kingdom had already come in power. Kenneth Gentry 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 participle here employed.”[12] Thus, His disciples were to expect its exhibition in power. It was not powerfully to evidence itself immediately, for many of His disciples would die before it acted in power. Yet it was to be within the lifetimes of others, for “some” standing there would witness it. This seems clearly to refer to the A.D. 70 destruction of the temple and removal of the Old Testament means of worship (cf. Heb. 12:25-28; Rev.1:1, 3, 9). This occurred as a direct result of Jesus’ prophecies (John 4:21-23; Mt. 21:33ff.; 23:31-34:34).”[12]
Jesus tells the disciples that some of them would live to “see” His coming and that the kingdom would have “already come” in power to bear witness of His return. The Greek word here for “see” is eido. Strong’s Concordance defines eidoas to “know how” and “perceive” as well as physical sight.
Through observing with the physical senses Christ coming through the power of the Romans to desolate the outer shell of the old covenant kingdom, temple and city in AD 70, “some” of Jesus’ contemporary audience would be able to “perceive” and “know how” Christ’s spiritual kingdom had “already come” “within” them (cf. Mrk. 8:38-9:1; Lk.17:20-37; Col.1:27; Jn. 14:2-3, 23). By connecting Mark 8:38–9:1 with Luke 17:20-37, Christians today can also experientially know and can see from reading our Lord’s words (the testimony of the Scriptures) that Christ’s Second Coming and His kingdom have “already come” and that His kingdom has been established “within” us.
Just as a sidenote, this text is one of many that refutes a literal, so-called “rapture” off the earth for the living and remaining at Christ’s return! The fact that they would remain on the earth and “know” that He had “already come” coincides with what the prophet Isaiah says, when we learn there are “survivors” of the “Day of the Lord” who continue preaching the gospel to “sinners” in the new creation (cf. Isa. 65-66).
I think Gary DeMar pretty much buried Gentry’s point that mainly it is just “hyper-preterits” and “liberals” that take the “coming” of Christ in both Mt. 16:27-28 as the same coming. But we should look at how this actually panned out in a real debate between a “liberal” and an “orthodox preterist.”
In a debate between Doug Wilson and Christopher Hitchens, Mt. 16:27-28 was brought up as an example of a failed prophecy and why Christianity is nothing more than a failed man-made religion like all the rest. Doug did not exegete this text, but deflected to the “coming” of Christ in Mt. 24 to prove this was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70. I asked Doug what his position is on Mt. 16:27 and he communicated that he is “not settled” on it but is “inclined” to take is as fulfilled in AD 70 and thus harmonizing well with v. 28.
I think Doug missed a great opportunity to exegete the text like other “orthodox preterists” have such as Lightfoot, DeMar, etc… Once that exegesis was done, THEN he should have connected it to Matthew 24. But that wouldn’t have worked out well for Doug since the “rewarding every man according to what he has done” concept of (Mt. 16:27) is not just found in the parable of the talents of Mt. 25:14-30, but is primarily found in a section that Doug takes as the alleged end of world history (Mt. 25:31-46).
Before leaving this subject, it is important to point out that the critical liberal argument as proposed by men like Bart Ehrman, is not just limited to Mt. 16:27-28 or some small section of Mt. 24, but ALL of Mt. 24–25 and that Paul was simply following Jesus’ teaching in those texts and thus likewise taught some of his contemporaries would live to witness the parousia and resurrection of the dead event in the first century appealing to 1 Thess. 4-5; 2 Thess. 1-2; and 1 Cor. 15. Gentry’s or Wilson’s form of “orthodox preterism” on the key texts such as Mt. 16:27-28 / Mt. 24–25 and how these are developed by Paul in 1 Thess. 4-5; 2 Thess. 1-2; and 1 Cor. 15 is not an adequate defense of the faith. However, Full Preterism does answer them exegetically and consistently.
Unfortunately, both the “liberal” and “orthodox preterist” share the same faulty premise–Jesus and the NT authors teach a biological resurrection event to take place at the “end” of “world history.” The liberal correctly sees these texts as also having time statements connected to them and “orthodox preterism” cherry-picks which ones they want to be fulfilled in AD 70 or to be a “type” of something else. A consistent reading and interpretation of the imminent time texts along with the analogy of faith principle of interpretation, makes “orthodox preterism” (hyper-creedalism) and inadequate apologetic or polemic against the liberal skeptic attacks upon the Word of God and Christianity in general. But as this article has demonstrated – “orthodox preterism” has formed Full Preterism which is a much more “orthodox” (meaning “straight” or “consistent”) position that does refute liberal theologians such as Ehrman and that is why he will not debate me.
Gentry is fond of showing how the Greek is different in Mark’s account – Mrk. 9:1 from Mt. 16:28. Mark emphasizes that some in the crowd would be able to look back upon His coming and the arrival of the Kingdom in AD 70 and know that it had “already come.” But what if Gentry’s “orthodox preterism” is correct that Mt. 16:27 and Mrk. 8:38 is indeed the Second Coming event, AND what if Lightfoot, DeMar, Mathison, and possibly Wilson’s “orthodox preterist” view is correct that those passages are referring to Christ’s spiritual coming in AD 70? It clearly means that Jesus was teaching His Second Coming would take place in AD 70 and the Church would be able to look back upon this event in the first century and in future generations and know that He and the Kingdom had “already come” in that historic event. Clearly Jesus was not teaching an “end to world history.”
when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste of death until they see the kingdom of God” (Lk. 9:26-27)
I should add one last point before I close out this article. Gentry tries to make a distinction between Mt. 16:27-28 because in v. 27 Christ comes in the Father’s glory while in v. 28 He comes in His kingdom reign,
“in v. 27 the Lord is said to come “in the glory of His Father with his angels.” But in v. 28 we read that he is “coming in His kingdom.” Thus, v. 27 speaks of His Father’s glory whereas v. 28 speaks of Christ’s royal authority. So the first verse emphasizes the Son’s coming in the Father’s glory, while the second emphasizes the Son’s coming in his own kingdom authority.” (ibid.)
I have already pointed out that in Lk. 21 Christ and His kingdom reign come in the AD 70 “this generation” period. But notice in the parallel in Lk. 9:26 Christ comes BOTH in “his glory and the glory of the Father.” Not only this but for Christ to come in judgment is for Him to come in His glory and power which manifest Christ’s kingdom reign. Notice other texts that connect these concepts to AD 70:
“I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is about to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom/reign…” (2 Tim. 4:1YLT)
“So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is about to be revealed” (1 Pet. 5:1YL).
“For I consider that the sufferings of this present time [or appointed time] are not worth comparing with the glory that is about to be revealed in us.” (Rms. 8:18YLT)
In Revelation 11:1-18 and chapters 18-19:6 when Christ judged old covenant Jerusalem the “Great City” is when the “dead were judged” or “rewarded” and therefore the kingdom is inherited by the saints and is when “God reigns.” This once again connects Mt. 16:27 with v. 28 as ONE event and coming of Christ to “reward” “every person” [even the dead] and thus manifest His kingdom reign.
Again, this is not difficult – when Christ would come in His glory and that of His Father’s in power to judge Jerusalem in AD 70–would be an exhibition of His kingdom reign that the saints would inherit and the glory that would come with it. Gentry is grasping at straws as usual.
Conclusion
The analogy of faith and the OT sources Jesus is drawing on for fulfillment in Mt. 16:27-28 destroys Gentry’s “orthodox preterism” and exposes it for the compromised scam it is. Gentry is not the Pope of “orthodox preterism” and one of his “good friends” Sam Frost will remind him that like Doug Wilson’s commentary on Revelation is a “gateway drug to full preterism,” so is Gentry’s writings and his new commentary on Revelation. When will Gentry debate Sam and prove he isn’t teaching “hyper-partial preterism” (Sam’s term) and that his position is “not inconsistent” as Sam charges? Time will tell. Until then Sam and Gentry (the “good friends that they are) are stuck with their “inconsistent orthodoxy” debating each other on what is REAL “orthodox preterism” and what is not.
I wait for the REAL “orthodox preterist” to stand up and debate us! Wilson has backed out of two public interactions with me. Mathison promised me he would respond to my chapter in HD that was a response to his chapter in WSTTB? but of course he lied and never did. And Gentry remains in hiding ducking debate challenges from myself and Don Preston. Don and I are willing to have a partner debate with any combination of these “orthodox preterists” such as Keith Mathison, Doug Wilson, Kenneth Gentry, Jeff Durbin, and James White. But of course they don’t respond to our challenges which tells you everything you need to know and that solidifies the power, logic, and exegesis in this article.
[1] Kenneth Gentry, Matt. 16:27-28: AD 70 and the Final Judgment: https://postmillennialworldview.com/2018/07/31/matthew-1627-28-ad-70-and-final-judgment-1/
[2] Gary DeMar, How Commentators Interpret Matthew16:27 https://americanvision.org/posts/how-commentators-interpret-matthew-16-27/?fbclid=IwY2xjawEWUWdleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHfy7eL-ioS_c-VtPJ-hBZEKCECb9t8OV_k4wVY2S-s3cbqKrbttycQM9kg_aem_D9hGO8_vbMh0Uv-mxr7JUw
[3] Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism An Eschatology of Hope, (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1999, pp. 227-228)
[4] Joel McDurmon, Jesus v. Jerusalem: A Commentary on Luke 9:51—20:26, Jesus’ Lawsuit Against Israel (Powder Springs, GA: The American Vision, Inc. 2011); pp. 43-51; Peter Leithart, The Promise of His Appearing: An Exposition of Second Peter (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2004), p. 95
[5] See also Kenneth Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion A Postmillennial Eschatology (Draper, VA: Apologetics Group Media, 2009), pp. 538-539
[6] James B. Jordan, The Handwriting on the Wall A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, (Poweder Springs, GA: 2007), pp. 618-628
[7] Kenneth Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (Tyler, TX: Institute for Biblical Economics, 1989), 141-142, MJS
[8] Keith A. Mathison, From Age to Age: The Unfolding of Eschatology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2009), p. 380
[9] James B. Jordan, MATTHEW 23—25 A LITERARY, HISTORICAL, AND THEOLOGICAL COMMENTARY, (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2022), pp. 180-181
[10] Michael J. Sullivan, Armageddon Deception The Eschatology of Islam and Zionism A Biblical Response (Ramona, CA: 2023), pp. 280-316
[11] Kenneth Gentry, Four Views on the Book of Revelation, ed. C. Marvin Pate, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), pp. 43-44
[12] Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., HE SHALL HAVE DOMINION A POSTMILLENNIAL ESCHATOLOGY, (Draper, VA: Apologetics Group Media, third edition 2009), 219-220, emphasis MJS