IS JESUS STILL IN A PHYSICAL BODY POST AD 30? IF JESUS DIDN'T COME BACK LITERALLY AND THERE WAS NO LITERAL RESURRECTION IN AD 70 DOES THAT MEAN FULL PRETERISM IS FALSE? CAN SOULS BE RAISED? ARE DEAD CHRISTIANS "SUB-HUMAN" WITHOUT THEIR PHYSICAL BODIES? IF SO WAS JESUS "SUB-HUMAN" FOR THREE DAYS AND NIGHTS?

By:  Michael J. Sullivan & David A. Green
In the second edition of our book, “House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology…” we thoroughly responded to Futurist critics that have attempted to refute Full Preterism with such objections as these:

  • Jesus’s Second Coming couldn’t have occurred in AD 70, because He didn’t literally or bodily return at that time.
  • Souls cannot be raised or resurrected according to Scripture.
  • Since Jesus was raised in a literal body (which Full Preterists agree) and will forever have a physical body (which Full Preterists do not agree – being a Futurist assumption), this disproves that the resurrection of the dead took place in AD 70 as well.

This has created bizarre futurist doctrines, contradictions among their theologians and disturbing Christological implications for Futurism such as:

  • People when they die are “sub-humans” or not fully human until they are raised into a physical body at the end of time.  Which would have to infer and teach that Jesus Himself was “sub-human” or not “fully human” for three days.
  • Death is some kind of an illusion or it only “appears” that the body and soul are separated at death – which Docetism not Christianity.

As David Green writes,
“It comes down to this:  If we are going to argue that a man is nonhuman in the sight of God without his physicality, then we either have to say that Christ was non-human for three days and nights (because He was without His body), or we have to say that the separation of His body and  spirit on the Cross was in “appearance” only (Docetism).  Since neither  of these views can be accepted, it follows that the endurance of man’s humanity before God is not contingent on his physicality.” (HD, 244).
We deal with these objections and discuss these issues on the following pages:  102-109 (dealing with Acts 1:9-11), 153-154 (dealing with Revelation 1:6-13), 188-193 (dealing with the objection that souls allegedly can’t be raised), 242-245 (dealing with 1 John 4:3 and the alleged “illusion of death” Docetism doctrine).  I will simply quote excerpts from our book chronologically in page order.
In Like Manner Acts 1:9-11 (HD, pp. 102-109)
By Michael J. Sullivan
Like Manner 
Mathison argues: Jesus ascended visibly and bodily. Then He vanished from sight in a cloud (Acts 1:9). Acts 1:11 says that He will return in the same manner that He departed. This has not happened yet (184–188, 204). Therefore, Acts 1:11 is not yet fulfilled.
Response: 
After speaking to His apostles about the kingdom over a period of forty days, Jesus told them to stay in Jerusalem and to wait for the fulfillment of the Father’s promise of the Holy Spirit, which Jesus said would take place “not many days from now.” This prompted the disciples to ask Him in verse six about the timing of the kingdom’s arrival. “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” Jesus did not give them a day or hour, but He reminded them in verse eight of the sign of the Great Commission which had to be accomplished before He would restore the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:8; Matt. 24:3, 14). Mathison, ignoring the immediate context, states:
The first thing that must be observed when we examine this account is that no reference to time is connected with the prediction of the return of Christ. (185)
However, in another book Mathison #2 admits:
The time frame is hinted at in the preceding context. The disciples are given a commission to be Christ’s witnesses “in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth” (Acts 1:8). The implication is that Christ’s visible return will follow the completion of the mission to the remotest part of the earth.”[1] According to Mathison in the above quote, when the Great Commission in verse 8 is fulfilled, then the Second Coming of verse 11 will occur. Mathison’s contention that there are two Great Commissions given in the New Testament—one fulfilled before AD 70 and another that will be fulfilled before the allegedly yet-future Second (Third) Coming—is altogether arbitrary. It is a position he is forced to take because of his flawed, partial preterist framework—like his doctrines of two “last days” in the New Testament, and of two future “comings” of Christ in the New Testament, and of his divided sections separated by 2000+ years in Matthew 24 and in Matthew 16:27–28 and in other Scriptures.
Mathison breaks again from the majority of Reformed, Evangelical, and preterist theologians, who see one Great Commission in the Gospels and in the book of Acts, instead of two. Mathison’s dichotomizing approach to the Great Commission does not merit a serious rebuttal and can be rejected out of hand.
Since the Second Coming is fulfilled after the Great Commission, and since there is only one Great Commission, and since the Great Commission was fulfilled in Christ’s generation, it follows that the Second Coming was fulfilled in those days as well. The gospel was preached to the world; “then” the end came (Matt. 24:14). The following chart proves that the Great Commission was fulfilled in the first century.

Prophecy

Fulfillment

“And this gospel of the kingdom   shall bepreached in all the world [Greek   ikumene] for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.” (Matt.   24:14) “But I say, have they not heard?   Yes indeed:‘Their sound has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the   ends of the world.’” [Greek   oikumene] (Rom. 10:18)
“And the gospel must first be   published among all nations.” [Greek ethnos] “And Jesus came and spoke to them,   saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go   therefore and make disciples of all the nations.’” [Greek ethnos] “‘.   . . I have commanded you;and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the   age.’ Amen.” (Mark 13:10; Matt. 28:19-20) “…My gospel… has been made   manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures has been made known to all nations.   . . .” [Greek ethnos] (Rom.16:25-26)
“And He said to them, ‘Go into all   the world  [Greek   kosmos] and preach the gospel to every creature” “. . . And these signs   shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils;they   shall speak with new tongues.” [Greek glossa] (Mark 16:15, 17) “…of the gospel, which has come to   you, as ithas also in all the world [Greek   kosmos], as is bringing forth fruit. . . .” (Col. 1:5-6)
“And he said unto them ‘Go into   all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.’” [Greek kitisis] (Mark 16:15) “ . . . from the gospel which you   heard, which was preached to every creature [Greek kitisis] under heaven, of which I, Paul became a   minister.”(Col. 1:23)
“But you shall receive power when   the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in   Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria,and to the end of the earth/land.”   [Greek ge] (Acts 1:8) “But I say, have they not heard?   Yes indeed:‘Their sound has gone out to all the earth/land [Greek ge], and their words to the ends of the world.’”   (Rom. 10:18)
Prophecy had begun to be   fulfilled: “Andthey were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to   speak with other tongues [Greek glossa], as the Spirit gave them   utterance. And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every   nation [Greek ethnos] under heaven. (Acts 2:4-5) Prophecy would be fulfilled   “shortly”: “AndI saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the   everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth/land [Greek   ge], and to every nation [Greek ethnos], and kindred [Greek   phile] and tongue [Greek glossa], and people.” [Greek laos]   (Rev. 1:1; 14:6; cf. 10:6-7)  Satan was bound so that the Great   Commission to the nations would be accomplished during the millennium (Rev.   20:3).

Therefore, I have proven that the in-like-manner Second Coming of Christ was also fulfilled in the first century.
After commanding His disciples to take possession of the kingdom through the Great Commission, Jesus ascended in a cloud, hidden from the disciples’ sight (Acts 1:9). Mathison insists that Jesus’ physical body was seen for some period of time as He ascended into the sky. However, verse nine simply says, “He was lifted up, and a cloud received Him from their eyes.” Jesus was certainly seen just before He was “lifted up” (Acts 1:9). But it is not at all certain that He was directly seen as He ascended into the sky.
In verse 11, the disciples were told that Jesus would come in the manner that they had seen Him enter heaven (the sky). The continuity of Him coming as He had entered heaven is found in the fact that He would come in the heavenly glory-cloud of His Father (Matt. 16:27). Jesus was not physically seen after He was received into the glory-cloud.
It was while He was hidden from sight in that cloud that He was indirectly seen entering the sky. And He was to come in like manner.
Therefore, He would not be physically or directly seen when He came “in like manner,” in the cloud, to indwell His church in the end of the old covenant age (Luke 17:20–37; John 14:2–3, 23).
Mathison errs when he says that Jesus was going to come back in the same way that He “departed.” The Scriptures say that Jesus would come in the same way He had entered the sky. He entered the sky hidden from literal eye sight in the cloud of God’s glory.
Here is the order of events:
1. As they looked, He was taken up (Acts 1:9).
2. A cloud received Him from their eyes (Acts 1:9).
These first two events could very well have happened simultaneously.  As Mathison himself admits, the verse could be translated, “He was lifted up; that is, a cloud received Him out of their sight.”[2]  It is a very real possibility that Jesus was instantly hidden in the cloud at the moment His feet left the earth.
3. Then the disciples saw Him going into the sky. That is, they looked intently into the sky as He was ascending in the cloud (Acts 1:10–11).
In the Old Testament, God was never literally or directly seen coming in His glory when He judged or saved Israel and other nations. Jesus was not literally seen again after He entered the cloud of God’s glory.
He was “taken up in glory” (1 Tim. 3:16) and He would come in glory as the Ancient of Days.
The Lord God had become flesh. John bore testimony to the fact that looking at and touching Jesus was to look at and touch God Himself (John 1:14; 1 John 1:1). God was physically seen in the flesh, but this was temporary for the second person of the Godhead (Heb. 5:7), even as He had been born into and under the old covenant system with its temporal types and shadows (Gal. 4:4; Rom. 5–8; 2 Cor. 3; Heb. 8:13).[3]  Ironically, the point of the question, “Why do you stand here looking into the sky,” was that Jesus was not going to return to His physical form. It was futile for the disciples to long for Jesus to return to the earthly form He had taken when He was born of Mary. In His ascension, Jesus had returned to His pre-incarnate glory. The question of the two men was rhetorical, and it meant, “There is no use in standing here longing for Jesus to return to you and to be as He was in the days of His flesh. He will come, but He will come in the manner you saw Him enter heaven—hidden from physical eyes in the cloud of the Father’s glory.”
We agree with the majority of commentators and cross reference systems which see the in-like-manner coming of Jesus in Acts 1:11 as being parallel with the coming of Jesus on or in the cloud(s) in Matthew 16:27–28, 24:30–31, 26:64–68; Luke 21:27, and Revelation 1:7. Mathison and Gentry, however, wrench Acts 1:11 from those Scriptures.
They admit that Christ was figuratively “seen” (perceived, understood) at a figurative “coming” in/on the clouds in AD 70, but they deny that this was the fulfillment of Acts 1:11.
This brings us to another problem. Mathison writes of Matthew 24:30 in his book Postmillennialism:
. . . [T]he “coming” of the Son of Man is His coming in judgment upon Jerusalem (see vv. 23–28), which is intimately connected with His ascension to the right hand of God (cf. Dan. 7:13–14).[4] Later, in WSTTB, Mathison goes further and identifies the Ascension with the coming of Christ in AD 70:
. . . [W]hen [Jesus] makes reference to “the coming of the Son of Man,” . . . He may have been referring . . . to his ascension . . . and the judgment on Jerusalem. . . . ” (182, emphasis added)
For Mathison, Christ’s “coming” in Daniel 7:13–14 is somehow both a literal, visible “going up” in a literal cloud in about AD 30 and a figurative “coming” to Jerusalem from heaven in figurative clouds in AD 70. The confusion inherent in this position is plain enough.  Mathison says that “the coming of the Son of Man” in Daniel 7:13–14 is a reference to the Ascension. But then Mathison says that when Jesus used the term, He was referring to the Ascension and to the destruction of Jerusalem. Yet there is not one instance where Jesus spoke of the coming of the Son of Man where it can be taken to be a reference to His Ascension. In every case, it is His coming to earth in judgment and salvation. But this is only the tip of the Iceberg of Confusion.
Even though Mathison says that Jesus’ “coming” in AD 70 was “intimately connected with His ascension,” and even though Mathison says that both the Ascension and His coming in judgment in AD 70 are equally “the coming of the Son of Man,” and even though Mathison admits that both events were with a cloud/clouds and in the glory of the Father, and that both events were seen (Acts 1:11; Matt. 26:64), Mathison nevertheless maintains that Jesus’ “coming” in AD 70 was not the “in-like-manner” coming promised in Acts 1:11. Mathison’s position is an ineffable tangle of exegetical double vision, contradiction, and consummate confusion.
Partial Preterist Milton Terry, in contrast, took a lucid, biblical approach, seeing Matthew 24:30–31, 34; Acts 1:11; and Revelation 1:7 as all being fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem in the end of the age:
Whatever the real nature of the parousia, as contemplated in this prophetic discourse, our Lord unmistakably associates it with the destruction of the temple and city, which he represents as the signal termination of the pre-Messianic age. The coming on clouds, the darkening of the heavens, the collapse of elements, are, as we have shown above, familiar forms of apocalyptic language, appropriated from the Hebrew prophets.  Acts i, 11, is often cited to show that Christ’s coming must needs be spectacular, “in like manner as ye beheld him going into the heaven.” But (1) in the only other three places where [“in like manner”] occurs, it points to a general concept rather than the particular form of its actuality. Thus, in Acts vii, 28, it is not some particular manner in which Moses killed the Egyptian that is notable, but rather the certain fact of it. In 2 Tim. iii, 8, it is likewise the fact of strenuous opposition rather than the special manner in which Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses. And in Matt. xxiii, 37, and Luke xiii, 34, it is the general thought of protection rather than the visible manner of a mother bird that is intended. Again (2), if Jesus did not come in that generation, and immediately after the great tribulation that attended the fall of Jerusalem, his words in Matt. xvi, 27, 28, xxiv, 29, and parallel passages are in the highest degree misleading. (3) To make the one statement of the angel in Acts i, 11, override all the sayings of Jesus on the same subject and control their meaning is a very one-sided method of biblical interpretation. But all the angel’s words necessarily mean is that as Jesus has ascended into heaven so he will come from heaven. And this main thought agrees with the language of Jesus and the prophets.[5] As Mathison admits in one book but denies in another, the immediate context links Christ’s in-like-manner return to the fulfillment of the Great Commission (v. 8; Matt. 24:14, 27, 30; Rom. 10:18). The Great Commission was fulfilled in Christ’s generation. Jesus was “lifted up” and hidden from sight in the cloud of glory. He ascended into the sky hidden in the cloud, as His disciples watched. He was to come in the same manner in which the disciples saw Him enter into the sky: hidden in the cloud of the glory of His Father. He was “seen” in that Day in the same way that Yahweh was “seen” whenever He came on a cloud to judge nations in the Old Testament.
This was the one and only future coming of Christ that was promised in the New Testament. Therefore, Christ returned in AD 70. The analogy of Scripture confirms this interpretation. It does not confirm Mathison’s, which rips Acts 1:9–11 from its immediate and broader New Testament contexts. We agree with Terry’s comments on Matthew 24:30–31, 34; Acts 1:11; and Revelation 1:7. “We accept upon the testimony of the Scriptures”[6] that Christ returned on/in a cloud/clouds in that generation.
“Honey, I Shrunk the Angels” (HD, pp. 153-154)
By Michael J. Sullivan
Kistemaker argues that Jesus’ physical resurrection body is eternal and that it now literally “sits on God’s throne” (240).  Kistemaker attempts to prove this claim by using Revelation 1:13–16.  He points out that in this passage Jesus is described as wearing a robe that reaches down to his feet, and as having a golden sash around his chest, and a head with white hair, and blazing eyes, and feet as bronze, and a mouth, and a human voice, and a right hand, and a face as radiant as the sun (240, 252).
Kistemaker interprets the book of Revelation in a highly symbolic manner, even more symbolically than “hyper-preterists” interpret it at times.  Yet he is woodenly literal in the above passage.  But more to the point, he neglects to mention that the above passage also says that Jesus was holding “the angels of the seven churches” (the “seven stars”) in his (supposedly literal) hand (Rev. 1:16, 20).  Kistemaker does not explain why those seven angels were reduced in size so that they could fit in Jesus’ physical hand.  (Nor does Kistemaker tell us how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.)
Kistemaker also does not mention that Jesus is depicted here as having a sharp two-edged sword coming out of His supposedly literal mouth (Rev. 2:16), and that in Revelation 19:11, He is depicted as riding on a horse in the sky, and that in Revelation 19:12 He has “many crowns” on His head, and that in Revelation 19:13 He is wearing a bloody robe.
To make matters worse, note the contradiction between Kistemaker in WSTTB, and Kistemaker in his New Testament Commentary on Revelation:
Kistemaker, WSTTB:  “Jesus’ appearance to John at Patmos was not spiritual, but physical, for John saw his head, face, mouth, eyes, hair, chest, right hand, and feet ([Rev.] 1:13–16) (252)
Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary:  “[Rev. 1:16] lists three physical features [of Jesus]: his right hand, his mouth, and his face. These features ought to be understood not literally but symbolically. . . ”
Kistemaker’s commentary was first printed in 2001, and was most recently reprinted in 2007.  So we have Kistemaker saying that the description of Jesus in Revelation 1:16 was symbolic/spiritual in 2001, then saying it was physical/literal in 2004 (WSTTB), then back to saying it was symbolic/spiritual in 2007.  As with Mathison, Kistemaker must temporarily change his preterist exegeses when he is attempting, in vain, to refute full preterism.”[7] Can Souls Be Raised?  (HD, pp. 188-193)[8]
By David A. Green   
Strimple Argument #11: We know that the resurrection of the dead will be physical because there is no such thing as a non-physical resurrection of a physically dead person (296-297, 299-300, 326).
Answer: The short answer to this argument is that the Bible does not teach that there is no such thing as a non-physical resurrection of a physically dead person. Regeneration is a non-physical resurrection, and nowhere does the Bible exclude the old covenant dead from that resurrection. Jesus in fact referred to the resurrection of the dead as “the regeneration” or rebirth (Matt. 19:28), and the Scriptures elsewhere imply that the physically dead saints were “born” out of Death and Hades.  (Rom. 8:29; Col. 1:15, 18; Rev. 1:5; see answer to Strimple Argument #6 above.)
Now the long answer: This answer is lengthy because Strimple’s argument above opens up a futurist “can of worms.” I ask the reader to bear with me as I navigate through a tangled web of futurist reasoning.
Strimple agrees with preterists that “resurrection” (the word and the concept) can be used as imagery and metaphor, such as when Israel was promised a “resurrection” to its land in Ezekiel 37:1-4. But, says Strimple on page 326 (quoting Raymond E. Brown), when it comes to physically dead people, there is “no other kind of resurrection” than a physical resurrection. On page 296, Strimple quotes Murray Harris as saying, “No one could be said to be resurrected while his corpse lay in a tomb.” And on page 297, Strimple says that the use of the modifier “bodily” in the term “bodily resurrection” is redundant, because a physically dead person can only be raised physically/bodily.
Additionally, on pages 299 and 300, Strimple argues that the Greek word for “resurrection” (“anastasis,” literally, “standing up” or “standing again”), when used in reference to physically dead people, always meant to first-century Jews and Greeks alike, the resurrection of the physical aspect of man in contrast to the soul. Strimple supports this claim by quoting Tertullian, who said that anastasis cannot refer to the soul because only the physical part of man can fall down, lie down, sleep, and “stand up.”
Now that we have established Strimple’s teaching on the anastasis/resurrection of physically dead people in WSTTB let us confer with Strimple’s refutation of premillennialism in the book, Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond (TVMB). In that book, Strimple actually teaches that anastasis (“standing up,” resurrection) in Revelation 20:4 refers to a non-physical soul-resurrection of physically dead people.
He defines the “resurrection” in that Scripture as the ushering in of the disembodied (non-physical) “soul” of a believer upon biological death into the presence of Christ to reign with Him. Strimple even goes so far in that book as to say that physical death for the believer today is “in truth a [non-bodily] resurrection into the very presence of the Savior in heaven” (Emphasis added) (TVMB, 125-127, 261-262, 276).
If this were not confusing enough, on pages 319–320 and 337 of WSTTB Strimple says (quoting John Murray and Murdoch Dahl) that dead believers today—even though they have been resurrected “into the very presence of the Savior in heaven”—are actually experiencing punishment and “condemnation” under the curse of “sin,” “death,” and “corruption.” He says that our departed loved ones are actually in a state of soul-and-body death (“psycho-physical death,” as Strimple calls it). He says they are actually in a “dreadful” state (319). Quoting Rudolf Bultmann, he teaches that they are even in a state of “horror,” and that Jesus Himself was in the same horrific state before He was raised from the dead (320).[8] Finally, Strimple adds that our departed brothers and sisters who are with Christ today are non-human, i.e., non-man. They are no longer of the same human nature as Christ, and will remain sub-humans until they are resurrected at the end of human history. (More on this below) So we see that when Strimple is refuting premillennialists, he portrays the Bible as teaching a present-day, non-physical resurrection of physically dead believers into the very presence of the Savior in heaven where they are reigning with Him. But when Strimple is refuting preterists, he portrays the Bible as teaching strictly and only a physical resurrection of physically dead saints, and he says that disembodied saints today are in a state of punishment where they are longing for the day when they will no longer be sin-cursed, condemned, sub-human, and in a dreadful state of horror.[9] In 1993, in a paper he presented in Mt. Dora, Florida, Strimple suggested that physically dead persons cannot experience a non-physical resurrection. Then in 1999, in TVMB, Strimple taught that physically dead persons do experience a non-physical resurrection. Then in 2004, in WSTTB, Strimple reverted to teaching that physically dead persons cannot experience a non-physical resurrection. It seems that some of Strimple’s central theological convictions come and go roughly every six years, depending on who he is refuting.
The incredible tension between Strimple’s positions here is not “paradox.”  It is not an expression of “already but not yet.” Strimple’s views are none other than the consummate example of radical contradiction.
Throughout his chapter Strimple makes much of the fact that preterists disagree with other preterists. Yet as we have seen in this book, futurists such as Keith Mathison and Robert Strimple not only disagree with other futurists, they disagree with their own faith-convictions.
In view of the fact that some of the authors of WSTTB have made their own interpretations of Scripture a proverbial “nose of wax” that can be reshaped for the sake of expedience (304), we can begin to see why it is appropriate that their book was called a “reformed” response.  Nevertheless, Strimple deems himself a worthy judge to call into question the doctrinal “credibility” of preterists (300, 335-336).
To be fair, Strimple and Mathison are not the only ones guilty of wild self-contradiction. The guilt belongs to the futurist camp as a whole. At funeral services, departed believers are said to be in the highest Heaven beholding the face of the Lord. But in seminary classrooms, departed believers are said to be in Hades waiting for the Last Day at the end of human history, when Hades will be cast into the Lake of Fire and believers will finally be able to behold the face of the Lord (Rev. 22:4).
As far as we know, a human soul cannot be in two different places, or in two contradictory states of being, at the same time. So where do the dead in Christ today reside? Is it in Hades or in the highest Heaven?
Strimple is an amillennialist. Although the anti-premillennial Strimple (who says that Revelation 20 teaches a spiritual resurrection of physically dead people) roundly contradicts the anti-preterist Strimple (who says that physically dead people cannot be spiritually resurrected), most of Strimple’s amillennialist brethren disagree with both Strimples. They define “anastasis” in Revelation 20:4 as regeneration; that is, not a soul-resurrection at physical death, but a here-and now spiritual birth through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Paul agrees with amillennialists that Holy Spirit rebirth, received at the moment of faith in Christ’s sin-atoning blood, was “the first resurrection” with Christ:
. . . hath quickened us [made us alive] together with Christ. (Eph. 2:5)
. . . you are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God. . . . (Col. 2:12)
And you . . . hath he quickened [made alive] together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses. (Col. 2:13)
If ye then be risen with Christ . . . . (Col. 3:1)
But ye are come unto . . . the . . . church of the firstborn. . . . (Heb. 12:22-23)
And because Holy Spirit regeneration was the first resurrection with Christ” (Eph. 2:5; Rev. 20:4-6), it irresistibly follows that Christ was the beginning and “First Fruit” of that spiritual resurrection (334).
Strimple rightly concedes on page 334 of WSTTB that the resurrection of Christ was “the beginning” of the resurrection of the dead.
Apparently though, according to Strimple, Christ’s resurrection was “the beginning” of a harvest that was interrupted as soon as it began and which will not be restarted until thousands of years after its beginning, even though the “first fruits” (beginning) invariably signals not merely the nearness but the commencement of the harvest.
Though Christ our Forerunner was eternally begotten of God and eternally God’s Son, He was the first to be “born” or “begotten” of God when He was raised from the dead and given all authority to reign as High Priest unto God (Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5). He was, for our sakes, “born” out of Adamic Death (the condemnation and alienation from God He endured on the Cross) and Hades into the Presence of the Father.
For this reason, the Son is called:
The “firstborn” among many brethren (Rom. 8:29)
The “firstborn” of every creature (Col. 1:15)
The “firstborn” from the dead (Col. 1:18; Rev. 1:5)
Thus, the rebirth of the Hadean (Old Testament) saints in Christ with the body-of-Christ church in AD 70 was the regeneration of “all things,” i.e., of the universal body of the saints:
Your dead men shall live; together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, you that dwell in dust: for your dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall give birth to the dead. (Isa. 26:19)
. . . in the Regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matt. 19:28)
Before we move on to Strimple’s next argument, let us briefly examine Strimple’s teaching that a man without his physical body is no longer a man:
Strimple teaches the non-humanity of the dead on page 337 (through a reference to Rudolf Bultmann and through a correction of Robert Gundry). According to Strimple, one of the reasons that Paul defended the resurrection of the body is because a departed believer is actually a non-human until he or she is physically resurrected.
R. C. Sproul Jr. makes the same mistake in his Foreword to WSTTB where he implies that his daughter will be an incomplete “ethereal creature” between the time of her death and the time of Christ’s Second Coming —a span of time that according to Sproul Jr.’s view could theoretically last a million years or more. It should go without saying that it is an unbiblical thing to believe that our loved ones in Christ will suffer “the ravages of . . . sin” (as R. C. Sproul Jr. puts it) potentially for aeons after the time of their death (ix). But this is the sad, logical necessity of futurism. If our departed loved ones already have perfect and complete sinless blessedness today before the face of God, then there is no scriptural justification for a yet-future resurrection of the dead.
In contrast to Rudolf Bultmann and Strimple, the Bible nowhere suggests, implies, or otherwise hints that those who die become nonhumans until they are resurrected. The resurrection of the dead is never characterized in Scripture as the restoration of former humans back to their lost humanity. Jesus made reference to a man in Hades (Lk. 16:22-23), and Paul spoke of the possibility that a “man” was caught up “out of the body” (2 Cor. 12:2). (He would not cease to be a man outside of his body.) In both of these instances, the “man” was the non-physical spirit/soul of the man. Additionally, if we are to say that a departed saint is a sub-human because he is without his physical body, then we must also say that Jesus Himself was a sub-human for the three days and three nights that elapsed between His death and resurrection, because He did not have his physical body at that time. We could also say, by the same line of reasoning, that unborn babies and people with missing limbs are not 100% humans because they also are not “complete.”
Contrary to the ghastly horrors of logically consistent futurism, the departed spirit of the believer is fully human. Whether living in the flesh or living in the heavens after physical death, the believer today is complete in Christ. The departed believer in the new covenant world today is not a homeless, wraithlike phantom, like an exorcized demon.
He is not a “shade” (295). He is not a quivering, shapeless “mist” like some kind of escaped gas.  In stark contrast to such wildly extra-scriptural, futurist notions, the Bible teaches us that the saints in heaven today are “like the angels” (Matt. 22:30; Mark 12:25; Heb. 1:7; 12:22-23). And they are not “naked,” but they are “clothed” with the everlasting righteousness of Christ, the new Man (Rev. 6:9-11; 14:13; 15:6; 19:8, 14).
“Is Come in the Flesh” (HD, pp. 242-245)
“First John 4:3 says that Jesus “is come in the flesh.”  The Greek verb tense there is perfect active, and it indicates a “past action with a present result.”  Therefore Jesus came in the flesh (past action) and is still in the flesh (present result).
Our response:
It is true that the perfect tense of “come” in 1 John 4:3 (literally “having come”) can be seen as supporting the view that Jesus is still in His flesh. However, this is not the grammatically necessary reading.  The perfect tense in that verse could just as easily, or perhaps more easily, be used to support the view that Jesus is still here on Earth.  “Having come” (past action), He is still here (present result).
While the perfect active tense indicates that there is a present result of the past action, the identification of the “present result” can only be determined by the context.  John could have written, using the same tense:
“Whoever denies Jesus Christ having died on the Cross is a liar.” What would the perfect active tense (“having died”) indicate?  Would it indicate that Christ is still “on the Cross”?  That He is still dead?  Of course not.  It would indicate that there is an enduring, “present result” of the “past action” of Christ’s death on the Cross.  Depending on the context, that “present result” could be any number of things including the Christian Age itself.
The context of 1 John 4:2 (and 2 Jn. 1:7) tells us what the “present result” of Christ’s past coming “in flesh” is:
God dwells in us (1 Jn. 4:4, 12-13; 15-16)
We are of God (1 Jn. 4:4, 6).
We love one another (1 Jn. 4:7, 21; 2 Jn. 1:5).
We know God (1 Jn. 4:6-7).
We have been born of God (1 Jn. 4:7). We live through God’s Son (1 Jn. 4:9).
Our sins are forgiven (1 Jn. 4:10).
God’s love has been perfected in us (1 Jn. 4:12).
We dwell in God (1 Jn. 4:13, 15-16).
God has given us His Spirit (1 Jn. 4:13).
We know and believe the love that God has toward us (1 Jn. 4:16).
We are as He is (1 Jn. 4:17).
We love God, and our love is made perfect (1 Jn. 4:17-18) We know the truth (2 Jn. 1:1).
The truth dwells in us and shall be with us forever (2 Jn. 1:2).
We walk in truth (2 Jn. 1:4).
We walk after His commandments (2 Jn. 1:6).
We abide in the doctrine of Christ (2 Jn. 1:9).
We have both the Father and the Son (2 Jn. 1:9).
As the Apostle Peter put it, Christ was “put to death in flesh” [past action] “that He might bring us to God” [present result] (1 Peter 3:18).
Various interpretations of 1 John 4:2 have been offered by futurist scholars.  Not all of them believe that the antichrists were Gnostics who were denying that Jesus was a material being.  According to 1 John 2:2, the antichrists were denying that Jesus is the Christ (the promised Messiah).  It would seem that 1 John 4:2 would be a reiteration of that denial. It may be that their denial of “Jesus Christ having come in flesh” was a denial that He was from God.  His coming in flesh implies His pre-flesh existence and divine Sonship.
Death is an Illusion
As we know, Dr. Strimple in When Shall These Things Be?, argued that our departed loved ones in Christ today are sub-humans until the end of world history, because they are without their bodies.  However, if this is true then it must also be true that Christ Himself was not fully human for three days and nights between His death and resurrection, because He was without His body during that time.
Aware of this problem, the internet critics implicitly acknowledged Strimple’s unwitting error and posited instead the idea that our dead loved ones today are actually fully human, because physical death is an illusion.  That is, it is phenomenological.  According to this view, even though it “appears” to us that the body and the spirit are separated at physical death, they actually are not separated at all.  They are indissolubly united in view of the fact of the future, physical resurrection of the body.  (Granted, it is difficult to follow the logic of that last sentence, but that is the view.)  When the Resurrection of the Flesh happens, body and spirit will not be “reunited.”  Instead, it will be “manifested” that they were never really separated at all.
Our response:
There is, of course, not the slightest hint of this “Death is an Illusion” doctrine in the Bible.  We can find it in Gnosticism, Hinduism, and Christian Science, but nowhere in Scripture.
Also, this doctrine may be even worse than Strimple’s doctrine (which implied that Jesus was non-human for three days), in that it implies that Jesus’ own death was an illusion, that it was the separation of His body and His spirit in “appearance” only.  This is the ancient heresy of Docetism.
It comes down to this:  If we are going to argue that a man is nonhuman in the sight of God without his physicality, then we either have to say that Christ was non-human for three days and nights (because He was without His body), or we have to say that the separation of His body and spirit on the Cross was in “appearance” only (Docetism).  Since neither of these views can be accepted, it follows that the endurance of man’s humanity before God is not contingent on his physicality.”
 
 


[1] Postmillennialism, 117 (emphasis added).
[2] From Age to Age, 459
[3] Though Jesus is no longer in the flesh, He forever retains His human nature. He is forever Man, even as the saints in heaven today, who are no longer in their physical bodies, are still human/man by nature. Neither the Son of Man nor those who are in Him, whether in heaven or on earth, are “nonhuman.” (See David Green’s response to Strimple Argument #11 in chapter seven of this book.)
[4] Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope (Phillipsburg, NJ: 1999), 114
[5] Milton S. Terry, A Study of the Most Notable Revelations of God and of Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988), 246-247.
[6] Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutic (Grand Rapids, MI:  Zondervan, 1990), 468, n.1 (emphases added).
[7]  Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary, Exposition of the Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI:  Baker Book House, 2001; fourth printing 2007), 97.
[8] I (Michael Sullivan) did want to point out that we did document in our book that according to James B. Jordan a “Orthodox” “Reformed” Partial Preterist, Daniel’s soul was raised out of Abraham’s Bosom/Hades at Christ’s parousia in AD 70 to inherit “eternal life” and God’s presence according to Daniel 12:2 and Revelation 20.  See HD, 178.
[9]  Yet, oddly enough, Strimple dismisses “tales of the shadowy world of Hades and of Christ’s ‘harrowing of hell’ after his death” (293).
[10]  It is noteworthy that Jesus did not say to the thief on the cross, “Today you will be with me in a paradise of condemnation, sin, death, corruption, punishment, curse, dread, and sub-human horror” as the anti-preterist Strimple would have it.

Daniel 9:24-27 From Babylonian Bondage to Messianic Jubilee Sabbath Rest and Inheritance "in Christ" By AD 70 (Introducing Full Preterist Chronomessianism)

By: Michael J. Sullivan – Copyright 2018 – all rights reserved. Thank you for your Christian charity and honesty in advance.

Introduction:

The first thing any Futurist Pastor, commentary, Bible College or Seminary professor and or scholar is going to tell you is just how “very difficult” (allegedly) and that there are just so many “various views” of Daniel 9:24-27 to navigate through. And of course, this is true for the Futurist, and they readily admit this confusion on our Lord’s teaching in the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation as well. This is probably due to the fact that Daniel 9:24-27 is a microcosm and recapitulation of Daniel chapters 2; 7 and 12 and these three verses in essence function as a fulfillment of all OT prophecy and thus is the corner stone to understanding the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation (that is understand all prophecy). But for the Sovereign Grace Full Preterist, confusion on Daniel 9:24-27 (as well as the OD and book of Revelation) is removed and a very simple, exegetical and common-sense interpretation emerges from all the confusion Futurism has given us.

Solutions Summarized “Reformed and Always Reforming”

My approach will be to describe various views of Daniel’s seventy seven’s prophecy and seek to harmonize them with Jesus’ teaching that this prophecy and the entire OT would be fulfilled in His contemporary generation (Lk. 21:20-32).

1). The Historical and or Christotelic Messianic View: While there may be some differences between Calvin, Luther, and modern Calvinists such as Gary DeMar, Joel McDurmon, Kenneth Gentry, R.C. Sproul, and E. J. Young, these men old and modern, may be said to represent this position. This view sees Daniel 9:24-27 as Jesus (not some “antichrist”) coming to usher in or inaugurate the New Covenant or Kingdom of God. This view emphasizes the time period covered by the prophecy to be fulfilled around AD 30-35 or so, but also gives lip service that it concludes with the destruction of the temple in AD 70.

It is important to point out that within Partial Preterism, it is taught that Daniel’s “the end” “time of the end” or Jesus’ “end of the age” in Matthew 13:39-43 and 24:3, 14 refers to Christ coming to close the Old Covenant age in AD 70 and that there was a spiritual, corporate and covenantal resurrection that was fulfilled during this time.  Basically, they have stolen the Full Preterist view of the resurrection but that’s another issue.

There is also some confusion as to when the decree begins some starting it with Cyrus in his command to rebuild the temple/city in 538 BC and yet others with the various kings (Ezra 6:14) and thus place it more around in 457 BC.  Those that start the count with Cyrus end up 50 years before Christ’s birth and over a 100 years short of AD 70.  These folks either end up adopting a spiritual view (ex. see Kline and Storms below) or reworking the numbers to arrive at Christ’s birth to AD 65 (see Lurie below).

2). The Symbolic and Sabbatical Messianic View:  Is held by men such as Meredith Kline, Keil,C. F. & Delitzsch, F., Ian Duguid, Sam Storms and Andrew Steinman (all sharing different denominational backgrounds). While this view focuses on the redemptive work of Christ as the fulfillment of the seventy sevens prophecy, it does not try and force what is really a roughly 600 years period into a literal 490. This view sees the number 490 being symbolic of various periods of time in redemptive history. Therefore, unlike the Futurist historical messianic view, this view sees the fulfillment extending until the Second Coming – to close the “last days” or bring about “the end” or end of the age.

3).  Ten 49 Cycles of the Sabbath Jubilee (490 yrs.) or From 424/422 BC to the Destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70: This view is held by Margaret Barker and was held during first century Judaism and during the development of the NT.  The 70 7’s of Daniel 9:24-27 refer to the first century Jewish expectation that Messiah would accomplish redemption for Israel roughly between AD 17/26 to AD 66/70.  Jewish tradition goes on to see the 490 years period extending from the first Temple’s destruction in 424/422 BC (Jewish calendar) to AD 70.  I will argue that Jesus in fact did fulfill this 10 th. Jubilee cycle between AD 26 – AD 66-70.

The second view is accurate to point out the 490 years are connected to the Jubilee and dealing with a theological point concerning sabbath rest extending to the Second Coming of Christ to close the age.  However, it errs in that it fails to acknowledge that Christ posits its redemptive end and unfolding of the kingdom to be fulfilled:

  1. at the destruction of the first century temple and city (Dan. 9:24, 26-27/Matt. 24:15/Luke 21:20-22),
  1. the “end of the age” or “the end” in (Matt. 24:3, 14) is referring to the end of the old covenant age in AD 70 and not the end of world history or the end to the new covenant or Christian age, and…
  1. Jesus posits the fulfillment of redemption and the arrival of his kingdom and second coming to take place within the same AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation” time period (Luke 21:27-32).

The view I will be arguing for is #3 which acknowledges all of these key elements to Daniel’s prophetic material while embracing a first century chronological setting for the prophecy.

Perhaps we have missed something in Daniel 9:25. The Hebrew very well can support “From the the issuing of the WORD [prophetic word of Jeremiah] to restore and rebuild Jerusalem…there will be [490 yrs.]…” That is, the 490 years prophecy includes the 70 years of Babylonian captivity and therefore does not begin the countdown when it ends. Jeremiah not only prophesied of the beginning of the 70 years, but the restoration of the Jews to come back in the land and the New Covenant the Messiah would usher in.
 
“Jews for Judaism” mock Christians for not understanding the countdown begins with the prophetic “WORD” of Jeremiah and not a secular king. But this is the MISSING piece I needed and FURTHER supports that Yeshua is the Messiah! First let’s look at what Jews for Judaism writes,
 
“The angel Gabriel reveals to Daniel this additional understanding of the 70 years extending them from 70 years to 70 weeks of years stretching the time span to 490 years that span from the destruction of the first Temple to the Destruction of the second Temple. This prophesy also included a description of events that would unfold if the Jewish people did not repent properly.
 
Although there appears to be a discrepancy in chronology between the Jewish and secular Gregorian calendars of 166 years (with the secular dates earlier) it is clear that Jewish record keeping is more reliable and consistent concerning these events. Babylonian calendars changed arbitrarily with every new Babylonian king and limited archeological discoveries often reflect their arbitrary chronology. (According to secular chronology 586 BCE is the year incorrectly associated with the destruction of the first Temple the Jewish).” (Jews for Judaism).
 
Yeshua would have used the Jewish calendar. As I demonstrated in one sermon and two of my articles thus far, if you start the countdown from the destruction of the first temple using the Jewish calendar (424/422BC) and begin the 10 jubilee’s (490 yrs.) count from there, you end up at AD 26/28 to BEGIN that 10th Jubilee cycle. This is when Yeshua opens the scroll of Isaiah 61/Luke 4. Yeshua/Messiah MUST accomplish ALL of the redemptive events in Dan. 9:24-27 and Isaiah 61 BEFORE the second temple is destroyed in AD 70. Yeshua – from AD 26/28 to AD 66-70 accomplished redemption from the cross to parousia or “day(s) of vengeance” (Isa. 61/Lk. 21:20-22) within that last Jubilee cycle perfectly!
45878532_10156697132264192_8128908576199540736_n
Visio-Eschatology-chronomessianism-7 
This is probably the coolest thing I have seen since learning the doctrines of grace and then Full Preterism. I’ll have to try and set up a debate with “Jews for Judaism” and defend this position. As far as I know, I’m the only Full Preterist out there that has seen this and is defending it.
 
Of all people, I appreciate Sam Frost, for pointing out the 70 years are included in the 490 years and the Hebrew supports the “word” going back to Jeremiah. 70 years of captivity times 7 for breaking the sabbaths of Leviticus 23, 25-26 gives you 490 years. Unfortunately all Sam can see is a non-Messianic prophecy, whereas all I can see is a PERFECT Messianic prophecy fulfilled by AD 70. Selah.

Premise #1If it is true that Daniel 9:24-27 is about Christ establishing His New Covenant Kingdom age with the prophecy ending with the destruction of Jerusalem to close the Old Covenant age in AD 70,…

Premise #2…and if it is also true that Daniel 9:24-27 is connected to Daniel 2; 7; and 12 and covers the “last days” extending to the Second Coming of Jesus to bring an “end” to the age and thus usher in the New Creation or world of righteousness,…

Premise #3 – and if it is also true that the Jew during the first century expected Messiah to come soon to fulfill the 10th. cycle of the Jubilee (490 yrs. – with no 2,000 plus years and counting gaps) and Yeshua showed up during this “set time” to fulfill the soteriological and eschatological expectations of Daniel 9:24-27 and Isiah 61:1-11…

Conclusion/Synthesis (Sovereign Grace Full Preterism)– …Then in honoring NT imminence, the above historic views of the church, and the historical expectation and setting of the 10th. Jubilee cycle among the Jews of Yeshua’s day—we conclude it must be true and orthodox to believe that Daniel 9:24-27 was fulfilled when Christ (in Israel’s last days) appeared (in His first and second appearings as High Priest Heb. 9-10:37) to close the Old Covenant age and establish and mature the New Covenant age by AD 70. This is the time when all OT prophecy was fulfilled (Lk. 21:20-22), and the sign and revelatory gifts ceased along with the office of Prophet from the Church.  Selah.
The rest of this article will further prove the conclusion reached above.

Jewish Traditions of Daniel 9:24-27 and 7:13-14

And by way of introduction, we should also note that this passage was known to be messianic among some Jews.  Dr. Michael Brown points out a well known Rabbinic commentator took the prophecy as both fulfilled by AD 70 and yet at the same time as fulfilled in the times of Messiah,

“…Rashi taught that the prophecy pinpointed the death of Agrippa and the destruction of the Temple–major events in the last generation of the Second Temple era–but then simply drifted off to the distant future in terms of the final fulfillment of the prophecy.”  (Dr. Michael Brown, ANSWERING JEWISH OBJECTIONS to JESUS, Volume Three, Baker Books, 2003, p. 90).

“…He [Rashi] interprets the destruction of the city and the sanctuary as pointing to that same event under Titus the Roman general.  As translated by Jewish historian Heinrich W. Guggenheimer, “the power of his reign [Titus] will be blown away by the Messiah.”  Third, he makes reference again to God’s kingdom coming in power through the Messiah, but once more, it is merely appended without explanation.” (Ibid. 89).

“…He [Rashi] explains how all the prophesied events culminate and unfold in a time period on generation after Jesus and then says, “And the real end of the story will take place in the days of the Messiah” — which, according to traditional Judaism, still have not arrived, now two thousand years later.”  (Ibid. 90).
Ironically, Dr. Brown is guilty of the very thing he accuses Rashi of – saying out of one side of his mouth that the prophecy was fulfilled by AD 70, but then out of the other side of his mouth saying it will be fulfilled in the far distant future.  However, Brown out of one side of his mouth claims “…everything Daniel 9:24-27 reached its fulfillment by 70 C.E.” Yet [out of the other side of his mouth] “It is also possible that on the basis of our Messiah’s atoning work, the ultimate fulfillment will take place at the end of this age, when Jesus returns.” (Ibid., p. 98).

Brown misses the NT’s teaching that AD 70 was the event that proved Christ would come “in a very little while and would NOT delay (Heb. 10:37) and was the event the Church could look back upon and know that Christ and His Kingdom “had already come” in “power” (Mt. 16:27-28/Mrk. 8:38–9:1).  The fulfillment of “all” the events in Daniel 9:24-27 by AD 70 caused the miraculous revelatory “visions” and thus the office of “prophet” to “end” “stop” or “cease” confirming the claims of Christ to be God and come “As the Ancient of Days” (Dan. 7:13 (OG) LXX; 9:24; Mt. 26:62-64/Rev. 1:1, 7-18; 1 Cor. 1:5-8; 13:8-12).  This is especially troubling since Brown claims to be a Charismatic (many touting him as a “prophet”) yet admits he has “prophesied” falsely (ironically of modern Israel) in the past.

Here are some more statements that underscore the passage was seen to be Messianic:

San 97a:  “Our masters taught as follows of the particular seven-year period at whose end [Messiah] son of David will appear” (This seems to refer directly to the Danielic final week!)

San 97b:  “Rav said: All times set for redemption have passed, and the matter now depends only on repentance and good deeds” (All time calculations had been fulfilled).

San 97b:  “R. Samuel bar Nahmani said in the name of R. Jonathan: Blaste be the bones of those who presume to calculate the time of redemption. For they are apt to say, ‘Since redemption has not come at the time expected, it will never come.’ Rather, one must wait for it…what then delays its coming? The measure of justice delays it…”

I couldn’t agree more that these Jews did in fact miss and reject the redemptive work of their Messiah (Jesus the Christ) in Daniel’s last seven and “Judaism” hasn’t been the same since AD 70 – having reached her “end” during that terminal “crooked and perverse generation” (Deut. 32:5, 20/Acts 2:20-40/Luke 17:20-21, 25; 21:32). Moses predicted that many of them would not be able to “discern” their “end” (Deut. 32:29).

As so-called Christian “Zionists” like Dr. Michael Brown like to point out — the fact remains, if Messiah didn’t come before the destruction of the second temple and in AD 70, then Messiah didn’t come at the appointed time to the Jewish people and their future Messianic expectations are false. But I would add, just as the modern Zionist is in trouble if Messiah didn’t come before the Temple was destroyed in AD 70, it is equally true for the Christian so-called “Zionist” such as Brown, if Messiah’s Second Coming didn’t occur when the Temple was destroyed in AD 70, the Christian view of OT and NT prophecy comes tumbling down as well and is no less credible than modern Zionists twisting of Daniel 9:24-27. Both modern “Jewish” “Zionist” views seek a physical fulfillment/ manifestation of the Kingdom which is rejected by Christ and the NT authors. Fortunately, a sound Christian Sovereign Grace Full Preterist solution and sound exegesis is here. Selah.

It is also important to point out in connection with Daniel 7 and 9 that the Jews prior to the arrival of Jesus, also had a Messianic view of Daniel 7:13-14 and a concept of the “two powers in heaven.” That is a belief that God is both a Spirit being in heaven and there is a second person of the Godhead that is His Son that is equally eternal and the “Word” and can manifest Himself as an angel or man on earth. In about AD 100, this view was condemned as “heresy” because Jesus and the Christians were affirming that Christ was the fulfillment of this divine Messiah.

The Overall Structure, Historical Context and Theme

When Israel disobeyed the covenant it is said, “The land will be abandoned by them, and will make up for its Sabbaths while it is made desolate without them.” (Lev. 26:43). In Second Chronicles we read, “All the days of its desolation, it kept Sabbath to fulfill Sabbath to fulfill seventy years” (2 Chron. 36:21 NSAB). As those 70 years of captivity were ending and the land had received its Sabbath rest, Daniel prays for his people and is given a prophetic time explaining Israel’s imminent deliverance from the Babylonian captivity and yet at the same time, encompassing her coming Messiah within a period of 70 sevens in which there would be a greater rest and restoration for Israel.

The Anointed/Prince/Ruler/Messiah Jesus is the anti-type of (or the new) Cyrus delivering Israel from her bondage of sin and raising her from the graves of sin-death. And this partial restoration back into the land typified through Nehemiah and Ezra pointed to an anti-typical eschatological gathering “in Christ” at the end of the OC age in AD 70 (Matt. 13:39-43, 49; 24:30-31—25:31-46).

Various Chiastic Structures Considered

 Of the book of Daniel in general:

A – Daniel 1–Daniel Exiled into Babylon – land of death.
B – Daniel 2–Nebuchadnezzar’s Vision (Statue representing four kingdoms)
C– Daniel 3–Deliverance from the Fiery Furnace
D– Daniel 4–Nebuchadnezzar Humbled (seven years of insanity)
D– Daniel 5–Belshazzar Humbled (handwriting on the wall)
C– Daniel 6–Deliverance from the Lion’s Den
B– Daniel 7-9–Daniel’s Visions (Four kingdoms represented in various ways)
A– Daniel 10-12–Daniel’s Vision – end of the Exile and Promise to Be Raised in Another Restoration under Messiah

In this chiasm we can see how “B” chapters 7 and 9 elaborate on when the spiritual kingdom of Daniel 2 arrives. The Second Coming and arrival of the kingdom take place during the time of the Roman Empire in chapter 7. In chapter 9:24-27 we have a further development in that it will involve the Messiah suffering and His coming in judgment upon Jerusalem that will establish the spiritual New Covenant Kingdom.

Here is one that connects Daniel 7 with 12 (cf. A1-2) and sees 9:24-27 (C1) as the central part:

A1 (2:4b-49) – A dream of four kingdoms replaced by a fifth.
B1 (3:1–30) – Daniel’s three friends in the fiery furnace.
C1 (4:1–37) – Daniel interprets a dream for Nebuchadnezzar.
C2 (5:1–31) – Daniel interprets the handwriting on the wall for Belshazzar.
B2 (6:1–28) – Daniel in the lions’ den.
A2 (7:1–28)– A vision explained of four world kingdoms replaced by a fifth.
A1 (7)– Judgment of the dead & kingdom’s arrival.
B1 (8) – A vision of third kingdom & “time of the end.”
C1 (9)– 70 7’s “abomination of desolation” “the end” and Atonement/Consummation
C2 (10–11) – “abomination of desolation” “the end.”
B2 (11) – A vision of second & third kingdom & “time of the end.”
A1-2 (12)– Vision explained: Consummation of Kingdom – Judgment / Resurrection & “time of the end.”
I prefer the above chiasm since it correctly connects Daniel 2, 7, 9 and 12.
Of Daniel 9:24-27 as the central theme and summary from chapter 8-12:
A. Vision of Future Gentile Kings and Kingdoms (8:1-27)
B. Darius the Mede (9:1-2)
C. Daniel’s Distressed Prayer (9:3-19)
D. Angelic Messenger – Daniel Commended (9:20-23)
E. The Seventy ‘Sevens’ and the Messiah (9:24-27)
D. Angelic Messenger – Daniel Commended (10:1-11)
C. Daniel’s Terror Comforted (10:12-21)
B. Darius the Mede (11:1)
A. Vision of Future Gentile Kings and Kingdoms (11:2- 12:4)
While this chiasm seeks to emphasize Daniel 9:24-27, I think it is important to note that while Daniel 9:24-27 is central, Daniel 12:1-7 is in essence a recapitulation of the same prophetic time period and promise – just described differently.
A further breakdown of Daniel 9:25-27:
chiasm-of-daniel-925-27
In this chiasm, (and in the study or story of Israel’s covenant and redemptive history) we should take notice that what is physically re-built and restored under the Old Covenant and being “in the land” will eventually be destroyed and shaken one last time in order to make way for spiritually re-building and establishing Christ’s New Covenant Kingdom or New Jerusalem / Temple “in Christ.” This is what many scholars have referred to as the “two Jerusalem’s.”  When the physical city is being destroyed, God is saving His remnant and the New Jerusalem. The NT makes this connection in Galatians 4 and the tale of the two cities/wives in Revelation – one physical (OC Jerusalem) and subject to being imminently destroyed in AD 70, and the other spiritual (NC Jerusalem) to imminently descend from heaven and be a sanctuary for sinners to flee to post AD 70 (Rev. 17–22:17).  In Daniel 9:24-27 there is a destruction of one Jerusalem and Most Holy Place, and an yet an anointing of another.

As David Green writes (see article after this one), this is “The Preterist Paradox”:

“To the prophet Daniel, the prophecy of the “seventy weeks” might have sounded contradictory. Gabriel first told him (in verse 24) that at the end of “seventy weeks,” the transgression would be finished, an end would be made of sins, atonement would be made for iniquity, everlasting righteousness would be brought in, and the Most Holy Place would be anointed. But then when Gabriel came to the end of the prophecy, he said that the Messiah would be killed and that the city and the sanctuary would be defiled, desolated, and destroyed in the flood of war. Gabriel offered no further explanation.

How could the devastating ending of the “weeks” in verses 26 and 27 be compatible with the joyful ending of the “weeks” in verse 24? How could the “seventy weeks” be consummated in both the destruction of the temple (Dan. 9:26) and in the anointing of the temple? (Dan. 9:24). Or how could the resurrection of the dead and glorification of the saints be fulfilled when the power of the holy people is shattered? (Dan. 12:1-3,7)

This paradox is the heart of the preterist interpretation of Bible prophecy. It is what the futurists and the Jews have missed for centuries upon centuries: The destruction of (earthly) Jerusalem signified the advent of (heavenly) Jerusalem. The destruction of the (earthly) Most Holy Place meant the consummated anointing of the (heavenly) Most Holy Place. The (spiritual) sons of the kingdom inherited the kingdom when the (fleshly, unbelieving) sons of the kingdom were cast out of the kingdom (Matt. 8:12; 13:38, 43). This is the preterist key that unlocks the meaning of the “seventy weeks,” and of Zechariah 14, and a host of other prophecies of the Last Days.” (David Green, From Babylon to Babylon: An Exposition of Daniel’s Seventy Weeks).

Seventy Sevens Literal or Symbolic? 

Symbolic or Theological View

Lee Irons and Meredith Kline are at least correct in pointing out that Daniel’s seventy sevens prophecy is not a literal 490 years chronology:

“The seventy “weeks” (literally “sevens”) comprise a definite period of time until the coming of the Messiah and the destruction of Jerusalem…a period that is actually longer than a literal 490 years.”

“…the point of the seventy weeks is not to provide a precise chronological prediction but to make the profound theological point that the coming of Christ and the abrogation of the Old Covenant order will usher in the eschatological Sabbath rest for the people of God.”[1]

Sam Storms following Kline writes,

“Let us remember that not only were the Israelites themselves to rest on the 7th day, the land also was to rest in the 7th year. When Gabriel spoke of the “sevens,” 70 of which were decreed for Israel, he had in mind the 7 year period, the 7th year of which was a sabbatical year of rest for the land (Lev. 25:2-7). Kline proceeds to make the point that the sabbath itself, whether for the people or the land, functioned “as a prophetic symbol of the consummation of the covenant order. As elaborated in the Mosaic covenant . . . the sabbath served as a sign of the messianic age of redemptive liberation, restitution, and rest [see esp. Heb. 4:1-11]”.

It would appear, then, that this precise chronological or numerical framework was chosen not because Gabriel desired to set calendrical boundaries of a beginning and end in which the six-fold goal of 9:24 would be accomplished. Rather, he chose this framework, first, because it is sabbatical, and second, because the sabbath (and the number 7) bore special symbolic import for the nation Israel.
This point is confirmed when we observe that Gabriel spoke of “70” of these units of 7, hence 490 years. Why did he not choose 30 or 50 or 80 “sevens” instead of “70 sevens”? The reason is found in Lev. 25:8-55 and the observance of the year of JUBILEE. Let us note particularly vv. 8-12.

When we examine the year of jubilee in detail we discover that its provisions were as follows: (1) the return of all property, according to the original Mosaic distribution, to the original owner or to his family; (2) the release of all Jewish slaves; (3) the cancellation of debts; and (4) the land is to lie fallow, i.e., it is neither to be sown, pruned, reaped, nor gathered for an entire year.

The Jubilee, therefore, was a year in which social justice and equity, freedom, pardon, release, and restoration were emphasized and experienced. The jubilee signalled a new beginning, the inauguration of moral, spiritual, and national renewal. Hence it is no surprise that the jubilee became a symbol and prefigurement of the ultimate redemption, release, and restoration that God would accomplish spiritually on behalf of his people. Indeed, the eschaton, the final day of salvation to be inaugurated by Messiah, was conceived and described in terms of the release ordinance of the Mosaic year of jubilee.
This all takes on special significance when we realize that there is decreed for Israel a total period of seventy sevens of years or 490 years, which is to say 10 JUBILEE ERAS, “an intensification of the jubilee concept pointing to the ultimate, antitypical jubilee”.

The purpose of the 70 weeks prophecy, outlined in Dan. 9:24, was to secure that ultimate salvation, that release, redemption, and restoration of which the Jubilee year was a type or symbolic prefigurement. When Jesus declares that in himself the jubilee of God [Lk. 4:16-21/Isa. 61:1-2] has come he is saying, in effect, that the 70 weeks of Daniel have reached their climax. The new age of jubilee, of which all previous jubilees were prefigurements, has now dawned in the person and ministry of Jesus. THE GOAL OF THE 70 WEEKS PROPHECY IS THE CONSUMMATE JUBILARY SALVATION OF GOD! That is why the chronological frame of reference in which it is said to transpire is jubilary in nature: 10 jubilees = 490 years! The meaning of the period, therefore, is THEOLOGICAL, not calendrical. The 70 weeks are not designed to establish precise chronological parameters for redemptive history. Rather, they serve to evoke a theological image, namely, that in “Messiah Jesus” God will work to effect the final jubilee of redemptive history. The 10 jubilee framework (i.e., the 490 years or 70 weeks) is thus symbolic of the divine work of redemption, at the conclusion of which the eternal and perfected jubilee will appear: THE NEW HEAVENS AND NEW EARTH (Rev. 21-22).

According to the conclusions reached above, the first half of Daniel’s 70th week runs from the baptism of Jesus to 70 a.d. The destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 70 a.d. is the middle of the week, and the present church age is its latter half. Kline concurs and summarizes as follows:
“When we survey the fulfillment of Gabriel’s prophecy from our vantage point, it appears that the last half of the 70th week is the age of the community of the new covenant, disengaged from the old covenant order with whose closing days its own beginnings overlapped for a generation. In the imagery of the NT Apocalypse, the last half week is the age of the church in the wilderness of the nations for a time, and times, and half a time (Rev. 12:14). Since the 70 weeks are 10 jubilee eras that issue in the last jubilee, the 70th week closes with the angelic trumpeting of the earth’s redemption and the glorious liberty of the children of God. The acceptable year of the Lord which came with Christ will then have fully come.” (Sam Storms, Daniel’s Seventy Weeks, https://www.samstorms.com/all-articles/post/daniels-70-weeks)

My brief response to Sam Storms and Meredith Kline here:

Ironically, in Sam Storm’s three part series on Matthew 24 he admits that the coming of Christ and the blowing of the trumpet of Matthew 24:30-31 very well could refer to AD 70.  He also defends the position that the “heaven and earth” of (Mt. 24:35 and Mt. 5:17-18) is referring to the Temple and Old Covenant heaven and earth that “passed away” in AD 70.  And since virtually all scholars agree that John’s version of the Olivet Discourse is the book of Revelation, it is more than ironic that Storms won’t make the AD 70 fulfillments he holds to or favors in interpreting Matthew 24 to be present here in the book of Revelation.  The “this generation” coming of Christ in AD 70 found in Matthew 24 which causes “heaven and earth” to “pass away” (Mt. 24:30-35 and Mt. 5:17-18) is the same same “soon” coming of Christ in Revelation which causes the “heavens and earth” to “pass away” (Rev. 21–22:7).

Yeshua came to fulfill both halves of the last seven between AD 30 – AD 70.  Since the NT places the “soon” Second Coming event in Revelation to be in AD 70 (to judge Babylon the Great Harlot City or Old Covenant Jerusalem – Rev. 11:8), this is when the New Creation or New Jerusalem of Revelation 21-22 reaches her mature state, and thus we see His face and therefore, vision and prophecy are sealed up or have come to reach there desired goal (Rev. 22:4-7/1 Cor. 13:8-12/Dan. 9:24).  This destroys Sam Storms heretical Charismatic theology.

The jubilee is ushered in at the seventh or last trumpet of which in John’s day there would be “no more delay” and corresponds to Yeshua’s saying it would be blown at His Second Coming — within His “this generation” (Rev. 10-11/Mt. 24:30-34).

Therefore, moving from the seventh and last trumpet of Revelation 10-11 we move into Kline’s appeal to the 3.5 years of Revelation 12.  It is interesting that Storms in his article takes the flight of Luke 21:20ff. and Matthew 24:15ff. to be fulfilled just prior to the Roman’s treading down Jerusalem from AD 66 – AD 70, but when the same flight and protection event is described with symbolic language in Revelation 12, this is somehow symbolic of the Church age instead of the AD 66 – AD 70 period?!?

Kline agrees that the Old Covenant overlapped the New Covenant for the “generation” between AD 30 – AD 70.  Therefore, if the OC age was “soon to vanish” (Heb. 8:13) then there is no reason not to accept this was due to the fact that Jesus was coming to come in the same time period “in a very little while and would not delay” to bring an end to that last days age (Heb. 9:26-28–10:37).  That “generation” was the overlapping of the two ages and the “already and not yet” period.  Post AD 70 (after the trumpet has blown) we don’t live or “wander” in the “wilderness” according to the book of Hebrews, because the “heavenly land” and “city” Abraham and the OT saints longed for was “about to come” and did in AD 70 (Heb. 11:14ff.; 13:14YLT)! 

Thus, I would disagree with Kline and Storms that the first half of the seven is from the baptism of Jesus to AD 70 and yet somehow we are in the last half (3.5) awaiting its completion.  No, both halves of the last seven were fulfilled from Christ’s first coming to His Second Appearing “in a very little while” (i.e. in AD 70).  The Church is not waiting within the last half of the seven for it’s completion, it has been fulfilled at His parousia in AD 70 and that is why we are in the 50th / jubilee rest and liberation of the New Covenant age which has no end (Ephs. 3:20-21).   Due to Sam’s commitment to Futurism and Charismatic false teaching, he misses the accurate unfolding or sequence of the theology contained within Daniel 9:24-27 and how it is developed in the rest of the NT.  To miss when the that seventh trumpet is blown, is to blow the theological accuracy and point of Jesus’ development of the prophecy.

No matter how we understand the seventy sevens, they are patterned after the number seven and point to Messiah bringing us into His heavenly land – rest in Him.

INTRODUCING FULL PRETERISM CHRONOMESSIANISM THE CALENDAR OF SABBATICAL CYCLES — THE PROPER AD 26–AD 66-70 CONTEXTUAL APPROACH TO DANIEL 9:24-27 AND ISAIAH 61–63:1-6

What modern Christian commentators have missed in Daniel 9:24-27 is the context is addressing Daniel being concerned with the prophetic “word” of Jeremiah (Jer. 25 and 29) and the angel is not discussing beginning the 490 years count down beginning with a “decree” of a Gentile king, but rather explaining the “word” of Jeremiah connected with what God had revealed to Daniel in the vision of Daniel 7.  The 70 years of Babylonian captivity is included within the 490 years prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27.  The 70 years of captivity are connected to the Babylonian dominance over Israel but there were three more Gentile kingdoms to go before true and New Covenant restoration under Messiah would be achieved.  The 70 years x  7 (based on breaking the sabbath laws of Lev. 25-26) = 490 years.

The next major error, is that Yeshua was a Jew and He along with the Jews of the first century would have used the Jewish calendar which dated the destruction of the first temple around 420 BC and not the Gentile calendar of 586 BC.  Therefore, first century “Chronomessianism” began the 490 years countdown from the destruction of the first temple to an anticipated arrival of the Messiah before the destruction of the second temple.  Messiah had to arrive at the end of the last and 10th jubilee to accomplish all the soteriological and eschatological events listed in Daniel 9:24-27 and Isaiah 61:1-11.  They expected Messiah to arrive right around AD 26 – AND HE DID!  But because they missed the spiritual nature of His Kingdom (Lk. 17:20-37), they missed the fulfillment of this powerful prophecy unfold before their very eyes from AD 26 — AD 66-70. Even though Daniel prophesied of a spiritual kingdom (Dan. 2 and 7) and it was clear from their own prophets that they would not be able to “discern” their own “end” when it drew “near” in that particular “perverse and crooked generation” (Deut. 32/Acts 2:40/1 Pet. 4:5-7). The fact that God would be coming to judge their unbelief and not the Romans was prophesied to be a “strange work” (Isa. 28). Their carnal expectations caused them to miss Isaiah’s “new work” of the spiritual New Covenant.

This is the “year of the Lord’s favor” or the eschatological time frame that Eden was GIVEN BACK to man and his SLAVERY from “the death” that came through Adam and Satan was completely removed. The trumpets have been blown, and Post AD 70 we are in the eternal NC age of Jubilee – come enter the gates of the New Jerusalem and celebrate with us (Isa. 65-66/Rev. 21-22:17). Experience the redemption, rest and inheritance that is yours and that can ONLY be found “in Christ” where all the promises of God have been fulfilled (2 Cor. 1:20/Lk. 21:20-22). Selah!

In the Jewish mind,

“422 BC is associated with when the first temple burned 70 Sabbaticals (490 years) before the second temple burned in 70 AD.” (A Treatise on the Sabbatical Cycle and the Jubilee, 1866, by Dr. B. Zuchermann, Professor at the Jewish Theological Seminary).

And,

“The 2nd century CE rabbinic work Seder Olam Rabbah, which formed the basis of the era counting of the Hebrew calendar, interpreted the prophecy of seventy weeks in Daniel 9:24-27 as referring to a period of 490 years, with a “week” being interpreted as a period of seven years, which would pass between the destruction of the First and Second Temple. This is used to date the destruction of the First Temple to 423 BCE (3338 AM) – about 165 years after the current scholarly dating of the event. The discrepancy between these two dates is referred to as “missing years”.” (Missing Years, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_years_%28Jewish_calendar%29).

The Jews connected the destruction of the first temple (424/422BC), the seventy years of Babylon captivity, the restoration and rebuilding of the Temple (under Ezra and Nehemiah 515BC – 70 yrs. from the first Temple’s destruction), to the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 —- as the 10th. Jubilee cycle or 490 years! They expected Messiah to arrive right around AD 26 (AND HE DID!) to fulfill all of His redemptive promises given to them through the prophets, but because they missed the spiritual nature of His Kingdom (Lk. 17:20-37), they missed the fulfillment of this powerful prophecy unfold before their eyes in the redemptive events from AD 26 — AD 66-70. Even though Daniel prophesied of a spiritual kingdom (Dan. 2 and 7) and it was clear from their own prophets that they would not be able to “discern” their own “end” when it drew “near” in that particular “perverse and crooked generation” (Deut. 32/Acts 2:40/1 Pet. 4:5-7). The fact that God would be coming to judge their unbelief and not the Romans was prophesied to be a “strange work” (Isa. 28). Their carnal expectations caused them to miss Isaiah’s “new work” of the New Covenant.

We must enter into the Jewish and historical context when approaching Daniel 9:24-27 as relating to the Sabbatical calendar and the redemption of Israel.

While I would differ on some points with Ben Zion Wacholder, I would agree with the majority of these quotes and that there is sufficient,
*** “…evidence in the biblical, Qumran׳ New Testament, and rabbinic literature for a hitherto unnoticed but apparently at one time widespread belief, that the inevitable coming of the messiah would take place during the season when Israel celebrated the sabbatical year. Sabbatical messianism, or chronomessianism, are appropriate terms for a phenomenon that inspired a search in the scriptural prophecies for the exact date of the redeemer’s coming. Although most powerful in the apocalyptic tradition, chronomessianism appears as well in the mainstream of Judaism. The locus classicus of chronomessianic doctrine is found in Daniel 9, particularly in the mysterious verses 24-27.” (Ben Zion Wacholder, CHRONOMESSIANISM THE TIMING OF MESSIANIC MOVEMENTS AND THE CALENDAR OF SABBATICAL CYCLES, Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Cincinnati, p.1, bold emphasis MJS).
More quotes from his article that I found useful include the following:
*** “The pre-history of chronomessianism may be traced in several biblical pasages. Isa. 23:15-18 predicts that Tyre will be forgotten for seventy years, at the end of which time the Lord will again remember the famous city.Jeremiah employs the 70-year period for the length of Judah’s coming exile in Babylonia (Jer. 25: 11-12; 29: 10).  The use of the number 70 might reflect the Jewish affinity for the numeral seven and its multiples, evidenced in weekly and yearly sabbaths (shemittah) and the jubilee; alternately, it might have been a common Near Eastern convention for the maximum life expectancy or the normal span of two or three generations. Whatever that number’s function in Jeremiah, Zech. 1:12 regards the number 70 as the precise length of Judah’s exile. By fusing Jeremiah’s “70-year prophecy” with the assertion in Lev. 26:34-35, 43, that during the exile the land would atone for the sabbaths that Israel had violated, 2 Chron. 36:21-23 suggests not only that Jeremiah’s words came true, but explicitly interprets Cyrus’ edict as having reference to them.
Whatever the precise meaning of these passages, the credit for inventing sabbatical messianism belongs to the author of Daniel 9.” (Ibid., pp. 1-2).  
*** “The ancient Jewish exegesis of Dan. 9:24-27 differs from modern scholarship in two significant ways. With a few exceptions, all medieval and recent commentators translate the key-word shavu’a (supposedly following the LXX) as heptomad or a “week,י’ seven years.  The ancient exegetes, it will be shown, understood shavu’a to refer to the seven- year cycle, the last year of which was “the year of the Lord” (Lev. 25:2), the equivalent of the year of shemittah or release (Deut. 15:1-2), when debts were canceled and land lay fallow. The difference between the two interpretations is that, according to the former, any septennial number will do; according to the latter, however, each seven-year period had its fixed place in a series, precise in beginning and end. A second difference stems from the first. Modern exegetes interpret the passage without reference to Jewish chronology current at that time.  The ancients, however, took it for granted that the numbers in 9:24-27 had to harmonize with their calendar of sabbatical cycles.  No student would undertake to determine the day of the week without reference to the Jewish or Christian calendar; yet none of the nineteenth or twentieth century commentators, I have concluded, tries to harmonize Daniel with the sabbatical cycles as they were uninterruptedly observed during intertestamental and early rabbinic times.” (Ibid., pp. 2-3).

*** “The recently published fragments from a partially preserved pesher offer a fascinating presentation of sabbatical chronomessianism.  Although written in the familiar Qumran style, the pesher applied Daniel’s insight into what evidently was an anthology of biblical passages related to the sabbatical and jubilee themes, but which also included allusions to the reigns of the Righteous (Melchizedek) and Wicked (Melchiresha). After commenting on Lev. 25:13 in regard to the Israelites’ return to their patrimony in the year of דרור (jubilee), the remission of debts in Deut. 15:2, and freedom (דרור) to the captives, proclaimed in Isa. 61:1, llQMelch 3 II continues: “Its interpretation is: that He will proclaim them to be among the children of Heaven and of the inheritance of Melchizedek… For He will restore (their patrimonies?) to them and proclaim freedom to them and make them abandon all of their sins. This shall take place during the sabbatical cycle (shabu’a) of the first jubilee following the nitne] jubilees, and on the Day of Atonement falling at the en[d of the jujbilee, the tenth; To forgive on it (the day of atonement) for all of (the sins) of all the children of [God and] the men of the lot of Melchizedek.”  Although its main thought is quite clear, the precise chronology of the pesher remains obscure. There is no doubt, however, that the tenth jubilee alludes to the chronology of Dan. 9:24’s 70 sabbatical cycles, which equals 10 jubilees, when Melchizedek will overcome Me(a)lchiresha°. Any lingering doubt that this is so disappears when one reads in line 18 of our fragment: “And the herald of good tidings (Isa. 52:7a) refers to the messiah, the Spirit concerning whom it was said by Dan[iel (9:25): ‘Until the coming of the messiah, the prince, 7 sabbatical cycles…'”  Despite the fact that the pesher utilizes a long list of biblical passages, Dan. 9:24-27 remained the key to the author’s chronology of sabbatical messianism.” (Ibid., pp. 10-11).

*** “Chapters 29-30 of Seder Olam, which may be regarded as a kind of midrash on Dan. 9:24-27, tailor the chronology of the burnings of the First and the Second Temples to make them conform to the author’s view of Daniel’s sabbatical numbers: 10 Jubilees = 70 Sabbatical cycles = 490 years elapsed from Nebuchadnezzar’s to Titus’ conquests of Jerusalem.” (Ibid., p. 11).
*** “It is evident that the observance of the sabbatical years and jubilees during the intertestamental times played a far larger role in the consciousness of Israel than has been hitherto recognized. Immense as were the effects of the calendar of sabbatical cycles on the agricultural and social life of the people, its influence was no less on the formulation of Jewish religious beliefs. Concepts such as creation, history, apocalypse, and eschatology all became enmeshed with the calendar of sabbatical cycles. In the 7th year debts were cancelled, hard labor in the fields stopped; the voice of freedom was heard throughout the land as the steps of the messiah were believed to have become more and more audible.” (Ibid. p. 18).

James M. Hamilton Jr. also comments on this relevant Qumran material in relation to Daniel 9:24-27 and the eschatological jubilee of 490 years:
“This seems to indicate that the reference to ‘Melchizedek’ in this passage should be understood along the lines of the David Psalm 110.  In that case, 11Q Rule of Melchizedek bears witness to a hope for a David and Melchizedekian figure who will be anointed by the Spirit, make atonement for his people (the sons of light, i.e. the seed of the woman), thereby freeing them from their sins, proclaiming liberty to the captives, enabling the return from exile, and all these magnificent things take place at the tenth jubilee.” (James M. Hamilton Jr., With the Clouds of Heaven The book of Daniel in biblical theology, IVP, p. 162, bold emphasis MJS).

I believe Hamilton is correct to see this material including the Messianic second exodus and Messianic gathering motif as well.  He includes the blowing of the trumpet and eschatological gathering of Isaiah 27:13 with Daniel 9:24-27 (Ibid.).  This is significant in that both Yeshua and Paul connect the trumpet gathering of Isaiah 27:13 with the Second Coming of Christ and resurrection to take place in their generation and in the lifetime of their contemporaries (Mt. 24:30-34; 1 Thess. 4:15-17).  This trumpet eschatological gathering at Christ’s Second Coming in the events of AD 66 – AD 70 is described by Luke as the “days of vengeance” which correlate to Isaiah’s “day of vengeance” during this last eschatological cycle of the Jubilee (Lk. 21:20-32/Isa. 61–63).

Margaret Barker comes the closest to my position because she at least connects this last 10th cycle to the “soon” AD 66 – AD 70 fulfillments to the prophecy of Revelation.

“The seventy weeks of years, 490 years, were ten Jubilees, and the alternative way of reckoning this period was as ten Jubilees. Jewish tradition remembered that the 490 years ended in 68CE; calculation from the second temple Jubilee sequence beginning in 424BCE gives 66CE. A two years discrepancy is hardly significant in the light of what this implies, namely that the tenth Jubilee began in 17/19 CE. In other words, tenth Jubilee fervour and expectations were the context for the ministry of Jesus.” (Margaret Barker, THE TIME IS FULFILLED JESUS AND THE JUBILEE, 1999, http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/JesusAndTheJubilee.pdf).

She points out in the article that there seems to be some confusion or discrepancy on the years 422 BC or 424 BC from the second Temple Jubilee and then the next issue to work through would be if one should be calculating based on 50 or 49 for a Jubilee cycle. But if I’m reading her correctly, then 422 BC or 424 BC is where the 10 Jubilee’s countdown from Daniel 9:24-27 begins in Jewish tradition and the first century context in which Jesus and the NT authors ministered.

When I calculate Jubilees (based on 50 and not 49) from the “sign” in (Isaiah 37:30ff.) for Hezekiah in 722 BC, and work backwards until I get to a jubilee in 422 BC and the second Temple, and then calculate the 10 jubilee’s from 422 BC, this brings us to AD 27 as the 10th. Jubilee cycle.

But to be thorough, here are the various ways to calculate where the 10.th Jubilee cycle began in the lifetime of Yeshua based upon two dates for the second Temple 424 BC/422 BC and or using and counting from a 49 or 50 Jubilee year approach:

45878532_10156697132264192_8128908576199540736_n

Based upon Josephus, one can calculate a seventh year sabbath in AD 27. So based upon this information and my math, the 10th Jubilee cycle is in around AD 26/28 and this is when Jesus makes the declaration in the synagogue that He is the fulfillment of the Jubilee of Isaiah 61:1-11 in Luke 4:16-21. This would give a Jubilee Sabbatical or seventh year sabbatical in the following years (all falling within the last 10th Jubilee cycle 490 years):

1). AD 26/28 — Yeshua begins fulfilling the soteriological and eschatological 10th. cycle of the Jubilee — ministry — “cut off” — inaugurates NC age — First half of Daniel’s last “7.”

2). AD 33/35 – Seventh year sabbath

3). AD 40/42 – Seventh year sabbath

4). AD 47/49 – Seventh year sabbath

5). AD 54/56 – Seventh year sabbath

6). AD 61/63 – Seventh year sabbath

7). AD 67/69 — Yeshua fulfilling “Days of vengeance” — end of OC age — maturity of NC age — last half of Daniel’s last “7” AD 67 falls within the parousia or Second Coming of Christ event — that is the “day of vengeance” of (Isa. 61:2) which was fulfilled within Yeshua’s contemporary “this generation” and described by Him as “…the days of vengeance in fulfillment of all that has been written” and Israel’s “redemption” (Lk. 21:20-22; 27-32=Dan. 9:24-27/Isa. 61:1-11).

Josephus also records that the temple was destroyed on the 10th of Ab, the same date on which the first temple was destroyed (Josephus, Wars, 6:4:5).

*** All of Israel’s feast days (Spring and Fall) were fulfilled during this last “7” of Daniel’s 70 7’s prophecy – which was the anticipated Messianic “last days” 10th. cycle of the Jubilee in Yeshua’s day. This understanding of the OT prophets and tradition of the day along with the view that when Messiah came He would usher in a transitionary reign of the second exodus generation between their Old Covenant “this age” and the Messianic New Covenant “age about to come” are the views of Jesus and the inspired NT authors. Selah. For a review of our study on Israel’s feast days go here: https://www.facebook.com/notes/berean-bible-church/part-2-25-1018-mon-sat-exodus-23-and-israels-feasts/10155296783138616/

It has become very clear to me that Leviticus 23-26 is the key to understanding how Yeshua fulfilled all the feasts of Israel within that last 10th cycle of Jubilee (of which Israel’s calendar and redemptive history was based off) and the second exodus generation!  Click on chart to enlarge:

Visio-Eschatology-chronomessianism-7

There are a couple of different ways in calculating the 10 Jubilee or 490 years cycle. Some begin with 424 BC others 422 BC. Some calculate based on the 49 years others include the 50thyear. So I ran the numbers on all the possible scenarios. Barker used the calculation seen in #3. But I also find #’s 2 and 4 interesting because AD 26 or AD 28 would be during Jesus’ earthly ministry and His announcing that He is the fulfillment of the Jubilee prophecy in Isaiah 61 and Daniel 9. He would then shortly be ”cut off” (crucified) and His Second Coming as High Priest in AD 66 – AD 70 would still fall within that 10 th.Jubilee cycle of 490 years. This transition period also fulfilled the 40 years second exodus generation motif from their OC “this age” to the NC “age about to come” that they calculated based upon Isa. 10-11, Ps. 90 and other passages.

I did find someone (and I do not share her eschatology obviously) who calculated the jubilee cycle as I had (see #2 in the chart). Marie Casale writes,

“According to Luke 3:21-23, Jesus began to be about 30 years of age when he was baptized by John the Baptist. Having been born in the fall of 5 BC, he was baptized in the fall of 26 AD at the time of his birthday. Then, according to the scriptures, after his fall baptism, he went immediately into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan for forty days. (Mat 4:1-2) He returned to Jerusalem for the first Passover of his ministry, April 9, 27 AD. (Jhn2:13-25) Some time later Jesus began preaching in Galilee after John the Baptist was put in prison. (Mar 1:14-15, Mat 4:12, Luk4:14-15)

The next event after this was that Jesus preaches in Nazareth on the Sabbath day – Luk4:16-30 * Luk4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

Luk4:17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

Luk4:18 The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to SET AT LIBERTY them that are bruised, Luk4:19 To preach THE ACCEPTABLE YEAR OF THE LORD.

Luk4:20 And he closed the book, and he gave [it] again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. Luk4:21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

The message in Luk4:19 has to do with the announcement of ‘the acceptable year of the Lord’. This must be the Sabbath year of 26 AD.

Jesus would have probably announced these words on the Feast of Pentecost in 27 AD. The next holy day, the Day of Trumpets in 27 AD, would begin the second year of his ministry.

The message in Luk4:18 also has to do with a ‘proclamation of liberty’. Liberty was to be proclaimed as we see here in the commandments of the Sabbath year and of the Jubilee year. (cf. Deut. 15:12-18). (Marie Casale, THE SABBATH JUBILEE YEARS POINT TO THE MINISTRY OF CHRIST).

The “Already and Not Yet” of the Jubilee Cycle of Isiah 61/Luke 4

I should briefly address those such as Dr. Michael Heiser whom point out that Yeshua did not quote the “day of vengeance” when he quoted Isaiah 61 in Luke 4:18 because of an alleged 2,000 plus “already and not yet” period.

  1.  In Jewish hermeneutics often times a Rabbi would quote just one section of a prophecy and the audience knew the theological context of the entire passage was referenced as well.
  2. Even for those that discuss Yeshua was only addressing the “already” aspect of fulfilling the Jubilee of Isaiah 61 through His earthly ministry and passion — this does not address the NT places the “not yet” being fulfilled in the first century “this generation,” “soon,” “quickly,” “at hand,” “about to,” “would not be delayed,” etc…  This and the 10th Jubilee cycle had to be fulfilled within 49-50 years from AD 26.  In Luke 4:18 Jesus may be focusing on the first half of the last 7 if Daniel 9:24-27; but this does not prove the “not yet” of the last half of the 7 is 2,000 plus years and counting.

From what I understand, some commentators do claim Jesus’ declaration of the Jubilee of Luke 4:18-21/Isaiah 61 was made in an actual Jubilee year sabbath period, but it is not developed much by them or proven the way I have (and confirmed to me by Marie Casale). If this is accurate and we have a Jubilee sabbath rest year in AD 26/AD 28, then Jesus is in essence saying: “You know the 10th Jubilee of Daniel 9:24-27 that you are expecting as the time of Messiah coming to visit you with salvation and judgment, well, I am Him and the time of this prophetic period being fulfilled is taking place in your hearing and before your very eyes.” The Lord would confirm in (Luke 21:20-22, 27-32; Mt. 24:15-34) that all of the seventy sevens (and thus their “redemption”) would be fulfilled when the “abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel” took place within their contemporary “this generation.” When the Roman armies stepped foot on Israel’s land (known to them to be “a holy place” Mt. 24:15/Lk. 21:20-22) this event (the judgment of Jerusalem) brought the 70 7’s prophecy of Daniel to a perfect fulfillment and fulfilled all OT prophecy (as in Daniel 12:1-7).

Here are some more helpful insights from Barker’s article in not just developing the first part of the 10th. cycle to the earthly ministry of Christ, but the last part of the cycle to the “soon” AD 70 judgment,

*** “The Qumran Melchizedek text (11QMelch), written in the middle of the first century BCE but not necessarily composed at that time, describes the events of the tenth Jubilee14. Only fragments have survived so it is possible that the complete text described the other nine Jubilees also. The text begins by quoting the Jubilee laws in Leviticus 25 and Deuteronomy 15, interpreting them ‘for the last days’. The captives who are to return are people whose teachers have been ‘hidden and kept secret’ and these ‘people of the inheritance of Melchizedek’ will return. There is insufficient text for certainty, but this looks like a group who have been secretly preserving the teachings of the first temple, when there was a Melchizedek priesthood. In the tenth Jubilee they would ‘return’, perhaps to the temple as priests? The liberty of the Jubilee is interpreted as release from iniquities, the beginning of the atonement which will occur on the Day of Atonement at the end of the tenth Jubilee. The return and the release from iniquity were to happen in the first week, the first seven years, of the tenth Jubilee i.e. approximately 19-26 CE. If Jesus was born in 7/6 BCE15 and was baptised when he was about thirty years old (Luke 3.23), he began his ministry during the crucial first ‘week’ of the tenth Jubilee.

11 QMelch alludes many times to the Jubilee oracle in Isaiah 61: ‘… the LORD God has anointed me… to proclaim liberty to the captives (Isa.61.1, ‘proclaim liberty’, deror. being a quotation from Lev.25.10). The coming Melchizedek is to rescue his own people (? the sons of light, but the text is damaged here) from the power of Belial. There was to be a messenger of peace announcing to Zion ‘Your God reigns’, thus fulfilling Isaiah 52.7. The messenger was probably Melchizedek, but again the text is too damaged for certainty. He would be the anointed one prophesied in Daniel 9.25, but described in 11 QMelch as ‘anointed of the Spirit’, a conflation with Isaiah 61.1. The anointed one would instruct in the end times of the world16 and some people (the text is broken here) would establish the covenant, another Day of Atonement theme.

This gives the context for the opening scenes of the gospels. In the first week of the tenth Jubilee Jesus was baptised with the Spirit, which was interpreted as his anointing (Acts 10.38). After his time in the desert he returned to Galilee announcing ‘the time is fulfilled’ i.e. the tenth Jubilee is inaugurated and ‘Melchizedek’ is here, ‘the Kingdom of God is at hand, repent’, because the final Day of Atonement was also at hand at hand, ‘and believe the good news’ of the Jubilee release. Luke’s account of Jesus in the synagogue at Nazareth shows that he claimed to have inaugurated the final Jubilee; no other interpretation can be put on the claim to have fulfilled that day (Luke 4.21) the Jubilee prophecy in Isaiah 61 which was central to the Melchizedek expectations of the time. 17

The first miracle was an exorcism (Mark 1.21-26), setting one of his own people free from the power of Belial. He spoke of a woman bound by Satan and released her (Luke 13.16), of slaves to sin whom the Son could release (John 9.31-38). He forgave sins and illustrated his teaching with a parable of two debtors whose debts were cancelled (Luke 7. 41-48). The healing miracles restored to the community people who would have been excluded as ritually unfit: the disabled, the lepers, a woman who was bleeding. This was the great ingathering of the Jubilee. Jesus spoke of those who would inherit the earth (Mat.5.5) and at the Last Supper, he spoke of the New Covenant and of his blood poured out for the remission of sins (aphesis, the Jubilee word, Mat.26.28).

The Jubilee also brought the Day of Judgement, vividly described in 11QMelch. Melchizedek would take his place in the heavenly assembly and, as described in Psalm 82.1, begin to judge the `elohim, the heavenly beings. This was to be the year of Melchizedek’s favour, a very significant alteration to Isaiah 61.2, which proclaims the Jubilee as the year of the LORD’s favour. Similarly with Psalm 82.1; it is Melchizedek who takes his place in the heavenly assembly, whereas in the original Psalm it is God. The only possible conclusion is that Melchizedek, the heavenly high priest, was the LORD, the God of Israel. In 11 QMelch he has armies and brings the vengeance of divine judgement, and these were expected to appear in the tenth Jubilee. 11 QMelch explains why Jesus is depicted as judge and warrior in the Book of Revelation and why the Book of Revelation is described as ‘The revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place’ (Rev.1.1). These were the teachings of Melchizedek, revealing in the tenth Jubilee the ends times of the world. When the Lamb takes his place in the heavenly assembly (Rev.5.6-14 fulfilling Ps.82.1) the judgement begins. The Word of God rides out from heaven, wearing a white robe sprinkled with blood; he is the high priest who has taken the atonement blood into the holy of holies. He rides out with his with his army (Rev.19.11-16) and the judgement follows.

The letter to the Hebrews explained the role of Jesus as the new Melchizedek (Heb.7.11), the one who had attained the priesthood by ascent, being raised up, not by descent from Aaron18. The crucifixion and ascension had been recognised as the enthronement of the Lamb, exactly as described in Hebrews 10.12: ‘When Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, there to wait until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet’. The remainder of the tenth Jubilee was the time of waiting until the final battle and victory when the Great High Priest would emerge to complete the Atonement and conclude the Jubilee.” (Ibid.).

*** “The seventh seal [of Revelation] would bring the return of the heavenly high priest to complete the great atonement at the end of the tenth Jubilee which was, by that time, imminent. In August 66CE, the nationalists gained entrance to the temple area and burned all records of debt20, the start of the Jubilee.” (Ibid.).

***” There is insufficient evidence to say with confidence how closely the Parousia expectations of the early church were bound up with the Jewish nationalism of the first century CE. They had Jubilee expectations in common, but the present form of the gospels invites us to believe that Jesus spiritualised the Jubilee, interpreting release from debt and slavery as forgiveness of sins and release from the power of Satan. This, however, is exactly the interpretation in 11QMelch, which was quite clear about the events of the tenth Jubilee. A spiritual interpretation of Jubilee does not necessarily indicate a separate agenda from the nationalists. Jesus did warn that the blood of the prophets would be required of his generation (Luke 11.50), in other words, that the Day of Judgement would occur within the lifetime of his hearers. This explains the urgency of his words: ‘The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe in the good news’.” (Ibid.).

*** “The Jubilee was used to measure time in the second temple period even when a literal application of the land laws was no longer possible10. Later tradition divided the history of Israel into Jubilees, but the remarkable coincidence of important events and Jubilee years does suggest that the Jubilee system was a significant factor in Israel’s actual history and not just in the memory of its historians.” (Ibid.).

That the Jubilee of Isaiah 61 was considered an imminent eschatological expectation in Jesus’ days is supported by other scholars:

“In 11Q13 phrases from Isa. 61:1–2 are linked with Lev. 25:13; Deut. 15:2; Ps. 7:8–9; 82:1–2; Isa. 52:7 to portray the expectation of the eschatological Jubilee (M. P. Miller 1969; J. A. Sanders 1975: 85). (Pao, D. W., & Schnabel, E. J. (2007). Luke. In Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament (p. 288). Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, UK: Baker Academic; Apollos).

My Response to Margaret Barker’s Article

Jubilee Used to Measure Time and the History of Israel

As to Barker’s insight into the Jews dividing up their history in jubilee years and expectations of Messiah coming to fulfill Daniel’s 10th cycle of Jubilee during the times of Jesus — see my comments on the eschatological genealogies of Matthew and Luke’s gospels and George F. Moore’s article, Fourteen Generations: 490 Years: An Explanation of the Genealogy of Jesus, The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Jan., 1921), pp. 97-103 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Harvard Divinity School.

The “Days of Vengeance” – Luke 21:20-32 and the 10th. Jubilee Cycle

Yeshua predicted that His coming soteriological and eschatological “redemption” “kingdom” “days of vengeance” of the Jubilee of Isaiah 61–66 would arrive at the sound of a trumpet and would be accomplished within His first century “this generation” audience (Lk. 21:20-32/Mt. 24:30-34). This was the fulfillment of “all that had been written” in the OT (Lk. 21:20-22ff.), which would obviously include Isaiah 61–66 and Daniel 2; 7; 9 and 12.

The Book of Hebrews and the 10th Jubilee Cycle

In chapters 3-4 the author demonstrates that the OT predicted “another sabbath rest” for Israel to enter into of which the land promise was only a type. In chapters 9-10 this “approaching day” of sabbath rest is connected to His Second Appearing as the Great High Priest to finish His atonement work. The first century Church was “eagerly” awaiting this return that is described as taking place in the last days of the Old Covenant age and “in a very little while” and would “not delay.” He was “about to” (Greek mello) burn up His Old Covenant apostate Jewish enemies and place them under His feet at this AD 66 – AD 70 Second Appearing.

In chapter 7 Melchizedek only functioned as a type of Christ, therefore the fist century imminent expectations of the eschatological “last days” Melchizedek is rightfully applied to Christ as Messiah and God to accomplish what they thought this figure would.

The Book of Revelation and the 10th Jubilee Cycle

The book of Revelation picks up where Daniel leaves off. Daniel had to “seal up the vision” because the time of fulfillment was “far off” (Dan. 12), whereas John is told the opposite concerning the SAME prophecy. He is told to “NOT seal up the vision” because the time of fulfillment is “at hand” (Rev. 22). Most of the book of Revelation deals with Daniel’s final “7” and places it being fulfilled in a fist century AD 66 – AD 77 period (i.e. “shortly” “soon” “at hand” “about to” “quick”).

Revelation also addresses issues of atonement, forgiveness of sin, sabbath rest and restoring man’s original Edenic inheritance in Christ at His “soon” Second Coming event during AD 66 – AD 70.

Yeshua – the Only Messianic Candidate

No matter how you look at it, the Jews were expecting Messiah to arrive during the Roman Empire and during the 10th Jubilee cycle/period and thus be made manifest to them between AD 17/19 or AD 26/28 Jesus was the ONLY one claiming to be Messiah and fulfilling this prophecy in His day, that I know of. Jesus arriving during this 10th. Jubilee cycle and proclaiming “liberty” along with His physical miracles, demonstrated that He indeed was who He claimed to be. Who else during this period was making this specific claim and having the miracles to back it up?!? And who else was prophesying that He would come on the clouds as the Ancient of Days and destroy the Temple within that same generation (Mt. 24:15-34/Lk. 21:20-32)?!?

Daniel 9:24-27 and the 10th. Jubilee Cycle Fulfilled Between AD 26–AD 66-70

When you read the commentators concerning these six promises Messiah will accomplish in the last 7 — which is divided into 2 3.5 periods, many recognize there is an “already and not yet” of Messiah’s redemptive work (cf. Heb. 9-10) that must be fulfilled between Him being “cut off” (the cross – or “already”) and His Second Appearing as High Priest out from the Temple–to finish the atoning process.  Others have seen that the seventy sevens prophecy simply ends with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.  And yet others will readily admit that the coming of the Son of Man upon the clouds in Daniel 7:13 is developed by Jesus in Matthew 10:22-23; 16:27-28; 24:1-34 as Him coming in judgment upon Jerusalem in AD 70 through the Romans.  Connecting these observations together, we see that Jesus gives a “this generation” period to be the “already and not yet” period for these events to take place and NOT a 2,000 plus years and counting period.  This becomes clear in the first of these six events of which we not turn.

Other Historical Works Confirm the Same Contemporary Time Frame of Inspired NT Imminence

This Age and the Age About to Come
N.T. Wright correctly points out Jesus’ and Paul’s teaching on the “end of the age,” is in harmony with “…the ‘two-age’ structure…of Pharisaic/rabbinic Judaism.”  The “end of the age” in Mt. 13:39, 43; Mt. 24:3; Heb. 9:26 Wright correctly identifies as “…the fall of Jerusalem and the Parousia of Jesus.” (The RESURRECTION OF THE SON OF GOD, p. 645).  Wright is correct here on the ages and the parousia of Christ occurring in AD 70, except by “parousia” we see a reference to the Second Coming of Christ (not the ascension) consummating the OC age in judgment and ushering in and brining to maturity the New Covenant age in which we live today.
The 40 Years Generation “Transition” Between the Old Covenant and New Covenant Ages
“Many Rabbis believed the period of Messiah was to be a transitionary stage between “this age [OC age] and the “age to come” [NC age] (Rev. Dr. A. Cohen, Everyman’s TALMUD, p. 356).  “‘How long will the days of the Messiah last?  R. Akiba said, ‘forty years, based upon how long the Israelites were in the wilderness before inheriting the land” (Ibid.).
This “transition stage” or second exodus of a 40 years generation type/anti-type understanding is developed for us by Yeshua in the Gospels, John the Baptist, the Apostle Paul, the author of Hebrews and forms the infallible and prophetic NT’s view of inspired imminence (cf. Mt. 3-4; 24:34; 1 Cor. 10:11; Heb. 3-4; 10:25, 37; 11—13:14YLT).
The Essenes & Inspired NT Imminence
Among the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Essenes interpreted Habakkuk 2, the book of Daniel and Ezekiel 38-39 regarding the coming of Messiah in judgment, the “last days” and end time battle to be referring to the same time of fulfillment that Yeshuah and the NT authors did:

  • Essenes believed they were the “final generation” that would experience “the end of the [OC] age.” (1QpHab 7:1-2)
  • Yeshua and Peteraffirmed “the end” or “end of the age” was “near” in their contemporary generation (Mt. 24:3-34; Acts 2:20-40/Deut. 32:5, 20; 1 Pet. 4:5-7).  Hebrews affirms the appointed time of Habakkuk’s prophecy had arrived and thus Yeshua’s Second Appearing to finish the atonement process would come “in a very little while” and would “not delay” at the approaching last days of the OC age (Heb. 9:28–10:37-38/Hab. 2:3-4).
  • The Essenes believed based upon Daniel 9:24-27, Habakkuk 2, Ezekiel 38-39 and other OT passages that their “last days” “generation,” would experience the end time war of Gog and Magog — when Rome came against apostate Jerusalem and their priesthood (1QpHab 9:5-11; 12:5-13).  They also believed Messiah would come and join them to defeat both the Romans and the apostate priesthood of Jerusalem.  After the community was almost wiped out by the Romans, they joined their apostate Jerusalem enemies in the events of AD 66 – AD 70 to fight Rome.  But event then they remained hopeful that Messiah would come and deliver them and destroy both of the Romans and apostate Jerusalem in this end time battle.
  • Yeshua and Johnaffirm “the last days” end time battle would be “near” in their generation when God would judge OC Jerusalem (or Babylon) for slaying Yeshua and His Apostles and Prophets (Lk. 21:20-24, 32/Dan. 9:26-27; Lk. 23:28-31/Isa. 2-4; Rev. 6:10-11; 11:8; 16; 19; 20).

We can imagine that while the Essenes were seeking to self-fulfill their carnal earthly views of the Messianic kingdom by going to Jerusalem and joining the war of AD 66 – AD 70, the Christians would be leaving the city being delivered by Messiah and knowing the kingdom “within” them was arriving RIGHT ON TIME (Lk. 17:20-37; 21:20-32).
Alright, back to Daniel…

1).  Finish transgression

Jerusalem “filled up” or “finished transgressions” against God and His Messiah within Jesus’ “this generation” (Mt. 23:31-38; Dan. 9:24a).  Dr. Michael Brown cites James E. Smith as understanding this verse likewise to be, “To fill up [or restrain] the transgression.  Within the 490 year period the people of Israel would commit their final transgression against God.  Jesus indicated that the leaders of his generation were about to fill up the measure of the sin of their forefathers (Matt. 23:32)…” (Michael Brown, AJOJ, Vol. 3, 93).

And Brown himself takes this interpretation when he writes,

“…take seriously Yeshua’s words spoken in Matthew 23:32, when he sarcastically exhorted the hostile Jewish leaders of his day, “Fill up the measure of the sin of your forefathers!”  Thus, the generation that rejected the Messiah would suffer the culmination of the sins of all the previous generations:  “Upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth…I tell the truth, all this will come upon this generation” (Matt. 23:35a, 37).” (Ibid., p. 96, bold emphasis MJS).

Unfortunately, Brown’s commitment to Futurist Zionism causes him to not “take seriously Yeshua’s words spoken in Matthew 23…,” because this is the consummative judgment of the living (the Pharisees) and the dead (martyrs) going all the way back to Genesis.  As that contemporary generation was ending, the book of Revelation confirms the same first century time frame of fulfillment in that the vindication of he martyrs blood at the hands of the great harlot city Babylon (which is OC Jerusalem where the Lord was crucified – Rev. 11:8) would be fulfilled in a “very little while” at the “soon” Second Coming of Christ (Rev. 6:10-11; 17–22:6-7, 10-12, 20).  The judgment and resurrection of the dead is once again connected with the fall of Jerusalem in Daniel 12:1-7.

Arminianism and Brown portrays and interprets Matthew 23:37 as it being Jesus’ will to save the vast majority within Jerusalem, but because of their free will and rejection, He simply could not pull it off.  Some within Dispensationalism also claim that Jesus wanted to save the majority in Israel and establish His kingdom on earth at His first coming, but again due to unbelief, He couldn’t and had to resort to “plan b” (the cross).  But somehow, we are to be assured that man’s “free will” and rejection of Christ will not be a problem for God’s will when He comes a second time, when the vast majority within Jerusalem allegedly will cry out with their free will at that time in repentance, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.”
The Context of Matthew 23
Matthew 23:37-39 is a part of the entire teaching and context beginning in v. 1.  Jesus is pointing out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees (vss. 1-12).  Then Jesus begins pronouncing 7 judgmental “woes” upon them in vss. 13-39.  It is important to note Jesus’ emotional disposition is that of righteous anger at the Pharisees, and not Him weeping over the fact that He simply cannot accomplish His will to save the majority among Jerusalem.
Israel’s sin of blood guilt (whereby she killed the righteous among them throughout her history) was “filling up” from the time of Cain’s killing of righteous Abel, to those NT prophets and teachers Jesus would send to them – of which they too would persecute and kill (from AD 30 – AD 66 – vss. 32-34, cf. Matt. 10:17-23).  In vss. 35-36, 38 Jesus makes it abundantly clear that the time of judgment for all their bloodshed would fall upon them/their “this generation” – when their “house”/temple would be left desolate in AD 70.  This particular “this generation” was prophesied by Moses in Deuteronomy to experience her “end” (Deut. 32:5, 20/Acts 2:20-40).  At this time the righteous remnant among Israel (the “Israel within Israel” trusting in Messiah) along with the believing Gentiles would “rejoice” for God judging OC Israel’s sin of blood guilt and bringing her to this end (Deut. 32:43).
Matthew 23:37 
“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.”
First, this verse leading into vss. 38-39 is apart of Jesus’ 7th and last judgment “woe” began in v. 29.  Again, Jesus’ disposition is that of righteous anger not Him weeping because His will is being thwarted because the majority within Jerusalem would not believe in Him.
Secondly, in the context of this chapter, “Jerusalem” should be identified as the “Pharisees” who sought not to let others enter the kingdom v. 14.  And the “children” would include some of those that they sought to lay heavy burdens upon v. 4.
Thirdly, “gathering” here is the Messianic new exodus gathering predicted by the prophets (ex. Isa. 11:10-12).  Some Jews during Jesus’ day saw this new exodus being another 40 years generation or transitionary period between the OC “this age” of the law and prophets, and the NC or Messianic “age to come” based upon Psalm 90:15 and other texts.  This is the inspired time frame of Jesus and the rest of the NT writers.  There is an “already and not yet” aspect to this gathering which falls within Jesus’ “this generation” prophecy.
The “already” aspect of it can be said to have begun with the preaching of the gospel by Jesus in the gospels (and Pentecost and beyond) by which He was gathering the first fruits into His kingdom.  According to Paul and Peter, this is God gathering Jew and Gentile into one spiritual New Man or Temple.
The “not yet” aspect of this Messianic gathering and the blowing of the trumpet at His Second Coming to close the end of the OC age in AD 70 would be the full harvest when He gathered all of His elect within that generation and caused them to inherit the kingdom.  Both the “already” and “not yet” aspects to this Messianic judgment and gathering are said to take place within Jesus’ AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation” or at the end of His Old Covenant “this age” (Matt. 13:29-43; 23:36; 24:30-34).
In respect to the “already” – this gathering involved Jesus gathering “the children” to hear His preaching.  The leadership or Pharisees / “Jerusalem” sought to hinder this process or “would not” allow it (that is to the best of their abilities).  John 9-10 is probably a good commentary here on this concept.  The blind man is healed but his family is scared because the Pharisees had begun persecuting anyone who believed in Jesus – by kicking them out of the synagoue 9:22. Jesus goes on to depict the Pharisees here as the truly “blind” ones and then in chapter 10 as “thieves” “robbers” and “hired hands” while He is the faithful Shepherd gathering His sheep (such a the blind man healed in chapter 9) into safety and green pastures.  He also goes on to affirm that none of His sheep the Father gives Him (by name in election) would fail to come to Him in faith and would not perish (cf. chapter 10).  This refutes the Arminian and Brown’s twisting of Matthew 23:37.
God sovereignly foreordained and used the persecutions of the Pharisees to kill His Son and persecute the early church.  Why?  Because this was His prophetic and ordained will and method of establishing His kingdom – not a means by which it got postponed or God’s will get’s frustrated in saving all He ordains to come to Him.
Before leaving this subject of Jewish persecution and a coming judgment, Paul addresses this problem as well in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 where the Jews were persecuting Christians and seeking to hinder the preaching of the gospel.  He also expected the eschatological “not yet” first century “wrath” and “trouble” to come upon those first century Jews (in their lifetimes) – this being consistent with the teachings of John the Baptist and Jesus elsewhere (cf. Matt. 3:7-12GNT; Lk. 21:20-32; 2 Thess. 1:5-7).
Matthew 23:38-39
“Look, your house is left to you desolate.  For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”
First, Jesus’ phrase “For I tell you” or “verily, verily I say unto you,” is always a linking phrase of emphasis to drive home the point of His teaching that has just gone before.  So the “coming” of v. 39 begins with connecting what follows with the judgment in AD 70 – ie. when “your house/temple is left to you desolate” v. 38.  Therefore, this is not some 2,000 and counting years “coming” of Christ that is designed to save the vast majority of Israel in our future.
Secondly, the exegete needs to examine the context of that OT text Jesus is quoting from and see what event He has identified with it elsewhere in His teachings.  Jesus is quoting and applying Psalm 118:26 here in Matthew 23:39 to Him coming in judgment upon Jerusalem and her temple in AD 70.  This is consistent with how Jesus has used Psalm 118 elsewhere.  In Matthew 21:42-45 Jesus references Psalm 118:22 to prove He is the Cornerstone by which the Pharisees would stumble over – and thus be judged.  This was the time when the kingdom would be taken from them and given to another nation bearing its fruits.  Consistent with Jesus, Peter uses Psalm 118 to refer to a coming salvation and judgment that was “ready” and “at hand” in his day (1 Peter 1:5-12—2:4-10–4:5-7).
Therefore, the burden of proof is upon the Futurist such as Brown to demonstrate that Jesus is using Psalm 118 in a completely different way – ie. referring to a 2,000+ years distant future context – ie. for Jerusalem’s mass salvation, and not her imminent judgment in AD 70.  Brown despises what he calls “replacement theology,” and yet when all the law and prophets were fulfilled by AD 70 (Lk. 21:20-22), the OC kingdom was “taken” and “given” to the Jew/Gentile Church in its spiritual/transformed/matured form.  When the OC kingdom is “taken” from Israel after the flesh is when the OC “vanished” and the Jew/Gentile Church inherited the spiritual and heavenly New Jersalem/City (Heb. 8:13; 13:14YLT).
Thirdly, Psalm 118:26 was commonly known as “The Song of Ascent.” The Song of Ascent was supposed to be a song of joy and salvation that the Jews would sing on the walls of Jerusalem welcoming the pilgrims for her feast days.  But God made Christ a Cornerstone or Rock by which Israel “stumbled” producing a “strange work” (Isa. 28:21 – ie. God would come to judge them – and not their enemies).  Instead of being met and welcoming pilgrims for the feasts, they were met with and forced to welcome – God coming in judgment through the Roman armies (as God had “come” in the OT – through the Assyrians, Babylonians, etc…).That the Jews would not “discern what their end would be” was predicted in yet another song – the Song of Moses (Deut. 32:29).
Again, Jesus’ disposition is that of righteous anger and thus He is using irony in appealing to a song that was typically used of salvation and peace, to be a song sung welcoming her enemies for her judgment!  The Jews were bottled up in Jerusalem in AD 66 – AD 70 deceiving themselves into thinking that God was going to save them from the Romans and usher in the kingdom in fulfillment of OT prophecies (the very mentality that Jesus warned about concerning the coming false prophets in Matt. 24).
Matthew 23-25
The climatic question that was begging in the minds of the disciples is that they wanted to know more specifically when and what signs Jesus might give concerning his coming to vindicate the persecutions coming and the blood of the martyrs, destroy the city and temple within their generation. Jesus had already given a subtle sign of Him coming during one of the feasts when they would be singing the Son of Ascent on the walls (Mt. 23:38-39/Ps. 118). And they already understood He would come in judgment to close their OC age (cf. Mt. 13:39-51). They were not “confused” to associate His coming with the destruction of the temple and the end of their OC age. They knew it would take place in their lifetimes (cf. Mt. 10:17-23; Mt. 16:27-28) and generation (Mt. 23:36-39), they just wanted more clarity when Jesus brings up the Temple and it’s destruction again in Matthew 24 and Jesus gave it to them. The climatic and concluding answer given by Jesus to the disciples as to when all of these things would take place was “this generation” (Mt. 24:34). This closes the inclusio of His “this generation” which was begun in Matthew 23.
Matthew 23-25 involves ONE Second Coming event to close the OC age in the AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation.” The discourse has NOTHING to do with a literal bodily coming of Jesus to close world history. The recapitulation structure of the OD dismantles the division theories of futurists and even that of Postmillennial Partial Preterists. Selah. The coming of Christ in Matthew 23:38-39–24:27-31 is the Second Coming. The “gathering” (Mt. 24:30-31) is the rising of the dead (of all the dead) that takes place at the end of the age already discussed in Matthew 13:36-43/Daniel 12:1-4.   
“This Age” & “Age to Come” / The Second Exodus 40 Years Generation & Days of Messiah 
The Jew during Jesus’ day understood “this age” to be the OC age of the law and prophets and the “age to come” to be the NC age of Messiah which would follow.  As I point out in my/our book, it is Reformed and orthodox Christian interpretation to identify Jesus and Paul’s “this age” to be the OC age (not the Christian age) and the “age to come,” to be the NC age of Messiah arriving when the OC age passed away in AD 70. (Michael Sullivan, David Green, Ed Hassertt, House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to When Shall These Things Be?, (Ramona, CA:  Vision Publishing, Second Edition, 2013), 91). Jesus and Paul do not depart from this traditional Jewish two age structure as they look to an imminent fulfillment coming in the lifetimes of their first century audiences – in which the old would pass and the new arrives in a mature state (ie. AD 70).
Isaiah 11 predicted a second exodus coming for Israel.  The Jews prior to Christ and during his day based upon Psalm 90:15 and other OT passages, also believed “the days of Messiah” would be a transition period between the OC “this age” and the Messianic NC “age to come” and that this would be another Forty Year exodus period:
“How long will the days of Messiah last?  R. Akiba said, Forty years, as long as the Iraelites were in the wilderness.” (Dr. BOAZ COHEN, NEW AMERICAN EDITION Everyman’s TALMUD, (New York:  E.P. Dutton & CO., 1949), 356).
Amazing how Dr. Michael Brown does not address these Jewish traditions of interpretation and or Christian exegesis and then seek to harmonize them with Messiah’s own teaching and that of the infallible NT Apostles and Prophets.  The NT likewise teaches a 40 years second exodus generation of a pre-parousia “transitional” reign of Messiah Yeshua from their OC “this age” (which was passing away and ready to vanish) to the NC “age about to” arrive in it’s mature state–roughly from AD 30 – AD 70.  

2).  Put an end to sin

As we have seen in our brief discussion of entering into the sabbath rest in the book of Hebrews, Christ put an “end to sin” at His imminent “in a very little while” Second Appearing as the Great Anointed High Priest fulfilling the NC promises made to Israel and to close the “last days” of the OC age in AD 70 (Heb. 9:26-28/10:37; Rom. 11:26-27/13:11-12; Dan. 9:24b.).

3).  To atone for wickednessor the covering over of iniquity

See references in #2. In the New Creation our sins are remembered no more and covered in the depths of the sea (Isa. 65-66; Micah 7:19).

4).  To bring in everlasting righteousness

At the Day of the Lord in AD 70, He brought in “everlasting righteousness” or a “world of righteousness” per 2 Peter 3 – the “end of all things” being “at hand” in Peter’s day (1 Peter 4:5-7). “but also on ours, to whom it [righteousness] is about to bereckoned — to us believing on Him who did raise up Jesus our Lord out of the dead,” (Romans 4:24). “For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope.” (Galatians 5:5).  See “Appendix A” at the end of this article which discusses the fulfillment of Isaiah 61-66 in relation to entering into the New Creation within the 10th cycle of the Jubilee rest and inheritance – i.e. between AD 26/27–AD 66-70.

Please see my exegesis of the Day of the Lord ushering in the New Creation of Isaiah 61-66 later in this article.

5).  To seal up vision and prophet

Many commentators agree that Daniel 9:24-27 is a tiny snapshot of the fulfilling of the first and second redemptive comings of Yeshua.  Yet at the same time, commentators struggle with the fact that the prophecy ends with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 per Yeshua (Lk. 21:20-22ff).  Yeshua’s teaching is clear, all of Israel’s OT promises and prophetic material concerning His redemptive work would be accomplished within the AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation” (Luke 21:22-32).

Don Preston offers a concise major consensus upon scholars concerning the meaning of “seal up vision and prophet”:

1.) “Prophecies and prophets are sealed, when by the full realization of all prophecies prophecy ceases, no more prophets any more appear.” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. 9, (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1975), 344).
2.) “The impression of translators being that all visions and prophecies were to receive completed fulfillment in the course of these seventy weeks. It appears…, to be more agreeable to the context to suppose that the prophet is speaking of the absolute cessation of all prophecy. I Cor. 13:8.” (Charles John Ellicott, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Cassell and Co; London, 1884), 387).
3.) “The vision and prophet will be sealed, that is accredited, because their final accomplishment has been reached in those events of blessing for God’s earthly people.” (A. C. Gaebelein, The Prophet Daniel, (Grand Rapids; Kregel, 1968), 133).
4.) “The reference is not to the accrediting of the prophecy, but to sealing it up so that it will no longer appear. Its functions are finished and it is not henceforth needed.” (Edward J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel, (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1953), 200).
5.) “The words taken together refer to the final fulfillment of revelation and prophecy, i.e., when their functions are shown to be finished.” (James Leon Wood, A Commentary on Daniel,(Grand Rapids; Zondervan, 1973), 250).
6.) “To set seal to them, to ratify and confirm the prophet’s prediction.” “The close of the seventy weeks will bring with it the confirmation of the prophetic utterances.” “A.V. and R.V. ‘seal up,’ means to close up, preclude from activity, the sense of the expression upon this view, being supposed to be that, prophecies being fulfilled, prophet and vision will be needed no more.” ( S. R. Driver, The Book of Daniel, (Cambridge University Press Warehouse, 1905), 136).
7.) “The idea is, that everything in the form of prophetic visions and predictions that had been produced in the course of theocratic development from the time of Moses should receive ‘sealing’ i.e. Divine confirmation and recognition, in the form of actual fulfillment (I Kings 21:8).” (John Peter Lange, Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Ezekiel-Daniel, edited by Phillip Schaff, (Grand Rapids; Zondervan, 1876), 195).
8.) “To fulfill the anticipations of all prophetic books.” ( J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible, (New York, McMillan Co., 1923), 540).
9.) “The idea seems to be that they would at that time be all sealed, in the sense that they would be closed or shut up–no longer open matters–but that the fulfillment would, as it were, close them up forever.” Barnes also cites Hengstenberg, Gesenius’ Hebrew Lexicon, and Langerke as concurring with the idea that vision and prophecy are sealed by fulfillment.” (Albert Barnes, Daniel Vol. II, (Grand Rapids; Baker, 1978), 145).
10.) “The sealing up of vision and prophet implies the confirming and fulfilling of all the sacred oracles that had spoken of the great day of the Lord and the glorious age to follow, in which the earth would be full of the knowledge of the Jehovah.” ( Milton S. Terry, Biblical Apocalyptics, (Grand Rapids, Baker, 1988 reprint), 201).  For more on this see Don’s book, Seal up Vision and Prophecy.

The basic meaning of these words:
Seal  – chathamto make an end, seal (up), stop.
Vision – chazowna dream, revelation, or oracle: -vision.
Prophecy or Prophet – nabiy’ Is used 316 times in the OT and is translated prophet 312 times and only once is it translated prophecy here in Dan. 9:24.

Our passage is teaching us that when Daniel 9:24-27 (which is a concise prophecy of all OT prophecy) is fulfilled, then the office of “prophet” will “cease.”
I was meditating on Jeremiah 23 the other day and the false prophets and priests claiming to speak for God in God’s name — and how outraged God was at this! Yet Charismatics simply continue to claim to be prophets and prophesy in His name falsely on a REGULAR basis. Some Charismatics admit an 80% failure rate of “prophecies” being the result of them talking to themselves, thinking dreams are from God when they aren’t or making predictions that don’t come true. Does not Jeremiah say that false prophets are guilty of claiming to have visions and dreams that come from “delusions in their own minds” (Jer. 23:16, 25-26)? Is God not “against” those that speak in His name giving false prophecy saying, ‘The LORD declares.’ Indeed, I am against those who prophesy false dreams.” And these false prophets “lead my people away with their reckless lies, yet I did not send or appoint them.” And “But you must not mention ‘the oracle of the LORD’ again, because every man’s own word becomes his oracle and so you DISTORT THE WORDS OF THE LIVING GOD, THE LORD ALMIGHTY, OUR GOD.” (Jer. 23:16, 25-36).
The other thing we need to point out is that it was the false prophets in Ezekiel’s day that turned the “at hand” coming of the Lord in judgment upon Jeremiah’s contemporaries to be twisted into something that would be far off for others to experience and not them (cf. Ezek. 7 and 12).  The false prophets of the Charismatic Movement claim that the NT inspired Apostles and Prophets declaring an “at hand” and “soon” first century Second Coming event, wasn’t really “at hand” for them, but their so-called “prophets” and “prophecies” make these promises allegedly truly “at hand” or “near” in our day!  Amazing how that works.
I was also reminded of some statements I have read by my Charismatic opponent next month in his book, Playing With Holy Fire.  Let me address the serious error’s of Dr. Brown and the Charismatic view of modern “prophets” and failed “prophecies” uttered in God’s name.
False and Failed “Prophets” and “Prophecy”
In Brown’s book Authentic Fire in one of the appendix sections he has another author (Sam Storms) peddle the Charismatic view that NT prophets could make false predictions or their “prophecies” may not be 100 % accurate. After all Brown uttered a false prophecy about Israel (see below) – right? Might as well admit NT prophecy fails, if yours do and you want to be portraying yourself as being “biblical” and others actually consider you a “prophet” – right?!?
I tried getting the audio or transcript of Brown’s “prophecy” but couldn’t. So here is an article addressing Brown’s false and failed “prophecy” I found online:
“Michael Brown’s False Prophecy
By now we are all familiar with the prophecy – first denied to be a prophecy, then admitted to be a prophecy, then denied to be a prophecy – issued by John Kilpatrick on April 6, 1997 against CRI and its president, Hank Hanegraaff.
However, it has been discovered that John Kilpatrick is not the first Brownsville Assembly of God staff member to have prophecied falsely. As far back as 1987, Dr. Michael Brown, Brownsville’s chief apologist, issued one of his own.
“…While speaking at that Jerusalem gathering, Michael Brown proceeded to tell the attendees that “tonight,” that night, would be a “history making” night insomuch as the Holy Spirit would descend in power and fire as earth-shaking and monumental as the literal day of Pentecost detailed in Acts, chapter 2. On a video of this speech in the presence of Israeli Messianic leaders including such leading scholars as Dr Arnold Fruchtenbaum who all witnessed the false prophetic predictions, Michael Brown went so far as to interpret the national disaster of forest fires destroying 20% of Israel’s reforested land as emblematic of the outpouring. [Reported in the Moriel Newsletter Number 9; Jacob Prasch Ministry] Somewhere around 2am, when it became apparent nothing “earth shaking” was going to occur that evening, Brown’s “prophecy” fizzled and he subsequently issued a letter of apology, attempting to claim that the reason nothing came of it was because several people in attendance were allegedly praying “against” his “prophesy”. He would ultimately go on to admit that, in fact, he must not have been “in the Spirit” when he made the aforementioned proclamation.
A transcript of this infamous meeting will be made available once we have the tape.
Article by Bob Hunter and Debra Bouey.” http://op.50megs.com/ditc/brownprophecy.htm
Brown tries to address this issue in his book, Playing With Holy Fire (pp. 89-92). Just when you think you are getting a sincerely humble confession from Brown, it is un-done with Brown boasting about how much he fasted before giving this false prophecy and that in the end, it was allegedly “the greatest outpouring in the history of modern Israel” and “technically speaking what I spoke came to pass” (Ibid. pp. 90-91). And of course the false or failed aspect he uttered apparently didn’t come true because it was “conditional” (Ibid. p. 91)?!?
MacArthur in his book Strange Fire documents Charismatics admitting that 80% of their “prophecies” never come true. They don’t see any problem with this. Wow. They should be glad they are not living in the OT.
Brown tries to distance his failed prophecies and countless others in the movement by exhorting his fellow-charismatics to instead of using OT and NT language of “thus says the LORD…” use, “I sense the Lord could be showing me this…” (Ibid., p. 82 bold MJS). Brown claims NT prophecy and that of Charismatics can be in error (unlike what the Bible teaches Deut. 18:15-22) because unlike the OT period, so many have the gift (Ibid., p. 83). Really? So the Holy Spirit in the OT had NO PROBLEM communicating to the prophets and them having a 100% accuracy rating, but because the Holy Spirit has more on His plate when He came upon all kinds of Jews, Samaritans, God-fearers, and Gentiles in the NT (from Pentecost to AD 70) and allegedly today (per Charismatic false doctrine), a 80% error rate is now allowed and we can just re-define the nature of prophecy and the office of prophet to fit their failed “experiences”?!? Wow! Let that sink in folks!
While at was at Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa under Pastor Chuck Smith I personally heard many so-called “prophecies” that centered around the “soon” coming rapture and or Second Coming of Jesus in the after glow services. They were uttered by “prophets” or those alleged gifted with the gift of prophecy. Some were given through someone speaking gibberish (not a known foreign language) and then “interpreted” as something like, “I am coming for you soon my beloved. Maranatha, come Lord Jesus!” They of course felt comfortable with this because after all Hal Lindsey and Pastor Smith were teaching that the generation from 1948 to 1988 would experience the “soon” coming rapture.
From what I understand the Brownsville “revival” also uttered similar “soon” Second Coming prophesies. This is not uncommon. All of your major cults started in the early eighteenth century were giving “prophecies” or dogmatic teachings about the “soon” Second Coming to take place in their generation. These same cults argued that the main church had been in apostasy until God began restoring the church through their teachings. While the Pentecostal and Charismatic moment or the Brownsville “revival” may not go that far, they definitely teach that if you didn’t make the “pilgrimage” to their church, where the Holy Spirit was allegedly really moving, you were missing out. And within the Charismatic Movement, if you are not experiencing what they are, you are “quenching the spirit” in your life etc. If you rebuke them in love with the Word some would go as far as saying you are “touching God’s anointed” or “blaspheming the Spirit.”
1 Corinthians 13:8-12
I would agree with Charles John Ellicott connecting the “sealing up of vision and prophet” to 1 Corinthians 13:8-12, “The impression of translators being that all visions and prophecies were to receive completed fulfillment in the course of these seventy weeks. It appears…, to be more agreeable to the context to suppose that the prophet is speaking of the absolute cessation of all prophecy. I Cor. 13:8.”
1 Corinthians 13:8-12 describes the “this generation” eschatological “already and not yet” transition period roughly from AD 30 – AD 70.  There was a PROCESS taking place.  Something “partial” that need to be “complete” or a child growing into the “maturity” of manhood.  When this process was finished the “in part” “childish” miraculous “things” of prophecy, tongues and knowledge would no longer be needed and “pass away” or “cease.”  In AD 70 they did just that!
The miraculous sign and revelatory gifts were given to the early church to confirm HOW (spiritually) and WHEN (their “generation” and “soon”) the OT prophecies concerning Israel would be fulfilled.  They were looking at God’s glory in the face of Christ through the mirror or revelation of the OT Scriptures — seeing how they were being fulfilled in Christ and through His New Covenant Body – the Church/Israel of God/Zion/New Jerusalem/Temple etc…  They were in the process of being transformed (obviously spiritually) from Old Covenant glory to New Covenant glory.  They did not fully know what they (the New Covenant Body) would look like apart from the Old Covenant Body when it would “soon vanish” in AD 70.  They did full understand what the New Covenant body would look like and how it would function without the earthly system they had know for thousands of years.  But they would “be like Him when He appeared” in that they would have His righteousness accredited to them apart from the works performed under the Old Covenant system and abide in the New Covenant “world of righteousness” He ushered in in AD 70.
The process of a child becoming a man was the process by which Christ was fulfilling the OT Scriptures and maturing the Church from the Old Covenant system within that transitionary period of the two covenants.  The OC age with it’s types and shadows was “passing away” and “ready to vanish” while the NC age was “about to” come at the “soon” Second Coming of Christ.
The office of “prophet” would  “cease” when “that which is perfect” (the Second Coming and arrival of the New Creation) arrived in AD 70 (1 Cor. 1:7-8/13:8-12/Rev. 21-22:6-7, 10-12, 20). The NT bears witness that “all” would be fulfilled imminently in AD 70 (cf. 1 Cor. 10:11; 1 Pet. 1:4-12; 4:5-7).  This effective destroys all of the “last days” cults, Islam and all forms of Charismatic and Pentecostal theology whom claim that they were/are given divine revelation and or that there are modern day “prophets” today (Muhammad, Joseph Smith, the Watchtower, the New Apostolic Reformation, Pentecostals, Charismatics, etc…).
Other Charismatic arguments are easily refuted:

  1.  The sign and revelatory gifts last throughout the “last days” until the Second Coming (Acts 2; 1 Cor. 1:5-8; 13:8-12).  Yet the Bible teaches the “last days” were the last days of the Old Covenant age that would end at the “soon” Second Coming event whereby we see God’s face today in the New Covenant New Creation (Rev. 21-22:4-7, 20).
  2. The sign and revelatory gifts last and are “with” the Church until she has finished the Great Commission — which is the main “sign” before Jesus returns (Mt. 24:14; Mrk. 13:10; Acts 1:8; Mrk. 16:15-18/Mt. 28:18-20).  Yet the INSPIRED Apostle used the very same Greek words Jesus used and said it had already been fulfilled in his ministry (Cols. 1:5-6, 23; Rms. 10:18; 16:25-26).

The miraculous sign and revelatory gifts primary function then was to confirm that the OT promises of the New Covenant would transform Israel into a spiritual body and Temple.  To PROVE Yeshua’s spiritual fulfillments of the OT promises of the kingdom to be “in Him” and through and “in” His followers–was a message that went directly against their hyper-literal traditions of reading the Law and the Prophets and needed miraculous confirmation.  This is what Charismatic Zionists such as Dr. Michael Brown miss completely which force them into having to re-define the gifts of tongues from known human languages into gibberish and infallible prophecy into their admitted 80% fallible “prophetic” version!  Brown thinks he and other men like Benny Hinn are in the business of “revival” and transforming the Church and culture.  But they aren’t!  Brown and many like him have  missed the PURPOSE of the sign and revelatory gifts completely.  And his appearance in modern Israel (which is not the Biblical Israel of the OT and NT) giving false prophecies while at the same time promoting his false teaching of Zionism concerning the physical land, temple, Levites and animal sacrifices is further evidence he just doesn’t understand the purpose of the gifts and thus provides us with a perfect transition into our next redemptive event Messiah would accomplish by AD 70.

6).  To anoint the most holy place

Christ anointed and consummated the New Covenant Church as His Most Holy Place and Bride in AD 70 (Ex. 20, 29-31, 40; cf. Hebrews 9:6-10; Revelation 11:18-19, 19–21:16).

David Green writes,

“Finally, it was through the anointing of the Holy Spirit that the whole city of Jerusalem was made new and became “the Tabernacle of God,” when the worldly Holy Place fell in 70 (Heb. 9:1, 8). Under the old covenant, every article of God’s tabernacle was consecrated by the anointing of oil (Ex. 30:25-30; 40:9; Lev. 8:10, 12). In the same way, in the Last Days, God taught His elect ones the truth of His gospel through the anointing of the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 1:21,22; I Jn. 2:20,27), until all of them had come to know Him (Jn. 6:39). Then came “the end” (Dan. 9:26), when the Body of Christ, all His holy ones, the living and the dead, were raised up to become His anointed (God-taught) “Most Holy Place” in the new covenant world (Jn. 6:44-45; Eph. 2:21-22; Heb. 8:11-13; Rev. 21:3).” (David Green, From Babylon to Babylon).

The OT promises of the New Covenant described in terms of a perpetual Temple, Levitical Priesthood, Sacrifices, Land, Jerusalem, etc…

The other day I was reading some comments made by Charismatic Zionist Dr. Michael Brown out on the “anointing of the Most Holy Place” (Dan. 9:24) and that of Jeremiah 23 and particularly in Jeremiah 33:15-22.  Here New Covenant land promises are connected to perpetual Temple sacrifices of the Levitical Priesthood.

As usual Dr. Brown talks out of both sides of his mouth when he interprets the “anointing of the Most Holy Place” to the Church but at the same time a physical future temple:

“…it could refer to the spiritual temple–i.e., the redeemed people of God, who, according to the New Testament authors, have become a holy dwelling place for the Spirit.  This Temple was, in fact, inaugurated by Jesus the Messiah, and the community of believers who make up this Temple are, in fact, anointed by the Spirit of God.  On the other hand, the reference could be to a still-future Temple, the Messiah’s millennial Temple in Jerusalem.” (AJOJ, Vol. 3, p. 98).

Let’s look at another New Covenant promise made to Old Covenant Israel:

“…nor will the priests, who are Levites, ever fail to have a man to stand before me continually to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings and to present sacrifices.” (Jer. 33:17-18).

Amazingly, Brown who many in the Charismatic Movement consider a “prophet” has to likewise interpret this passage “literally” and thus embarrassingly writes of this passage in his commentary on Jeremiah,

“How exactly these Levitical priests will fulfill their mission remains to be determined, but God’s promise to them is certain.” (THE EXPOSITOR’S BIBLE COMMENTARY REVISED EDITION #7 Jeremiah – Ezekiel, Zondervan, 2010, p. 425).

There’s no mystery here folks. The Church is the New Covenant New Heavens and and New Earth of Isaiah 65-66 (Isa. 65:17/2 Cor. 5:17). She is the New Covenant Temple of Ezekiel 37-48 (Ezek. 37:27/2 Cor. 6:16). She is the New Jerusalem/Zion/Heavenly City or “Nation” born and “given” the kingdom that Abraham and the OT saints looked to and was in the process of “coming down” and “about to” arrive at Christ’s “soon” coming in AD 70 (cf. Isa. 65-66/Mt. 21:43-45/1 Pet. 2:9/Heb. 10–13:14YLT/Gals. 3-4/Rev. 3:11-12NIV–21-22). Isaiah 66:19-22 makes it clear that those who survived the Day of the Lord in AD 70 (the Second Coming is an in time event not an end of time event) would preach the gospel and stream into the New Covenant “Holy Mountain” or “New Jerusalem” with others and function AS the sacrifices and Levites,

“19 and I will set a sign (Mt. 24:30-31) among them. And from them I will send survivors to the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, who draw the bow, to Tubal and Javan, to the coastlands far away, that have not heard my fame or seen my glory. And they shall declare my glory among the nations. 20 And they shall bring all your brothers from all the nations as an offering to the Lord, on horses and in chariots and in litters and on mules and on dromedaries, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, says the Lord, just as the Israelites bring their grain offering in a clean vessel to the house of the Lord. 21 And some of them also I will take for priests and for Levites, says the Lord. 22 “For as the new heavens and the new earth that I make shall remain before me, says the Lord, so shall your offspring and your name remain.”

There are “sinners” and evangelism taking place in the spiritual New Covenant New Heavens and New Earth of Isaiah 65-66/Revelation 22:17 post AD 70 by which the nations are being healed. The Church and Christians are the “Levites” offering up our lives as a living sacrifice of praise to God! If not, Brown’s eschatology is no less deplorable than the hyper-literal Dispensationalism of MacArthur, Ice, and the rest of those “delusional” (God’s word) “prophets” or so-called “prophecy experts” which would have the consummation of redemption brought in through the Second Coming being — a PHYSICAL temple being re-built and some being consistent having Christ smelling the stench of PHYSICAL animal sacrifices being offered up at the hands of the PHYSICAL “Levitical Priesthood.” Good brief! All the genealogies of the Jews were burned up in AD 70. When Brown was asked by Gary DeMar what tribe he was from, Brown said, “We THINK the tribe of Judah.” Brown has no clue what tribe he is from let alone how to literal “Levites” are coming back.

Jeremiah 3:16

Brown finds this passage that refutes his Zionism “intriguing” (Ibid., 112).  In the New Covenant age the Old Covenant “ark” “will NEVER enter their minds or be remembered; it will not be missed, nor will another one BE MADE.”  (Jer. 3:16).  And yet Zionist’s like Dr. Michael Brown and John Hagee believe they have an entire “ministry” based upon getting the Church excited concerning what is taking place in modern Israel and so-called “prophecies” of a future physical Temple, Ark and Levitical Sacrifices being “made” again and re-instituted as the climax of redemptive history.  Wow.  In my estimation Brown’s Historic Premillennial Zionism is no less extreme and unbiblical than John Hagee’s Dispensational Zionism.  Selah.

Brown’s Contradictions

On the one hand when Brown is debating Reformed Covenant Theology or Preterism he likes to ridicule these systems as “replacement theology,” and that we are guilty of not interpreting the restoration of Israel’s promises in the OT “literally.” Yet, when debating unbelieving Jews, Brown argues for a spiritual fulfillment of these OT prophecies. Here is an example of Brown now claiming the temple, priesthood and sacrifices of the temple mentioned in Ezekiel is spiritual, because for a Jew — it would be natural to describe spiritual blessings in the Old Covenant land and sacrificial system in which he lived,

“Perhaps the Scripture passage [Ezekiel] was never meant to be literally fulfilled.” (AJOJ Vol. 2, 177).

The prophetic events [by Ezekiel, Haggai and Zechariah] were describing,

“…events so glorious that they could only be described as a new creation and a second exodus.” (Ibid.)

“Ezekiel the priest was shown a vision of future glory, and for him, nothing could be more glorious than a restored Temple. And for a priest like Ezekiel, nothing could more certainly speak of purification and atonement than blood sacrifices. Nothing could convey a greater sense of promise that God would again favor his people than a vision such as this.” (Ibid.)

“This brings us back to the theme of the prophesied return from exile and rebuilding of the Second Temple. Either the words of the prophets were not fulfilled because the Bible is not true…” “…or God fulfilled his promises [spiritually] through the coming of the Messiah into the world (which makes sense in light of dozens of other Scripture passages – quoting Ephs. 2:21-22; 2 Cor. 6:16–7:1; Rom. 12:1; 1 Pet. 2:4-5; Heb. 13:15-16; ).” (Ibid.)

The OT prophets,

“…spoke in language that they [historically & culturally] had…” (Ibid., 180).

“How then would the Spirit, communicate through Ezekiel, speak of God providing atonement for his people, of him dwelling in our midst, of the provision of forgiveness and reconciliation, of freedom from slavery and oppression? Could it be that he would do so through a glorious Temple vision, complete with sacrifices, offerings, and priests? I think this is a possibility worthy of consideration.” (Ibid., 180).

But right when you think Brown is understanding Jesus’ and the inspired NT’s Apostolic hermeneutic of interpreting all of Israel’s New Covenant restoration promises spiritually by being “in Christ” and not “in the land,” Brown has to please his Charismatic Premillennial [mostly Dispensational] base and begins postulating that after the Second Coming there may be a third literal re-built temple with sacrifices (per Dispensational “Evangelicals,” Ibid., 180ff.). But there is an interesting point that Brown makes in defense for this view,

“Just as sacrifices were offered for forty years after Yeshua’s death and resurrection–and Messianic Jews apparently participated in some of those sacrificial rites (see Acts 21:17-26)–it could be that sacrifices will be offered in a future Temple, without being in conflict with the atonement provided for us in Jesus.” (Ibid., 181)

The theological 500 pound gorilla in the room that Brown is missing here, is that the Messianic 40 years “second exodus” “already and not yet” NT transition period–roughly between AD 30 – AD 70, included a time when the Old Covenant was still “imposed” and thus all of the “jots and tittles” of the law were binding upon Jewish Christians “until” it would “all” be fulfilled — that is, when the Old Covenant “heavens and earth” would “pass away” or “soon vanish” at the “in a very little while” Second Appearing of Christ in AD 70 (Heb. 8:13–10:37; Mt. 5:17-18).

Because Brown misses the inspired NT’s 40 years transitional “already and not yet” period, this causes Brown out of one side of his mouth when debating Covenant Theology and Preterism to argue for New Covenant OT promises being fulfilled PHYSICALLY (just look what they say!), but when debating unbelieving Jews, to argue for these same OT promises being fulfilled SPIRITUALLY (because for a Jew this is how he would communicate blessings in terms of Temple, Priesthood, Sacrifices, etc…). It is interesting that Brown is willing to give the OT Temple, Priesthood and Sacrifice promises a spiritual fulfillment in the New Covenant, but NEVER the Land (at least that I’ve seen). You can’t have a spiritual temple and sacrifices without some spiritual land – period. This is why “ALL [not some] of the promises [in the OT] and yes and amen in Christ” (2 Cor. 1:20).

Daniel 9:25 – Beginning the countdown with the “Decree” or the Prophetic “Word” of Jeremiah?

Some take the “decree (of Cyrus) to restore and re-build Jerusalem” found in (2 Chron. 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-4; Isa. 44:24, 26, 28; 45:13; cf. Josephus, Antiquities, xi, 6, 12) as the fulfillment of this verse.  However, a literal chronology from Cyrus does not reach the times of Christ.  Ezra 6:14 seems to connect the decree as an unfolding event through the king(s) of Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes–of which some see the decree beginning in 457 BC in order to arrive at Christ’s ministry in AD 26/27.  But those who usually take this position end the 490 years in around AD 32-35.  But clearly the prophecy extends to AD 70.  This is where the concept of a “gap” is not necessary.  It’s more of Yeshua fulfilling the 10th. Jubilee “cycle.”  Between AD 26–AD 66-70 not only fulfills the second exodus generation motif of Isaiah 11 and first century Jewish expectations that Messiah would have a transition reign between the OC “this age” and the NC “age about to come,” but Yeshua has 49-50 years to fulfill the Jubilee of Daniel 9:24-27 and Isaiah 61 which are grounded in the feast day sabbaths of Leviticus 23, 25-26.

Perhaps we have missed something in Daniel 9:25. The Hebrew very well can support “From the the issuing of the WORD [prophetic word of Jeremiah] to restore and rebuild Jerusalem…there will be [490 yrs.]…” That is, the 490 years prophecy includes the 70 years of Babylonian captivity.  The context of what Daniel is reading of Jeremiah’s prophecy coupled with the Hebrew supporting the prophetic “word” going back to Jeremiah develops the idea that 70 years of captivity times 7 for breaking the sabbaths of Leviticus 23, 25-26 gives you 490 years.  Odd, how I learned that the countdown includes the 70 years of captivity from someone who hates Full Preterism  (Sam Frost) and an anti-Christian anti-Yeshua site (Jews for Judaism).  While all they can see is a non-Messianic prophecy, all I can see is a PERFECT Messianic prophecy fulfilled by AD 70. Selah.

The rebuilding in the “difficult times” can be read in Ezra and Nehemiah. The first 62 sevens represents a period from the rebuilding of Jerusalem by Nehemiah and Ezra to the first coming of Jesus – the “Anointed One.” Jesus was anointed by the Father to preach the good news of the Gospel to Israel and gather a believing remnant and the Gentiles/Greeks to Himself.

The Parallel Connections Between Verses 26-27 and the Last 7 Establishing the Everlasting New Covenant Between AD 30 – AD 70

There is a parallel structure here that should not be missed as it pertains to Messiah fulfilling the last 7 of this prophecy which involves His redemptive work from cross to parousia in AD 70 in order to establish the New Covenant. There is a parallel structure here with verse 27 expounding more upon verse 26 and then climaxing with verse 27 putting an end to sacrifices in AD 70.

  • A– verse 26: “Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah [māšîaḥ] will be cut off and have nothing,”
  • B– verse 27: “And the people of the prince [nāgîd] who is to come will destroy [or spoil] the city and the sanctuary. And its end will comewith a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.”
  • A– verse 27: “And he will make a firm/strongcovenant with the many during(or in the midst of, not “for”) one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering”
  • B– verse 27: “And on the wing of abominations will comeone who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.”

The parallels suggest that not only is Daniel being comforted by the angel in that although Messiah will be “cut off” this will in fact result in the strengtheningof a new covenant made with the many; but that this covenantal process will end when Jerusalem is judged.

Isaiah 9-10 and Daniel 9:24-27

I agree with Meredith Kline who sees the connection between

Isaiah 9-10 and Daniel 9:26-27:

“Particularly significant for the meaning of higbir in Daniel 9:27 is the use of gibbor in Isaiah 9 and 10. Isaiah identified the Messiah, the Son of David, as “the mighty God” of the covenant formula by declaring His name to be ‘el gibbor (Isa. 9:5, [6]). Then in Isaiah 10 this messianic ’el gibbor is mentioned again in the very passage from which Daniel 9:27 derives its thought and wording alike (see verses 21-23). Isaiah spoke there of God’s mighty messianic fulfillment of covenant blessing and curse: a remnant of Jacob would return unto ’el gibbor, but in overflooding (sotep) judicial righteousness the annihilation (kalah) that was determined (neherasah) would befall the land. Daniel 9:26b, 27 echoes Isaiah’s prophecy: the covenant would be made to prevail (higbir), as a blessing for the many who were the faithful remnant, but as a curse in the form of the determined annihilation (kalah weneherasah) which would be poured out on the abominations of apostate Israel like a flood (setep). The unmistakable dependence of Daniel 9:27 on Isaiah 10:21 ff. points directly to the ’el gibbor of Isaiah 10:21 as the inspiration for the higbir of Daniel 9:27.This confirms the conclusions that the subject of higbir is not antichrist or any other than the anointed one whose name is ‘el gibbor and that the object of higbir, the covenant made to prevail, is the redemptive covenant sealed by the reconciling blood of Christ [i.e. the New Covenant].” (Meredith G Kline, “The Covenant of the Seventieth Week,” in The Law and the Prophets: OldTestament Studies in Honor of Oswald T. Allis (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1974), 8-9).

As I have addressed in previous articles, I think the entire Messianic block of Isaiah 7-11 is prophesying the first and second comings of Messiah to occur within the second exodus generation (AD 30 – AD 70) and during this specific generation, establish and bring to maturity the New Covenant age that we live in today post AD 70.

Limited and Definite Atonement for “the Many” in the New Covenant

It is more than troubling that Dispensationalism turns a wonderful promise of Christ making the New Covenant with the believing Church (remnant Jews and Gentiles) into a covenant between the “antichrist” and “apostate Jews.” This is none other than the fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:31-33; as is so clearly laid out for us in Matthew 26:28; Luke 22:20; Hebrews 8:7-12–10:15-37 and truly embraces the eschatological fulfillment of the OT Law and the Prophets – in Christ’s first and second appearings in Israel’s last days.

Again the parallels between Isaiah and Daniel are striking. In Isaiah 53 Christ is likewise prophesied to be “cut off out of the land of the living” and yet “by His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many(Isa 53:8, 11). Jesus makes it clear in Matthew 26:28 that His shed blood is for the disciples and those whom He prays for that will come to Him through their message (cf. John 17:9-26). Jesus as the High Priest of the New Covenant does not offer His blood for the “world,” nor does He pray for the world! John 17 harmonizes well with John 3:16 when we understand that Jesus is telling a Jew who thought salvation was only for the Jews, that His salvation was for the “world” (that is believing Jews and Gentiles). The literal Greek reading of John 3:16 is, “in order that every one believing in him may not perish.” As R.K. McGregor Wright observes, “There is no word for “whosoever” in the original…” “…John 3:16 states explicitly that the purpose of God in sending his Son to die was limited to atoning for believers only, that they ‘should not perish, but have everlasting life.’” (R.K. McGregor Wright, NO PLACE for SOVEREIGNTY What’s Wrong with Freewill Theism, p. 159). Jesus only lays down His life for those sheep the Father has given Him and they alone come to Him (John 6 and 10).

Daniel 9:26

The Anointed One/Prince/Ruler/Leader/Messiah (Jesus the Christ), would be “cut off” after the 62 sevens. Again, Isaiah 53 teaches us the same about a coming Messiah who would be cut off and have nothing (with some Jews conceded Isa. 53 is Messianic). “The people (the Jews or Roman soldiers) of the Ruler (Jesus), will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end (of the seventy sevens) will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.” Between AD 66 – AD 70 not only did the Romans surround the city, but the Idumeans (Jewish Zealots) did as well and entered Jerusalem resulting in the city being divided into three warring sects – all shedding blood over the Temple area and for control of Jerusalem. War and blood shed took place within the Temple and thus it was subject to abominations. The Romans (who were also under the control of Christ) did very little except wait it out and let “the people” that rejected their Messiah to devour (sometimes literally) each other. Also, through the imprecatory prayers of the Christians (people of the Prince), Jerusalem was destroyed with its apostate mountain removed and thrown into the Lake of Fire (Matthew 21:18-22; Revelation 8:8).

Daniel 9:27

The “He” here is still the Messiah (not an alleged “Anti-Christ”) and through His sacrifice He established the New Covenant for the “many” (ie. the Church the new Israel of God). This last seven was from the anointing of Jesus in His first coming to His anointing the Church (His Most Holy Place New Jerusalem) in His Second in AD 70. His Wife and or New Jerusalem is described as a perfect cube as the MHP place was (cf. Rev. 21:16 & “the first” [Holy Place] representing the OC community being removed in AD 70 and “the second” [the Most Holy Place] representing the NC community and its establishment during the time of the “new order” fully arriving at the end of the OC age in AD 70 in a “very little while” cf. Heb. 9:6-10, 26-28; 10:37). Christ came and overshadowed Jerusalem with desolation and determined wrath upon the desolate in AD 70 (cf. Matthew 24:15ff/Luke 21:20-24).

Typological Considerations – Cyrus a Type of Christ:

  • Both of their births and future rules were threatened at birth. Astyages, King of Media, the grandfather of Cyrus saw in a dream that Cyrus would threaten his kingdom and thus sought to have him killed at birth. Herod was threatened by Jesus and sought to kill Him at birth.
  • Both anointed to set captives free.
  • Both called Shepherds.
  • Both their rules involved a deliverance of Israel and the Gentiles from the captivity of Babylon.
  • Both were born Kings to deliver Israel from 70 years of Babylonian bondage. From birth to parousia, Christ reigned over Israel (roughly for 70 years) calling the believing remnant to “come out” from among “Babylon” which in Revelation is OC Jerusalem where the Lord was slain.
  • Both were involved in gathering the Jews and Gentiles from the four corners of the earth and making the kingdoms of the world theirs. Post AD 70 Christ”s reign is an everlasting reign and He continues to bring healing to the nations through the everlasting gospel.
  • Cyrus’ predicted coming ended the 70 years of Babylonian captivity; while JESUS’ predicted Second Coming brought an end to the seventy sevens prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27.
  • Both were involved in gathering the Jews into the promised land to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple — with Jesus gathering God’s Church into the NC spiritual land, city and temple.
  • The Hebrew OT Tora (not the Christian OT) ends with Chronicles – giving a chronology and ending with the praises and accomplishments of Cyrus’ rule, authority and accomplishments. Matthew’s gospel begins (The Christian NT) with a chronology tracing JESUS back to Abraham – through whom the curse of Babel would be eventually reversed (through the seed of Messiah) and was by AD 70. Matthew ends his gospel declaring JESUS as having all rule and authority over the nations.

Our Life Cycle and Israel’s Redemptive Life Cycle Move Within the Cycles of Sevens

1). Seven of Days (7 days) — Work six days rest on the seventh (Gen. 1:31-2:3; Ex. 31:12-17).

2). Seven of Weeks (49 days) — Time between the feast of First Fruits and the feast of Pentecost (Deut. 16:9-12; Lev. 23:15-16).

3). Seven of Months (7 months) — The seven months of the Jewish religious calendar which contain all seven of the Jewish feasts (Deut. 16; Lev. 23).

*** The three months gap between the 4 Spring Feasts and the 3 Fall Feasts represent the overlapping of the Old Covenant “this age” (that was passing away and would “soon vanish”) and the New Covenant “age about to come” (and did in AD 70)! This prophetic gap of four months was called by the Rabbi’s, “The time for waiting the judgment” and was the period or season by which the 10th eschatological Jubilee cycle Messiah  Yeshua was fulfilling all OT prophecy (Lk. 21:20-22/Dan. 9:24-27).

4). Seven Years (7 years) — Israel was to work the land for six years and then let it rest for the seventh year (Lev. 25:1-7).

5). Seven of Sevens of Years (49 years) — The period of time between each celebration of the Year of Jubilee (Lev. 25:8-17).

6). Seven of Decades (70 years) — Man’s average life span (Ps. 90:10). After 70 years man’s physical body returns to the dust and he remains in a spiritual body fit for the after life and the spiritual realm. During the 70 years between Christ’s birth to parousia, and the “last days” of Israel, Israel transitioned from a physical Old Covenant body to a New Covenant spiritual body.

7). Seven of Sevens of Decades (490 years) — In Jewish tradition, “422 BC is associated with when the first temple burned 70 Sabbaticals (490 yrs.) before the second temple burned in 70 AD.” (Dr. B. Zuchermann, Professor at Jewish Theological Seminary).  The Jews believed Messiah would come to establish the Kingdom during the 10th Jubilee cycle (490 yrs. from first temples destruction). Jesus’ first coming in AD 26 was a jubilee yr. and ushered in the 10th. cycle (Lk. 4/Isa. 61). Christ as High Priest accomplished His atonement process between AD 30 – AD 70 fulfilling Israel’s Second Exodus. (Dan. 9:24-27; Isa. 10-11).

The Sovereign Grace Full Preterist view harmonizes the various Christian views on this crucial passage while at the same time honors the first century historical context of Messiah arriving during the 10th cycle of the Jubilee and during the Roman Empire to establish His kingdom and usher in the eschatological rest and inheritance.
As Margaret Barker demonstrated in developing the findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls, just prior to Yeshua’s birth and during His earthly ministry — right up to AD 66, there was a 10th. eschatological Jubilee cycle and Messianic frenzy expectation.
The symbolic view which understands Daniel 9:24-27 as addressing not only the first coming of Yeshua, but also His second is correct.  They simply will not submit to the exegetical facts that the prophecy and Jesus Himself connects His Second Coming with the fall of Jerusalem in the AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation” (Lk. 21:20-32).
The soteriological and eschatological sabbath connected to the 490 years does not have to be “symbolic” of “10 Jubilee eras (490)” of which the last 3.5 of the last 7 — is STILL waiting to be fulfilled for the last 2,000 and plus years.  If one uses the Jewish calendar and thinks the way the first century Jew did, then the last Messianic and eschatological 10th. cycle of the Jubilee was from 424/422 BC to AD 26/27–AD 66-AD 70.
The Seventy Sevens prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 predicted both redemptive comings of Messiah which would reach there fulfillment when OC Jerusalem and her Tempe would be judged and desolated. The desolation of Jerusalem coinciding with the fulfillment of all the main eschatological events are once again recapitulated in Daniel 12:1-7 and thus fulfilled “when the power of the holy people would be completely shattered” in AD 70.
From the birth of Israel’s Messianic King (Jesus the Christ) to His Second Appearing at the end of her OC age in AD 70, is roughly another more significant 70 years for her coming out of bondage and slavery from “Babylon” into the freedom/rest and salvation found not “in the land” but “in Christ.” And thus typologically, just as Cyrus was predicted and anointed to fulfill prophecy by setting the captives free from the 70 years of Babylonian captivity — within 70 years of Christ’s predicted First and Second Comings, He fulfilled Daniel’s 70 7’s prophecy. Selah.
Christ’s Second Coming in AD 70 was also the reversal of God’s disinheritance of the 70 nations and creating one new Israel of God whereby the nations are blessed in the New Covenant age today (Gen. 10-15; Mt. 21:43-45; Gals. 3-6; 1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 22:17).
If Christ didn’t fulfill BOTH of His redemptive comings as the Churches Great High Priest between AD 30 – AD 70 during that last and 10th. Jubilee cycle (during the time of the 4th. Gentile power / Roman Empire and when both the OC and NC age overlapped) – then not only did the Jews miss their Messiah, but many Christians have missed the climax of their professed Christian faith and are thinking just as carnally as they first century Jews were when it comes to the Kingdom of Christ.
Christ through His work on the cross and parousia – is our Jubilee Sabbath rest and the anchor of our soul in full assurance of salvation.  The events of AD 66 – AD 70 will always be a reminder of what God thinks of man centered religion grounded in “free will” and a salvation of works.  He despises it and will destroy those that approach Him in this way.  But for those of us who trust in the finished work of Christ, He has become for us our “inheritance,” “salvation of the soul” and thus established His kingdom and presence “within” us.  If this isn’t exciting enough for you, then go buy a failed Hal Lindsey book at a garage sale for twenty-five cents.  As for me and my house, we will serve and worship the Lord in spirit and in truth.  Selah.

A Deeper Exegesis of the Jubilee Rest and Inheritance of Isaiah 61-66 and Relevant NT Texts 

Since there are sound exegetical and Qumran 10th. cycle (490 yrs.) Jubilee connections between Daniel 9:24-27 and Isaiah 61–66, I will develop more aspects of fulfillment within Isaiah 61–66.  The “day of vengeance” of Isaiah 61:2 is the coming of God to reward and judge in Isaiah 62.  Then the “day of vengeance” is picked back up in Isiah 63:1-6.  This Second Coming event is what ushers in the eschatological jubilee sabbath/inheritance of the New Jerusalem and the New Creation of Isaiah 65-66.

And since the imminent “coming of the Son of Man” passages of Matthew 10:22-23; 16:27-28; 24:30-34 have there OT reference in Daniel 7:13 (which is inseparably connected to Dan. 9:24-27) we will examine Matthew 16:27-28 in detail as well.

Isiah 62/Matthew 16:27-28

“Behold your salvation comes; behold, his reward is with him, and his recompense is with him.” (Isa. 62:11).

Isaiah 62 addresses the eschatological wedding and Second Coming of Christ motifs. Yeshua refers to Isaiah 62:11 in His promise to return in judgment during the lifetimes of His first century audience in Matthew 16:27-28 and Mark 8:38—9:1.

“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 words. “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)

I will lay forth several exegetical arguments proving that Mt. 16:27-28 cannot be divided into speaking of two different events which is the typical futurist approach. Most commentators teach verse 27 is speaking of the second coming and that in verse 28 Jesus decides to no longer address the second coming but that some of the disciples would live to witness one of three events: 1) The transfiguration, 2) The ascension of Christ, or 3) Pentecost. Before digging into a vigorous exegesis of the passage, I shall quote Westminster “divine” John Lightfoot on our text and then build upon some of his foundational comments,

“[The kingdom of God coming in power.] In Matthew, it is the Son of man coming in his kingdom. The coming of Christ in his vengeance and power to destroy the unbelieving and most wicked nation of the Jews is expressed under these forms of speech. Hence the day of judgment and vengeance: I. It is called “the great and terrible day of the Lord,” Acts 2:20; 2 Thess 2:2,3. II. It is described as “the end of the world,” Jeremiah 4:27; Matthew 24:29, &c. III. In that phrase, “in the last times,” Isaiah 2:2; Acts 2:17; 1 Tim 4:1; 2 Peter 3:3; that is, in the last times of that city and dispensation. IV. Thence, the beginning of the “new world,” Isaiah 65:17; 2 Peter 3:13. V. The vengeance of Christ upon that nation is described as his “coming,” John 21:22; Hebrews 10:37: his “coming in the clouds,” Revelation 1:7: “in glory with the angels,” Matthew 24:30, &c. VI. It is described as the ‘enthroning of Christ, and his twelve apostles judging the twelve tribes of Israel,’ Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:30. Hence this is the sense of the present place: Our Saviour had said in the last verse of the former chapter, “Whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels,” to take punishment of that adulterous and sinful generation. And he suggests, with good reason, that that his coming in glory should be in the lifetime of some that stood there.”[1]

a). “For The Son of Man Is About To Come…”

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 it’s predominate usage in the rest of the New Testament. Let’s briefly see how mello is used in Mathew’s gospel:

1) 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 general danger to be aware of.

2) In (Mt. 17:12b WEY) Jesus’ point is not that He is going to suffer, but that His suffering is rapidly approaching or is “about to” take place.

3) In (In Mt.17:10-13) mello is used twice. The first occurrence refers to Elijah’s “about to” appearing in the future fulfilled sense. In other words, Elijah was the one the entire nation understood to be “about to come” and the text tells us that he had come in the person of John the Baptist. John is the fulfillment of the nation’s expectancy of Elijah’s “about to” or “soon to come” presence — preparing the way for His “about to come” “great and dreadful day” of Mal.4:5-6 as previously discussed. Therefore, this is but one more piece of exegetical evidence that is in harmony with what Jesus and John the Baptist had been teaching previously Mt. 3:2-12; 4:17; 10:7, 15-23, 16:27-28. His return would be in some of their lifetimes or “The Son of Man is about to come…” Why? Well, since Elijah who was expected to come “soon,” had come in the person of John, Jesus’ second coming could be expected soon, for Elijah must first come, “before the great and dreadful day of the Lord” comes Mal. 4:5-6. The second occurrence of mello in this passage is not referring to the general fact that Jesus is going to suffer, but that He was “about to” suffer and be mistreated as John the Baptist was.

4) Here in (Mt. 17:22; 20:22 WEY) as in point #2 above, Jesus’ emphasis is not the mere fact that he is going to suffer, but that His suffering is rapidly approaching.

5) In (Mt. 24:6 WEY) “Before long” is consistent with Jesus promising that “all these things” (including the signs) would occur in the twelve’s contemporary “this generation” (Mt. 24:34). To conclude this point, Christ’s “about to” coming in verse 27 is consistent with Christ’s coming in the lifetime of “some” of the crowd listening to him in verse 28. After thousands of years of the nations 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 was thus “about to” happen.

b). “Verily I say unto you…”

Jesus’ phrase “verily,” “truly,” or “most assuredly I say unto you,” is used 99 times[2] in the gospels and gives the meaning of “Absolutely,” “really,” “may it be fulfilled,” and is used as a phrase of emphasis to drive home a point that has gone before it. It is never used to introduce a new subject.[3] Another Editor of a multi-authored book seeking to refute our position states of our text, “…verse twenty-seven looks at the establishment of the kingdom in the future, while a promise of seeing the Messiah in His glory is the thought of verse twenty-eight. They are two separate predictions separated by the words ‘truly I say to you’”[4] But Mr. Ice does not produce one passage where Jesus’ phrase “Truly I say unto you” is ever used to separate the subject matter previously discussed! Since he cannot produce any evidence for his statement, his point at the very least is unscholarly and at worst, irresponsible and deceptive.

c). “Some standing here shall not taste of death” and “the kingdom of God.”

As we study Christ’s teachings elsewhere in the Gospels and other related passages in the Old and New Testaments concerning: 1) The physical death of some of the 12 and their first century contemporaries along with 2) The Son of Man coming and the arrival of the kingdom of God in power, we discover Christ is addressing a very specific and prophetic persecution coming in the Apostolic generation than just alluding to some of them dying off of because of mere old age. The only event in the teachings of Jesus that associates the death of some of the Apostles with the Kingdom of God is the persecution preceding his second coming Mt.10:16-23; Lk.21:16-32; Mt.23:31-36; Jn.21:19-22; Rev.6:10-11, 17; 16:6, 15; 18:5, 20. The only exception to this is the death of Judas. Daniel’s prophecy confirms Jesus’ teaching. Daniel in (Dan. 2, 7, 9, 12) taught: 1) the kingdom would come and be established during the time of the Roman Empire. 2) There would be a time of persecution and death for believers during this period. The “little” horn would wage “war with the saints” and “prevail against them (thus some of them would be martyred) “Until the Ancient of Days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and (at this time) the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.” The prevailing in war with the saints from the little horn answers to the persecution and “death” of some of the Apostles and their contemporaries. Jesus made it clear that Daniel’s prophecy would be fulfilled in His generation (Mt.24:15, 34; Lk.21:20-22).

Some of our opponents have made some real crucial mistakes in trying to refute us on this text. Thomas Ice makes another blunder, “A further problem with the preterist view is that our Lord said “some of those standing here…” It is clear that the term “some” would have to include at least two or more individuals…” “…Peter notes that “John only survived among the 12 disciples till the destruction of Jerusalem” (Ice, Controversy, p.88). In other word’s Ice is claiming that the twelve were the only audience Jesus was addressing in this text and therefore if only John was alive till the destruction of Jerusalem, then that does not meet the definition of “some” because “some” necessitates more than one. However, Mark’s account clearly states, “Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said:…” (Mk. 8:34 – 9:1).

When we study Christ’s teaching on the “death” of some of His first century disciples in the Gospels it is always in the context of some of them living (while others would not) to witness His Second Coming and inheriting the Kingdom. Jesus’ teaching on the death of some of His disciples and some of them living to witness a specific event is never addressing the transfiguration event, the ascension of Christ, or Pentecost. It is always referring to His Second Coming and to that the Old and New Testaments bear unanimous witness.

d). “…in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of man also shall be ashamed of him, when he cometh…”(Mk. 8:38).

Those, whom Christ would be ashamed of at His coming, would be “this adulterous and sinful generation” of A.D. 30 – A.D. 70. Under the old covenant God was married to Israel Ex. 19. 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 (sisters) as His wives: 1) Israel (Aholah / Samaria capital of Israel) and 2) Judah (Aholibah / Jerusalem capital of Judah) Jer.31:31-32; Ezk. 1:1-4; 1Kings 11:9-13. These two sisters were notorious for their adultery and playing the prostitute (cf. Ezk. 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 Ezk. 23:22-45. Under the old covenant a wife caught in adultery would be stoned and the wife of a priest would be burned. In Revelation the harlot wife of old-covenant Jerusalem was both stoned and burned! Mathison admits that Jerusalem is Babylon in Revelation. Therefore, Mt.16:27/Mrk.8:38 is describing the judgment of the “adulterous generation/wife” in an “about to be” A.D. 70 time frame. Concerning the phrase “be ashamed of” – The old covenant wife would be left without a wedding garment naked and ashamed while the His new covenant wife would be clothed in Christ’s righteousness as His new creation “house from above” thus unashamed and “further clothed” Mt.22:1-14; Rev.3:18; 19:8/2Cor.5:1-21.

Isaiah 62 and the Eschatological Marriage Theme Continued…

Matthew 8:10-12:

10 When Jesus heard this [expression of the Gentile’s faith], he marveled and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith. 11 I tell you, many will come from east and west [Gentiles] and recline at the table [wedding feast of Isa. 25:6-9] with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven [in the resurrection], 12 while the sons of the kingdom [Pharisees and unbelieving Jews] will be cast out into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Gentry writes,

“In Matthew 8:11-12 we read of the faithful gentile who exercises more faith than anyone in Israel. We hear once again of the people from the east. This time they sit with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (the rightful place of the Jews). While the Jews themselves are “cast out” into “outer darkness.” (He Shall Have Dominion, p. 175). And, “God is preparing to punish his people Israel, remove the temple system, and re-orient redemptive history from one people and land to all peoples throughout the earth.” “This dramatic redemptive-historical event…ends the old covenant era…” (He Shall Have Dominion, p. 342).

Strengths:

The “casting out” of the “subjects of the kingdom” is a reference to OC Israel being judged in AD 70, at which time the believing Jewish/Gentile Church takes her place at the end of the OC era (but notice he is afraid of using the term “age”).

The “casting out into darkness” where there is “weeping and gnashing of teeth” he says refers to AD 70.

Weaknesses:

There is no mention of Isaiah 25:6-9 as Jesus’ source (cf. Mt. 5:17-18). They do the same thing in the OD when it comes to the resurrection gathering of Isa. 25-27/Mt. 24:30-31!

There is no consistency on Jesus’ phrases of being “cast out into darkness” where there is “weeping and gnashing of teeth” to Matthew 24:51 and 25:30. There is nothing throughout Matthew’s gospel that indicates there are TWO (casting out into outer darkness, weeping and gnashing of teeth) judgments in Jesus’ teaching throughout the gospels.

Unanswered questions – Why isn’t this the fulfillment of the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3, 13 and Revelation 20 in AD 70 when Daniel’s soul was raised out of the realm of the dead to inherit eternal life and God’s presence – since some Postmillennialists are teaching this now?

Commentators who are not Postmillennial Partial Preterists have no problem pointing out the OT passages Jesus is referring to when He addresses the eschatological wedding feast.

D.A. Carson writes,

“The picture is that of the “messianic banquet,” derived from such OT passages as Isaiah 25:6–9 (cf. 65:13–14)…” and “…the presence of Gentiles at the banquet, symbolized the consummation of the messianic kingdom (cf. Mt 22:1–14; 25:10; 26:29). “Son of” or “sons of” can mean “sons of the bridal chamber” [9:15; NIV, “guests of the bridegroom.” (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Vol. 8, pp. 202–203).

Bloomberg writes, “Jesus characterizes that bliss as taking “their places at the feast,” the messianic banquet image depicting the intimate fellowship among God’s people in the age to come (cf. Isa 25:6–9; 65:13–14).” (Blomberg, C. (1992). Matthew (Vol. 22, p. 142). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers).

Leon Morris connects this “feast” with “the coming bliss of the messianic banquet,” to be fulfilled “in the world (or age) to come.” (Morris, L. (1992). The Gospel according to Matthew (p. 195). Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press).

R.C. Sproul’s Reformation Study Bible admits that the table and feast of Matthew 8:11 is,

“A reference to the messianic banquet theme of Is. 25:6-9. Gentiles now appear in place of the natural sons.” (p. 1684).

Strengths:

Jesus is teaching on the fulfillment of the messianic wedding banquet and resurrection of Isa. 25:6-9 and inheriting the new creation of 65:12-14 at the end of the then current age, and in the age to come.

They connect the judgment of being “cast out into darkness” where there is “weeping and gnashing of teeth” with Matthew 24:51 and 25:30 as ONE separating judgment throughout Matthew’s gospel.

Weaknesses:

They ignore the time texts and clear references to the ONE AD 70 judgment throughout Matthew’s gospel and the time texts of the wedding and resurrection in Mt. 24-25 and Revelation – “this generation,” “soon,” etc…

The hermeneutical steps are incomplete in that no work is done on the context of Isaiah 24-25 or Isaiah 65 which demonstrate an “in time” and local judgment and not an end of time and global transformation event.

Matthew 22:1-14:

And again Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying, 2 “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son, 3 and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding feast, but they would not come. 4 Again he sent other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast.”’ 5 But they paid no attention and went off, one to his farm, another to his business, 6 while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them. 7 The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. 8 Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. 9 Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.’ 10 And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests. 11 “But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment. 12 And he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless. 13 Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ 14 For many are called, but few are chosen.”

Joel McDurmon writes of verses 2-7,

“Here the first servant-messengers (another reference to the prophets, no doubt) were simply ignored. Another wave of servant-messengers (more prophets) are treated as such a nuisance that while some still ignored them, “the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them” (v. 6). Jesus is certainly adding [the murdering of the servants or prophets] here as part of the same indictment of Jerusalem He would give again in (Matt. 23:34-36).” “The murderers were the entire generation of Israelites….” “…the armies would set the murderers’ city on fire (again exactly what happened in AD 70).”

And of verses 8-14, “…yet, after this destruction…” “…during this post-destruction wedding feast, some would sneak in who did not belong.” “…Whether [the man w/out the wedding garment] should be interpreted as the Judaizers who would cause so much dissention in the NT Church, or whenter these should just be understood as general heretics in the Church, is not clear.” (Jesus v. Jerusalem, 157-158, bold emphasis MJS).

Strengths:

The Great Commission invitation to the feast is between AD 30 – AD 70 in verses 1-7.

The sending out, rejection and killing of the servants is equated to Mt. 23 and the AD 70 judgment.

The judgment and burning of the city closes the OC era/age in AD 70.

The AD 70 judgment is once again characterized as being “cast out into outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Weaknesses:

Again, there is no mention that Jesus came to fulfill Isaiah 25:6-9 or 65:12-14 because they would have to address the timing and nature of the resurrection.

Postmillennialists miss that Mt. 22:1-14 is structured with recapitulation:

a). vss. 1-7: 1. There is an invitation to the wedding feast, 2. It is rejected, and 3. this rejection leads to the judgment of Jerusalem in AD 70 – burning their city.

b). vss. 8-13: 1. There is an invitation, 2. BUT there is NEW information given to us about the same time period that vss. 1-7 didn’t tell us about. This rejection results in the invitation to the undesirables – the 10 northern tribes/Samaritans and Gentiles (as laid out in Acts 1:8) and describes the success of the GC between AD 30 – AD 70. And then finally 3. There is a judgment for their rejection (except this time it’s described differently – with a Jew or Judaizer trying to achieve salvation by works of the law and not through belief in the Son and His grace – who is then “CAST” out in outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth (which is the same language used for the AD 70 judgment Postmillennialists give Mt. 8:11-12). So there is no exegetical evidence that vss. 8-13 is a post AD 70 GC resulting in a different judgment at the end of time.

As far as commentators that are not Postmillennial or Partial Preterist, they again have no problem connecting our Lord’s teaching here with the eschatological wedding feast consummation and resurrection of Isaiah 25:6-9. And most give lip service to God sending His armies to burn the city to be the AD 70 judgment (some such as Kistemaker try and downplay it). But these men refuse to interpret the rest of the parable as referring to AD 70 let alone connect Isaiah 25:6-9 with that judgment since it would destroy their Futurism.

Matthew 25:1-13

1″At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. 2Five of them were foolish and five were wise. 3The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them. 4The wise ones, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps. 5The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep. 6″At midnight the cry rang out: ‘Here’s the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!’ 7″Then all the virgins woke up and trimmed their lamps. 8The foolish ones said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out.’ 9″‘No,’ they replied, ‘there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves.’ 10″But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut. 11″Later the others also came. ‘LORD, LORD,’ they said, ‘open the door for us!’ 12″But he replied, ‘Truly I tell you, I don’t know you.’ 13″Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.

Postmillennialists such as Keith Mathison, Gary DeMar, Joel McDurmon, Mike Bull, etc… no longer divide Matthew 24-25 into two comings of the Lord. They correctly see every reference to the coming of Christ in the OD to be His spiritual coming in AD 70.

As I pointed out earlier, the reference to “day and hour” not being know by the Son but only the Father (24:36) is echoing the OT betrothal/marriage/resurrection motifs coming in Israel’s last days terminal generation (AD 30 – AD 70) — of which Jesus came to fulfill (Lk. 21:22; Mt. 5:17-18).

Others such as Kenneth Gentry see the coming of the Lord and “day and hour” in 24:36—25:31-46 as THE Second Coming consummative event with apparently another eschatological wedding and wedding feast to follow!

So again Postmillennialists are face with TWO eschatological marriages, feasts and resurrections when the NT only knows of ONE.

So let’s do what the Postmillennialists won’t do (they won’t even MENTION Jesus fulfilling Isa. 25:6-9) and what the other Futurists won’t (they mention Jesus is fulfilling Isa. 25:6-9 or Isa. 65:12-14 but then won’t develop those OT contexts).

Context of Isaiah 25:6-9

“On this mountain the LORD Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine- the best of meats and the finest of wines. 7On this mountain he will destroy the shroud that enfolds all peoples, the sheet that covers all nations; 8he will swallow up death forever. The Sovereign LORD will wipe away the tears from all faces; he will remove his people’s disgrace from all the earth. The LORD has spoken. 9In that day they will say, “Surely this is our God; we trusted in him, and he saved us. This is the LORD, we trusted in him; let us rejoice and be glad in his salvation.”

In context, the Messianic wedding banquet comes as a result of judgment upon OC Israel for her breaking the old covenant Torah (cf. Isa. 24:5). This makes no sense in the Amillennial paradigm because all the Mosaic Law was supposed to have been fulfilled and passed away at the cross.

The Messianic wedding banquet comes when OC Jerusalem is judged with her city becoming a “heap of rubble” (cf. Isa. 25:2). Again this points to an “in time” and local event and not an end of time or global destruction and renewal.

Therefore, Jesus is using Isaiah 24-25 consistently and accurately to demonstrate that the Messianic wedding banquet and resurrection would be fulfilled in AD 70 when OC Israel would break Torah, was judged, and her city and Temple were left in a heap of rubble.

Context of Isaiah 65:12-14

12I will destine you for the sword, and all of you will fall in the slaughter; for I called but you did not answer, I spoke but you did not listen. You did evil in my sight and chose what displeases me.” 13Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: “My servants will eat, but you will go hungry; my servants will drink, but you will go thirsty; my servants will rejoice, but you will be put to shame. 14My servants will sing out of the joy of their hearts, but you will cry out from anguish of heart and wail in brokenness of spirit.

Here we are told that God was going to judge OC Israel “by the sword” and their fathers “in full” measure. But at the same time would save a remnant along with the Gentiles (cf. Roms. 10:20—chapter 11).

In that day of judgment, the remnant of believing Jews and Gentiles would feast at the wedding supper and be called by a new name (an everlasting NC name – the New Jerusalem) while OC Israel would not feast, starve and would be remembered no more. This is in line with the “soon” AD 70 coming of the Lord throughout the book of Revelation. In Revelation 19-21, while the Church (the transformed Israel of God) feasts at the wedding feast, OC Israel not only starves, but is actually feasted upon by the birds of the air.

Putting it Altogether “Bridging the Gap” 

The Analogy of Faith or Analogy of Scripture Hermeneutic: Teaches Scripture interprets Scripture, and Scripture cannot contradict Scripture.

In mathematics and logic: If A bears some relation to B and B bears the same relation to C, then A bears it to C. If A = B and B = C, then A = C. Therefore, things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another. If equals be added to equals, the wholes are equal.

A (Mt. 8; 22; 25) = Wedding or wedding feast, end of the age, and parousia fulfilled by AD 70.

B (Isa. 25:6-9) = The wedding feast & resurrection are fulfilled together “in that day.”

C (1 Cor. 15) = The resurrection and end of the age are fulfilled at the parousia.

If A bears some relation to B…

Jesus in A (Mt. 8; 22; 25) uses B (Isa. 25:6-9) to teach that His eschatological wedding feast would be fulfilled at His parousia to close the end of the OC age in AD 70.

…and B bears the same relation to C,…

Paul uses B (Isa. 25:6-9) in C (1 Cor. 15) to teach that the resurrection would take place at Christ’s parousia and at “the end [of the age].”

…then A bears it to C.

Both Jesus in A (Mt. 8; 22; 25) and Paul in C (1 Cor. 15) use a common source B (Isa. 25:6-9) to teach the resurrection will be fulfilled “at the end [of the OC age]” parousia event.

Therefore, things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another. If equals be added to equals, the wholes are equal.

The ONE Parousia/Second Coming, Eschatological Wedding, End of the Age and Resurrection event of A (Mt. 8; 22; 25), B (Isa. 25:6-9) and C (1 Cor. 15) was fulfilled in AD 70.

Premise #1: Since it is true that Jesus taught the wedding feast of (Mt. 8; 22; 25) would be fulfilled at His parousia to close the OC age in AD 70 (Postmillennialists now agree with Full Preterists).

Premise #2: And since it is also true that Jesus in (Mt. 8; 22; 25) came to fulfill (Isa. 25:6-9) (Amillennialists and Full Preterists agree).

Premise #3: And since it is also true that Paul teaches Jesus’ parousia would fulfill the resurrection of (1 Cor. 15) (all agree).

Premise #4: And since it is also true that the end of the age, the end, parousia and resurrection of (Mt. 8; 22; 25) and (1 Cor. 15) are the same event (Amillennialists and Full Preterists agree).

Conclusion: Then it is also true that the wedding feast, parousia, the end of the OC age and resurrection of (Mt. 8; 22; 25), (Isa. 25:6-9) and (1 Cor. 15) were fulfilled in AD 70. (Full Preterism Synthesis)

When we harmonize what Postmillennialists are teaching when it comes to the eschatological wedding feast and a spiritual resurrection taking place in AD 70 at Christ’s parousia, with what other Futurists are teaching on this being THE ONE consummative event for the Second Coming, resurrection and wedding to occur at the end of the age —- we get Full Preterism. This will become apparent as well when studying the parable of the wheat and tares along side of Daniel 12 which will be next and Part 5 of this series.

e). “…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.” (Mrk.9:1 Rotherham Translation).

In Mark’s parallel account, some of the disciples live to see Christ’s return and kingdom coming when he 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; Matt.21:33ff.; 23:31-34:34).”[5]

I experientially know and can see from reading my Lord’s words and the testimony of the Scriptures themselves that the historical destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 proves without a shadow of doubt He has established His Kingdom “within” me and the rest of His Body. 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 to His return. The Greek word here for “see” is eido. Strong’s Concordance defines eido as to “know how” and “perceive” as well as physical sight. Through observing with the physical senses the destruction of the outer shell of the old-covenant kingdom’s temple and City in A.D.70, “some” of Jesus’ contemporary audience would be able to “perceive” and “know how” Christ’s spiritual Kingdom had come “within” them Lk.17:20-37; Cols.1:27; Jn.14:2-3, 23. This text is one of many that refutes a literal so called “rapture” or literal resurrection off the earth for the living and remaining at Christ’s return! The fact that they would remain on the earth and “know” He had come coincides with what we saw the prophet Isiah teach of the “survivors” of the “Day of the Lord” to culminate the “last days.” Keeping Isaiah’s prophecy in mind once again, let’s turn our attention to the next exegetical point on the timing of “rewards” mentioned in our text.

f). The “reward” of Isa.40 & 62, Mt.16:27-28, & the Rev. 1-3; 20-22:12 Connection.

The “about to” coming of the Son of Man to reward the righteous and the wicked mentioned in Mt.16:27-28 is taken from the “last days” prophecy of the coming “Day of the Lord” in (Isa.2-3:10-11; Isa.40:10; Isa.62:11). Since everyone agrees that Jesus quoting Isa. 2:19 in Lk.23:30 refer to the A.D. 70 judgment, and Mathison understands Christ coming to vindicate the martyrs in Rev.6:15 and give rewards in Rev. 22:12 as the A.D. 70 coming of Christ and judgment; therefore is there any reason he should not apply Mt. 16:27-28 to the same event?

Parallels (analogy of faith) Between Mt.16:27 Rev.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 workshall be”

When Mt.16:27-28 is taken together with the book of Revelation from beginning to end, both form an inescapable A.D.70 time of fulfillment harmony. Mathison and Gentry agree with us that the audience and subject matter of the book of Revelation was written to seven historical churches in Asia Rev.1:4 who were told that they would experience the coming of the Lord, judgment, and receive rewards in an “at hand,” “about to be,” “shortly,” time frame Rev.1:1, 3, 7, 19-mello;” Rev.2:5, 7, 10-11, 16, 17, 25-29; Rev.3:4-5, 10-12, 18, 21; 22:6-7, 10-12, 20. But once we get into the book of Revelation, is the “coming” of Christ associated with His judging the City and rewarding “every man” including “the dead,” (Rev. 11:13, 18) the ascension event or His second coming and imminent return in A.D. 70?

The (OG) LXX of Daniel 7:13 reads, “Upon the clouds of heaven came one like a Son of Man, and he came as the Ancient of Days” (whereas the the Aramaic and the Tehodotionic LXX have “he came up to the Ancient of Days”). It would appear that Jesus and John follow the (OG) LXX rendering as it fits better with Revelation 1:7, 13-17 where Jesus is described coming on the clouds as the Ancient of Days. The context here and elsewhere in the NT where a reference to Daniel 7:13 is referred to is that Christ is coming down from heaven upon the clouds in judgment upon Jerusalem – this is not a coming “up to” the Father in AD 30. Besides this, the context of Daniel 7 has to do with the general judgment when the books are opened etc…, not the ascesion event.

Any unbiased reader of both sides of the reformed house divided can see: 1) the time statements point to an A.D. 70 time of fulfillment (per Mathison & Gentry), and 2) the coming of Christ in the book of Revelation refers to the second coming to render judgment and reward every man–the living and the dead (per most Reformed and Evangelical) commentators. When we combine these two observations from the Reformed community we arrive at our position. Jesus’ teaching here in Mt.16:27-28 and elsewhere in the gospel of Matthew lays the foundation of what we see with the A.D. 70 imminence throughout Revelation.

g). Mt. 16:27-28 and the Olivet Discourse connection.

Jesus in the Olivet discourse ties the same subject matter in with both Mt. 16:27 & 28. Not only is the same subject matter taken as one unit in the Olivet Discourse, but the same time frame for the second coming is reiterated by Christ, “This generation”:

1) Christ comes in glory Luke 9:26

1) Christ comes in glory Matthew 24:30

2) Christ comes with angels Matthew 16:27

2) Christ comes with angels Matthew 24:31

3) Christ comes in judgment Matthew 16:27

3) Christ comes in judgment Matthew 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 Matthew 16:28

5) Some of the disciples would live Luke 21:16-18

6) Some of the disciples would die Matthew 16:28

6) Some of the disciples would die Luke 21:16

7) Christ would be ashamed of the disciples generation Mark 8:38

7) All of this would occur in the disciples generation Matthew 24:34

This is a very specific historical event and is not addressing several comings of Christ at: 1) the ascension, 2) Pentecost, 3) A.D. 70, and 4) a future coming to end history.

Partial Preterist Gary DeMar of American Vision is on record as teaching:

· John’s version of Matthew 24-25 can be found in the book of Revelation.

· Matthew 16:27=24:30=25:31-46 and is descriptive of Christ coming in the judgment of AD 70.

· That Matthew 24-25 can be paralleled to the vast majority of eschatological passages in the NT to prove AD 70 fulfillments and thus disprove Dispensationalism.

Therefore, it is pure eisegesis and a creedal bias which causes Partial Preterism to avoid making these parallels here:

1) Matthew 25:31=Revelation 20:11 — Christ/God on the Throne to Judge. 2) Matthew 24:29, 35=Revelation 20:11 — Heaven and Earth pass/flee. 3) Matthew 25:31/Matthew 16:27=Revelation 20:12 — “all men” “each person”“all Nations” “the rest of the dead” “small and great “according to what they have done.” 4) Matthew 25:41-46=Revelation 20:10, 14-15— Wicked along with the Devil thrown into Lake of Fire for eternal punishment.

Since Partial Preterists such as Gary DeMar tell us that the imminent time indicators within the book of Revelation point us to an AD 70 fulfillment of its content, there is no exegetical evidence which would indicate that Revelation 20:5-15 does not fall within the “shortly,” “about to be,” “at hand,” “quickly” time frame. And since Partial Preterists such as James Jordan or Joel McDurmon tell us that the judgment and resurrection of Daniel 12:1-3 was fulfilled in AD 70 and that “John picks up where Daniel leaves off,” then once again we see evidence for the judgment and rewarding of Revelation 20:5-15 being fulfilled in AD 70.

h). Matthew 16:27-28 and the Transfiguration event.

Mathison states, “It has also been suggested that the “coming” of the Son of Man in 16:28 refers to the Transfiguration (cf. Matt. 17:1-8). (p.176). It is also suggested by many of the same commentators that the transfiguration event is a prelude or foretaste of the Second Coming described in verse 27. So what is the relationship? In the vision, when Peter wants Moses and Elijah to remain and abide with the other disciples and Jesus, God causes the glory of Moses and Elijah to disappear. The theology of the vision is directed at the appearing and disappearing of the old-covenant order pictured in the glory of Moses and Elijah (the law and the prophets), with the emphasis on the eternal abiding glory of the new-covenant words of Christ – “here Him” (Mt. 17:5-8; cf. Mt.24:35). To seek the abiding glory and nature of the old covenant (Moses and Elijah) along with the new (the glory of Christ) was the theological error of the Judaizers and mockers of Peter’s day were making! With this in mind we can now understand Peter’s appeal to the vision as an apologetic against the mockers and false teachers of his day.

The 1Pet. 1:16-19 text is now very easy to understand. Peter is under attack by the Judaizers whom are claiming that he and the other disciples have been teaching Christians “cleverly devised stories” about the second coming (2Pet.1:16a). Peter’s apologetic against this charge is that he has two other Apostolic witnesses that will bear witness that they got their teaching of the second coming from direct revelation from the Father and the Son on the Mount of Transfiguration–verses 16b-18. Although Peter does not use the Greek word metamorphoo, he describes the Church going through a similar process–in verse 19a he says it is “…a light shining in a dark place, until the Day dawns and the Morning Star rises in your hearts.” The “day” singular is none other than the “last day” of John’s gospel and the “in that day” or last day (singular) of (Lk.17/Mt.24-25).

There are only two other places in the New Testament where this Greek word transfigured or transformed metamorphoo is used (Rms.12:2 & 2Cor. 3:18). Paul’s “therefore” of Rms.12:1 is linking it with his teaching on the unsearchable riches of the new-covenant “mystery” (Jew/Gentile) or salvation that he has been developing throughout and reaches its peak here in (11:15, 25-36; cf. 1Cor.2). In chapters 7-8 the issue with the old-covenant law of sin and death and the new-covenant law of the spirit, is realized within the “mind” and fleshing that out (so to speak), through a spiritual walking in the newness of this new-covenant life. In chapters 12 and on, are the practical applications of living out this new-covenant salvation and life which was imminently coming at Christ’s return 13:11-12. They were not to be conformed to the old-covenant world, but be “transformed” through the new – “by the renewing of” their minds”! This was and continues to be a “spiritual act of worship” in the new-covenant age (cf. verse 1; Jn.4:24). Paul shows how this new-covenant life is to be worked out individually within the corporate Body of Christ in verses 3-16. He then closes with words connected with Christ’s new-covenant law (the true riches and meaning that were always there within the old) given on the Mount in verses 17-21/cf. Matthew 5.

The only other New Testament passage in which metamorphoo is used is in 2Cor. 3:18. This is likewise a very clear covenantal contrasting section within Paul’s writings. The Church was in the process of “being transformed” into the likeness of Christ which was connected with the old-covenant veil being lifted from the eyes of their minds and hearts. This was obviously not a literal or biological transformation process but a spiritual and covenantal one! The old-covenant glory was “passing away” (2Cor. 3:7-11) just as the glory of Moses and Elijah had disappeared in the vision given on the mount!

Since we agree with most who understand the transfiguration event to be a foreshadowing or prefiguring of the parousia we need to ask where in the vision are the following: 1) the passing and burning of the planet earth, 2) Christ floating down on a literal cloud someday and 3) corpses flying out of their caskets at the end of time to be united with their spirits? The vision of the parousia in the transfiguration event gives us a theological picture/description of what the parousia was going to be all about – the passing and fulfilling of the old-covenant promises and the bringing in and establishing of the new by A.D. 70.

The Orthodox and Organic Development of Full Preterism on Matthew 16:27-28

The “orthodox” (or straight) truth on Matthew 16:27-28 is found in the middle of the classic Amillennial view and the Partial Preterist view: 1) (Matthew 16:27) is the actual Second Coming event (as is Matt. 24:30–25:31) and 2) (Matthew 16:28) teaches us that it was to take place within the lifetime of “some” of those standing and listening to Jesus and thus in their first century “this generation.”

The Jubilee “Day of Vengeance” of Isaiah 63:1-6 and Revelation 14:17-20; 17:5-6; 19:15
Isaiah 63:1-6:
Who is this who comes from Edom, in crimsoned garments from Bozrah, he who is splendid in his apparel, marching in the greatness of his strength? “It is I, speaking in righteousness, mighty to save.” 2 Why is your apparel red, and your garments like his who treads in the winepress? “I have trodden the winepress alone, and from the peoples no one was with me; I trod them in my anger and trampled them in my wrath; their lifeblood spattered on my garments, and stained all my apparel. 4For the day of vengeance was in my heart, and my year of redemption had come. 5I looked, but there was no one to help; I was appalled, but there was no one to uphold; so my own arm brought me salvation, and my wrath upheld me. 6I trampled down the peoples in my anger; I made them drunk in my wrath, and I poured out their lifeblood on the earth.”
We are continuing our glorious study of the Jubilee begun in Isaiah 61:1-11. While there is the promise of the glorious rest and re-taking the inheritance of the New Creation and Tree of Life in Christ that will be coming in chapters 65-66, the “day of vengeance” is the other side of the coin described for us in Isaiah 61:2 and Isaiah 63:1-6.  We have briefly alluded to Yeshua developing both the Jubilee theme of “redemption” and the “days of vengeance” in Luke 21:20-32 as pertaining to Christ’s Second Coming being fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem in the events of AD 66 – AD 70. So we now need to turn to John’s version of the Olivet Discourse in the book of Revelation to develop Isaiah 63:1-6.
Revelation 14:17-20  
17 Then another angel came out of the temple in heaven, and he too had a sharp sickle. 18 And another angel came out from the altar, the angel who has authority over the fire, and he called with a loud voice to the one who had the sharp sickle, “Put in your sickle and gather the clusters from the vine of the earth, for its grapes are ripe.” 19 So the angel swung his sickle across the earth and gathered the grape harvest of the earth and threw it into the great winepress of the wrath of God. 20 And the winepress was trodden outside the city, and blood flowed from the winepress, as high as a horse’s bridle, for 1,600 stadia.
As David Chilton noticed (Days of Vengeance, 374) in Revelation 6:9-11 the martyrs are pleading under the golden altar of incense for vengeance upon their enemies.  God’s answer is that vengeance will be “in a very little while.”  Then at the beginning of the trumpets vision, the angel combines the prayers of the saints in the censer with fire and casts it upon the land in judgment (cf. Rev. 8:3-5).  Now the same angel over “the fire” appears from God’s altar of fire to once again depict the vengeance of God’s wrath upon “Babylon” (OC Jerusalem 11:8) in chapter 14 being described as a harvest of grapes being crushed in God’s winepress of wrath.  This is a harvest and “wrath” that was “about to come” upon the threshing floor of the land of Israel as was depicted by John the Baptist in (Mt. 3:2-12).  Another key to seeing this prophecy being applied to the AD 66 – AD 70 judgment is the distance of bloodshed of “sixteen hundred stadia.”  This was the distance of the land of Israel.  This is NOT a global day of vengeance and wrath, but rather, a covenantal and local one upon OC Jerusalem.
We should note that sabbath rest is a theme here in this chapter as well. The righteous dead who die in the Lord post AD 70 “…rest from their labors” while the wicked are tormented with fire in presence of the Lamb “day and night” and they “have no rest” (Rev. 14:11).
Revelation 17:5-6; 18:6: 
“And on her forehead was written a name of mystery:  Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes and of the earth’s abominations.  And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs.”  
Here in chapters 17-18 the Great Harlot Wife / Babylon (OC Jerusalem) is guilty of drinking and getting “drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.” (Rev. 17:5).  Therefore, she will be paid back “double” for her deeds with the angels and Romans and “mixing a double portion” for her to drink from the cup of God’s wrath (Rev. 18:6).
Revelation 19:15-18
15 From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords. 17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly directly overhead, “Come, gather for the great supper of God, 18 to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all men, both free and slave, both small and great.”
Again, this is another reference to Isiah 63:1-6 and the day of vengeance.  In Isiah His robe has the blood of his enemies and here His name “King of kings and Lord of lords” is written upon it.  There is a contrast between being invited to the Wedding Supper of the Lamb (19:1-9) and being devoured by the Romans and the animals at the Great Supper of God (19:17-19) from which the blood comes on His robe.
Isaiah 66:15-16:
“For behold, the LORD will come with fire, and his chariots like the whirlwind, to render his anger in fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.  For by fire will the LORD enter into judgment, and by his sword, with all flesh; and those slain by the LORD shall be many.”
2 Thessalonians 1:5-9
This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering— since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, 10 when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed. 11 To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his calling and may fulfill every resolve for good and every work of faith by his power, 12 so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Was the Apostle Paul a true prophet when he wrote under inspiration that Christ would be revealed from heaven and give those first century Christians “relief” from their Jewish persecutors and render judgment and “trouble” upon their enemies in the events of AD 66-AD 70 or not (2 Thess. 1:5-8)?!? If not, then the NT prophets are no less reliable than the false prophets in Jeremiah’s day and modern Charismatics!

OT Echo to 1 Thessalonians 4:16 and 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9

G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson point out the OT reference for Paul here in 2 Thessalonians 1:6-8 is Isaiah 66:15

“The claim that it is just for God “to repay [antapodounai] those who afflict you with affliction, and you who are being afflicted with rest” involves the OT principle of retribution—the lex talionis, “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” Although Scripture frequently affirms the theme of divine recompense, at times also using the identical verb “to repay” (Deut. 32:35; Ps. 138:8 [137:8 LXX]; Obad. 15; cf. Isa. 63:4), the allusions to Isa. 66 in the subsequent verses strengthen the possibility that Paul has that same passage in view here. In fact, there are two verses from Isa. 66 that are relevant: “The voice of the Lord repaying [antapodidontos] retribution to his enemies” (66:6); “For the Lord will come like a fire, and his chariots like the whirlwind, to repay [apodounai] his punishment with anger, and his rebuke with a flame of fire” (66:15).”

“…1:8a – It appears likely, therefore, that the alternate reading “in a flame of fire” is in fact original and that this phrase involves an allusion to Isa. 66:15. Paul uses the imagery of a flaming fire to portray in a powerful manner the frightening judgment that awaits those who have been oppressing the Thessalonian believers.

1:8b – Paul continues to comfort his persecuted readers by picking up again the OT idea of divine retribution that he introduced in 1:6. Whereas that earlier verse balances the punishment of Thessalonians’ persecutors with the reward that believers will receive, this verse stresses only the negative half of judgment: “giving vengeance [didontos ekdikēsin] to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.” The phrase “give vengeance” (didōmi ekdikēsin), with slight variations, occurs several times in the LXX (Num. 31:3; Deut. 32:35; 2 Kgdms. 4:8; 22:48 [2 Sam. 4:8; 22:48]; Ps. 17:48 [18:47 ET]; Ezek. 25:14, 17). It is striking, however, that this phrase occurs also in Isa. 66:15 (apodounai … ekdikēsin)—the same text alluded to in the immediately preceding phrase, “a flame of fire.” The action of “giving vengeance” in Isa. 66:15, as in the other OT texts containing this phrase, is ascribed to God. In Paul’s use of this phrase, however, the divine work of meting out judgment is transferred to the returning Christ (the participle didontos modifies tou kyriou Iēsou).

This vengeance will be given not only to the persecutors of the Thessalonians, but also to a much larger group: “to those who do not know God, and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.” Several commentators have concluded from this double clause that Paul has two distinct groups in mind, most likely Gentiles and Jews (so, e.g., Dobschütz 1909: 248; Frame 1912: 233; Marshall 1983: 177–78). This “two group” interpretation appeals not only to the repetition of the definite article tois, but also to the description of the people in each clause. The first clause refers to “those who do not know God” (tois mē eidosin theon), an OT expression that typically refers to Gentiles (Job 18:21; Ps 79:6 [78:6 LXX]; Jer. 10:25) and that has this meaning elsewhere in Paul’s letters (Gal. 4:8–9; 1 Thess. 4:5; cf. 1 Cor. 1:21). The second clause refers to “those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus” (tois mē hypakouousin tō euangeliō tou kyriou hēmōn Iēsou), an expression that may well allude to Isa. 66:4, where “they did not obey [God]” (ouch hypēkousan mou) refers to the Jewish people. (Weima, J. A. D. (2007). 1-2 Thessalonians. In Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament (pp. 884–885). Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, UK: Baker Academic; Apollos).

Beale and Carson have no problem connecting the coming of Christ in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 with 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 with the Day of the Lord judgment of Isiah 2-4. Other than the trumpet gathering and resurrection of Isaiah 27:12-13, G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson connect this coming of the Lord “from heaven” of 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 with Isaiah 2:10-12’s “in that day” “Day of the Lord” judgment,

“The main clause of 1 Thess. 4:16, “because the Lord himself will come down from heaven,” recalls…the prophetic literature of the OT that envisions “the day of the Lord,” when God will come to judge the wicked and save the righteous (Isa. 2:10–12;…) (Weima, J. A. D. (2007). 1-2 Thessalonians. In Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament (p. 880). Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, UK: Baker Academic; Apollos).

But Beale and Carson also connect 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 with Isaiah 2,

“This (in context – giving the Thessalonians relief from their Jewish persecutors) will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out (excommunicated [from the heavenly Temple] as they had done to the Christians) from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.”

But let’s quote the passage in context,

“This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering—since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels.”

Here we clearly see that when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven, it is for the purpose of giving “relief” to first century Christians who were being persecuted by Jews who were filling up the measure of their sins (1 Thess. 2:14-16). At the same time He was going to give relief to these first century Christians, by judging or “repaying” their Jewish persecutors with the same kind of affliction and pressure they were giving them. He did this when by laying a trap for them when they made their journey to Jerusalem and were convinced by the false prophets to stay within the city and were judged with His “wrath” between AD 66 – AD 70. Jesus taught the time of vindication and the judgment for the living and the dead in Matthew 23 would be in His “this generation.” And the time of vindicating the first century Church pictured as a persistent widow in Luke 18:1-8 would be “quickly” and not 2,000 plus years and counting.

Of this passage Beale and Carson write,

“eternal destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.” This description clearly echoes the triple refrain of Isa. 2:10, 19, 21, where on the day of the Lord the wicked are commanded to hide themselves behind rocks and in caves “from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might whenever he will rise to terrify the earth.” (Ibid. 885).

So since both 1 Thessalonians 4:16 and 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 fulfill the coming of the Lord “from heaven” in the judgment found in Isaiah 2, let’s examine when Jesus and John see Isaiah 2 being fulfilled.

Jesus – Luke 23:27-30:

27 And there followed him a great multitude of the people and of women who were mourning and lamenting for him. 28 But turning to them Jesus said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. 29 For behold, the days are coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren and the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!’ 30 Then they will begin to say to the mountains, ‘Fall on us,’ and to the hills, ‘Cover us (from Isa. 2:19 and Hos. 10:8).

There’s a consensus among the commentators that this passage was fulfilled in God’s judgment upon Jerusalem in AD 70.

John – Revelation 6:15-17:

15 Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and everyone else, both slave and free, hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. 16 They called to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us[a] from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! 17 For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can withstand it?”

Postmillennialists correctly tell us that every reference to the coming of the Lord in Revelation was said to be fulfilled “soon,” “at hand,” “quickly” or “about to be” fulfilled in AD 70.  This is when the martyrs blood would be vindicated in just – “a little while longer” (vss. 10-11).

Concerning Isaiah 2; Revelation 6; and 2 Thessalonians 1, Gentry argues that Christ had to come in judgment in AD 70 to vindicate those being persecuted in Revelation 1-3 & Revelation 6 because if He hadn’t (per futurism), God would be “mocking their [first century] circumstances.” Gentry also appeals to Matt. 23-24 in developing the AD 70 time-frame for the fulfillment of the Thessalonians to be relieved and vindicated from their Jewish persecutors in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-20. But this begs the obvious heremeneutical question – as to why doesn’t 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 also form the foundation for Christ’s coming to relieve the Thessalonians from their first century Jewish persecutors?!?

If futurism’s 2,000+ year delay of Christ’s coming creates a “cruel mockery” for the persecuted in the book of Revelation, then why doesn’t Gentry’s futuristic 2000+ years delay of Christ’s coming to relieve the Thessalonians and judge their persecutors in 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 create a “cruel mockery” for their first century “circumstances?” Again, this is why Gentry’s critics charge him with inconsistent hermeneutics and holding to a view that only serves as a stepping stone to Full Preterism.

Premise #1 If it is true and orthodox to believe that Luke 23:27-30; Revelation 6:10-17; 1 Thessalonians 4:16; 2 Thessalonians 1:7 all fulfill the “last days” “in that day” judgment of Isaiah 2.

Premise #2 And if it is true and orthodox to believe that 1 Thessalonians 4:16 and 2 Thessalonians 1:7 are the same and ONE Second Coming coming event and that both passages fulfill the “last days” “in that day” judgment of Isaiah 2 (Full Preterists agree with Amillennialists and Premillennialists),…

Premeise #3And if it is also true and orthodox to believe that 2 Thessalonians 1:7 fulfills Isaiah 2’s “last days” “in that day” judgment in AD 70 (Full Preterists agree with Partial Preterists such as Gary DeMar on this point),…

ConclusionThen it necessarily follows and is also true and orthodox to believe that the ONE Second Coming event of 1 Thessalonians 4:16 fulfilled the “last days” “in that day” judgment of Isaiah 2 in AD 70 just as 2 Thessalonians 1:7 was fulfilled at this time.

1 Thessalonians 1:10

“for they themselves report what kind of reception you gave us. They tell how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.” (1:9-10).

The Thessalonians were to eagerly wait for Christ. The definition of anaménō

“…(from 303 /aná, “up, completing a process,” which intensifies 3306 /ménō, “wait, remain”) – properly, earnestly wait (linger, abide); actively wait with rising intensity and clarity about what is hoped for (note the prefix, ana).  Thayers – “to wait for one (with the added notion of patience and trust).”

Even Dispensationalists such as Pastor John MacArthur writes of this passage,

“…the immanency of the deliverance was something Paul felt could happen in their lifetimes.”

Did Paul just “feel” it could happen or did he write it as an inspired and authoritative Apostle being led into all truth “trusting” in the very words of Jesus Himself that He would return at the end of the OC age, in their generation, and in some of their lifetimes (Matt. 10:22-23; 16:27-28; 24:27-34)?!?

Make no mistake about it, MacArthur’s Futurism effectively portrays Christ and the Apostle Paul as false prophets – out of ignorance or not, this is the undeniable conclusion. MacArthur needs to worry less about the serious implications of Charismatic false prophecy and teaching and take the forest out of his own eye in this area! Why would I conclude MacArthur’s failed Futurism has any less bad implications for the church than false Charismatic doctrine? They ALL ignore the message of Christ and the Apostolic Prophetic message and have invented their own “delusional” (God’s term) understandings of them. Selah.

Christ comes “from heaven.” The definition of “heaven” here can mean the literal sky and clouds where the birds fly, but in Pauline eschatology the term “from heaven” is primarily dealing with God’s heavenly dwelling where His presence is along with the angelic hosts.

Christ comes to “rescue” the Thessalonians to Himself.

The definition of rescue here is rhýomai (from eryō, “draw to oneself“) – properly, draw or (pull) to oneself; to rescue (“snatch up”); to draw or rescue a person to and for the deliverer. To draw or snatch from danger, rescue, deliver. This is more with the meaning of drawing to oneself than merely rescuing from someone or something (Zodhiates, S. (2000). The complete word study dictionary: New Testament (electronic ed.). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers).

Christ comes to rescue the Thessalonians from the “coming wrath.”

God laid a trap for the persecuting Jews whom went to Jerusalem for the feast days in AD 66 and they experienced God’s wrath. Christians that did go to Jerusalem to fellowship with the Jerusalem Church in AD 66 ALL fled together from the city and were rescued from this wrath.

Jews who especially sympathized with the Jewish revolt were persecuted throughout Rome during this period – 50,000 died in Egypt alone. Christians were known for being peaceful law abiding citizens for the most part. They fled to Pella and were safe. This was a known anti-Jewish town filled with a lot of Greek veterans. They did not support the Jewish rebellion against Rome and so had no problems accepting the peaceful Christians who likewise did not support the rebellion against Rome or the false prophets proclaiming an earthly messianic kingdom.

Just a brief point – the flight of the Christians in fulfillment Daniel’s prophecy of the seventy weeks was the point in time that God “sealed up” that is, brought to an end the office of prophet and the gift of prophecy (Dan. 9:24-27/Lk. 21:20-32).

Paul’s doctrine on an imminent coming of Christ and wrath is in line with Jesus’ teaching:

“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. “Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled. “Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people; and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” (Lk. 21:20-23).

And Postmillennialists admit the coming of Christ in Matthew 25:31 was fulfilled in AD 70 and there was a judgment of the dead that took place as well according to 1 Peter 4:5-7, 17 and Revelation 11. Therefore, Jesus responds to the dead as well about this being a time of wrath,

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Harmonizing the coming of Christ in 1 Thessalonians 1:10 with 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17

1. First century audience – “you” “us.”

1. First century audience – “we.”

2. Eager expectation – imminence

2. “We who are still alive…” – imminent expectation.

3. Christ comes “from heaven.”

3. Christ comes “from heaven.”

4. Jesus’ resurrection is mentioned as a sign or event guaranteeing that the living would be rescued.

4. Jesus’ resurrection is mentioned as a sign or event guaranteeing the dead in Christ would be raised and the living would be brought into God’s presence.

5. “Snatches” from wrath but to Christ.

5. “Catches/snatches away” to Christ.

The Partial Preterism of Kenneth Gentry & Keith Mathison

Mathison and Gentry don’t deal with the imminence here in connection with Jesus’ teaching in the OD. This is odd since they claim to want to address imminence and they both admit Paul is drawing from Jesus’ teaching in the OD! They also fail to demonstrate how the deliverance from this wrath here in chapter 1 is an allegedly future event for us, while Paul’s treatment of Christ coming attended with “wrath” in the very next chapter (cf. 1 Thess. 2:16) is fulfilled by AD 70. Again, no consistent hermeneutic and no agreement among them.

The Partial Preterism of Gary DeMar

Unlike Gentry and Mathison, Gary DeMar concedes that the coming of Christ here in 1 Thessalonians 1:10 was fulfilled in AD 70. But Gary fails to do any exegetical work to harmonize his Preterist interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 1:10 with his futurist creedal view of 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17. In both passages Christ comes “from heaven” to “snatch” or “catch” away His people to Himself. On what exegetical grounds is the first apocalyptic language fulfilled in AD 70 while the later is physical and 2,000 plus years removed?!? Again, no consistent hermeneutic or flow of Paul in his writings per the man pleasing and man fearing tradition laid out within Postmillennial Partial Preterism. Why would the Thessalonians think these are two different comings of Christ “from heaven” to “snatch” or “catch” His people to Himself?!? DeMar is no less guilty of perverting God’s prophetic Word through Paul than the Charismatics and MacArthur. Lord willing this isn’t the legacy he wants to leave. While he needs to count the cost for embracing the truth (ex. knowing what Gary North put David Chilton through), he needs to embrace it and “shout it from the rooftops.” Selah. 3). 

I’ll stick with the reliability of SGFPism’s understanding of Apostolic NT imminence verses the false prophets and false prophecies of Futurism and Charismatic Futurist false prophets ANY DAY! God’s Word is STILL “a hammer that breaks” apart the false doctrines and false prophecies of those that are uttered in His name and He still vindicates the prophecies of the Lord and His faithful New Covenant shepherds that were “led into all truth concerning things to come.” We rest in THEIR prophetic Word and that our Lord is truly the “Faithful and True Witness.”

THE NEW CREATION PROMISES OF ISAIAH 65-66; REVELATION 21-22; 2 PETER 3 AND ROMANS 8:18-23YLT
Unknown-2Reformed theologians such as John Owen and John Lightfoot along with many others, correctly understood the “elements” here not as the rocks and tress of the planet earth, but of the old-covenant law and the “Day of the Lord” occurring in AD 70.  John Owen in his sermon on 2 Peter 3 also describes Isaiah 51:15-16 as the Old Covenant system except unlike Spurgeon he correctly and clearly states it passed away and her “elements” burned up in AD 70.  Since the foundation to the promise of 2 Peter 3 is Isaiah 65, it is relevant to what Spurgeon would have been reading on the subject.  Please note that he says the passing and burning of the first heavens and earth is “ONLY” referring to the OC system and the New is only the gospel of the NC dispensation:
“I shall only observe, by the way, not to look into the difficulties of these verses, that I not be too long detained from my principal intendment, – that the apostle makes a distribution of the word into heaven and earth, and saith, they ‘were destroyed with water, and perished: We know that neither the fabric or substance of the one or other was destroyed, but only men that lived on the earth; and the apostle tells us, verse 5, of the heavens and earth that were then, and were destroyed by water, distinct from the heavens and the earth that were now, and were to be consumed by fire; and yet, as to the visible fabric of heaven and earth, they were the same both before the flood and in the apostle’s time, and continue so to this day; when yet it is certain that the heavens and earth whereof he speaks were to be destroyed and consumed by fire in that generation. We must, then, for the clearing our foundation, a little consider what the apostle intends by `the heavens and the earth’ in these two places:
“1. It is certain, that what the apostle intends by the ‘world,’ with its heavens and earth, verses 5, 6, which was destroyed by water; the same or somewhat of that kind, he intends by ‘the heavens and the earth’ that were to be consumed and destroyed by fire, verse 7. Otherwise there would be no coherence in the apostle’s discourse, nor any kind of argument, but a mere fallacy of words.
“2. It is certain, that by the flood, the world, or the fabric of heaven and earth, was not destroyed, but only the inhabitants of the world; and therefore the destruction intimated to succeed by fire, is not of the substance of the heavens and the earth, which shall not be consumed until the last day, but of persons or men living in the world.
“3. Then we must consider in what sense men living in the world are said to be the ‘world,’ and the ‘heavens and earth’ of it. I shall only insist on one instance to this purpose, among the many that may be produced, Isa. 51. 15, 16. The time when the work here mentioned, of planting the heavens, and laying the foundation of the earth, was performed by God, was when he ‘divided the sea,’ verse 15, and gave the law, verse 16, and said to Zion, ‘Thou art my people,” – that is, when he took the children of Israel out of Egypt, and formed them in the wilderness into a church and state. Then he planted the heavens, and laid the foundation of the earth, – made the new world; that is, brought forth order, and government, and beauty, from the confusion wherein before they were. This is the planting of the heavens, and laying the foundation of the earth in the world. And hence it is, that when mention is made of the destruction of a state and government, it is in that language that seems to set forth the end of the world. So Isa. xxxiv. 4; which is yet but the destruction of the state of Edom. The like also is affirmed of the Roman empire, Rev. vi. 14; which the Jews constantly affirm to be intended by Edom in the prophets. And in our Saviour Christ’s prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem, Matt. xxiv., he sets it out by expressions of the same importance. It is evident, then, that in the prophetical idiom and manner of speech, by ‘heavens’ and ‘earth,’ the civil and religious state and combination of men in the world, and the men of them, are often understood. So were the heavens and earth that world which was then destroyed by the flood.
“4. On this foundation I affirm, that the heavens and earth here intended in this prophecy of Peter, the coming of the Lord, the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men, mentioned in the destruction of that heaven and earth, do all of them relate, not to the last and final judgment of the world, but to that utter desolation and destruction that was to be made of the Judaical church and state; for which I shall offer these two reasons, of many that might be insisted on from the text: –
“(1.) Because whatever is here mentioned was to have its peculiar influence on the men of that generation. He speaks of that wherein both the profane scoffer and the those scoffed at were concerned, and that as Jews; – some of them believing, others opposing the faith. Now, there was no particular concernment of that generation in that sin, nor in that scoffing, as to the day of judgment in general; but there was a peculiar relief for the one and a peculiar dread for the other at hand, in the destruction of the Jewish nation; and besides, an ample testimony, both to the one and the other, of the power and dominion of the Lord Jesus Christ – which was the thing in question between them.
“(2.) Peter tells them, that, after the destruction and judgment that he speaks of, verse 13, ‘We, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth,’ etc. They had this expectation. But what is that promise? where may we find it? Why, we have it in the very words and letter, Isa. Ixv. 17. Now, when shall this be that God will create these ‘new heavens and new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness?’ Saith Peter, ‘It shall be after the coming of the Lord, after that judgment and destruction of ungodly men, who obey not the gospel, that I foretell.’ But now it is evident, from this place of Isaiah, with chap. lxvi., 21, 22, that this is a prophecy of gospel times ONLY; and that the planting of these new heavens is NOTHING BUT the creation of gospel ordinances, to endure forever. The same thing is so expressed, Heb. xii. 26-28.
“First, There is the foundation of the apostle’s inference and exhortation… ‘Seeing that I have evinced that all these things, however precious they seem, or what value soever any put upon them, shall be dissolved, – that is, destroyed; and that in that dreadful and fearful manner before mentioned, – in a way of judgment, wrath, and vengeance, by fire and sword; – let others mock at the threats of Christ’s coming. – he will come, he will not tarry; and then the heavens and earth that God himself planted, – the sun, moon, and stars of the Judaical polity and church, – the whole old world of worship and worshippers, that stand out in their obstinacy against the Lord Christ, – shall be sensibly dissolved and destroyed. This, we know, shall be the end of these things, and that shortly.’ “
And more from Owen:
“1. Because in every such providential alteration or dissolution of things on the account of Christ and his church, there is a peculiar coming of Christ himself. He cometh into the world for the work he hath to do; he cometh among his own to fulfil his pleasure among them. Hence such works are called ‘his coming;’ and ‘the coming of his day.’ Thus James exhorts these very Jews to whom Peter here writes, with reference to the same things, James v. 7-9, ‘Be patient unto the coming of the Lord.’ But how could that generation extend their patience to the day of judgment? ‘Nay,’ saith he, ‘that is not the work I design, but his coming to take vengeance on his stubborn adversaries;’ which he saith, verse 8, ‘draweth nigh,’ is even at hand; yea., Christ, ‘the judge, standeth before the door,’ verse 9, ‘ready to enter;’ – which also he did within a few years. So upon or in the destruction of Jerusalem (the same work), Luke xxi. 27, the Son of man is said to ‘come in a cloud, with power and great glory;’ – and they that escape in that desolation are said to ‘stand before the Son of man,’ verse 36. So, in the ruin and destruction of the Roman empire, on the account of their persecution, it is said that ‘the day of the wrath of the Lamb was come; Rev. vi. 16, 17.” (John Owen, The Works of John Owen, Banner of Truth pub., Vol. 9 see pp. 132-135, 138-139, MJS emphasis added).
And John Lightfoot agrees.  Notice what he says of Christ’s coming in Matthew 24 and 2 Peter 3 and the de-creation and new creation language:
Unknown-3
“That the destruction of Jerusalem is very frequently expressed in Scripture as if it were the destruction of the whole world, Deut. xxxii. 22; ‘A fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell’ (the discourse there is about the wrath of God consuming that people; see ver. 20, 21), ‘and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains’ Jer. iv. 23; ‘I beheld the earth, and lo, it was without form and void; and the heavens, and they had no light; The discourse there also is concerning the destruction of that nation, Isa. lxv. 17; ‘Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered,’ And more passages of this sort among the prophets. According to this sense, Christ speaks in this place; and Peter speaks in his Second Epistle, third chapter; and John, in the sixth of the Revelation; and Paul, 2 Cor. v. 17.”
More of Lightfoot on this subject:
“With the same reference it is, that the times and state of things immediately following the destruction of Jerusalem are called ‘a new creation,’ ‘new heavens,’ and ‘a new earth,’ Isa. lxv. 17; `Behold, I create a new heaven and a new earth’ When should that be? Read the whole chapter; and you will find the Jews rejected and cut off; and from that time is that new creation of the evangelical world among the Gentiles.
“Compare 2 Cor. v. 17 and Rev. xxi. 1, 2; where, the old Jerusalem being cut off and destroyed, a new one succeeds; and new heavens and a new earth are created.
“2 Pet. iii. 13: `We, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth’ The heavens and the earth of the Jewish church and commonwealth must be all on fire, and the Mosaic elements burnt up; but we, according to the promise made to us by Isaiah the prophet, when all these are consumed, look for the new creation of the evangelical state.”
“That the destruction of Jerusalem and the whole Jewish state is described as if the whole frame of this world were to be dissolved. Nor is it strange, when God destroyed his habitation and city, places once so dear to him, with so direful and sad an overthrow; his own people, whom he accounted of as much or more than the whole world beside, by so dreadful and amazing plagues. Matt. xxiv. 29, 30, `The sun shall be darkened,’ Then shall appear the `sign of the Son of man,’; which yet are said to fall out within that generation, ver. 34. 2 Pet. iii. 10, `The heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat,’. Compare with this Deut. xxxii. 22, Heb. xii. 26: and observe that by elements are understood the Mosaic elements, Gal. iv. 9, Coloss. ii. 20: and you will not doubt that St. Peter speaks ONLYof the conflagration of Jerusalem, the destruction of the nation, and the abolishing the dispensation of Moses.” (John Lightfoot, COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT FROM THE TALMUD AND HEBRAICA, Vol. 2, pp. 318-319; Vol. 3, p. 452-453, Hendrickson pub, 2003, MJS emphasis added).
22552677_10155717653354192_2300651074024968822_n-1
As I document in our book, House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology…pp. 116-123 Lightfoot didn’t see the physical planet as being in a process of “decay” or poetically “groaning” to be the subject matter in Romans 8 either!  He correctly understood the passage to be the “creation of men” groaning under sin.  Postmillennial Partial Preterists such as Gary DeMar concedes mello in Romans 8:18 YLT should be translated as “the glory ABOUT TO BE revealed in you…” and is referring to AD 70.  Therefore, contextually this allegedly “end of the planet” or physical “renewal of the planet” passage and “redemption of the body” was “about to be” fulfilled in AD 70 – at the “near” coming of the Lord when Satan was to be “crushed shortly” (cf. Rms. 13:11-12; 16:20) and has NOTHING to do with the Futurist or creedal concept.  Here is that material (HD, 116-123):
John Lightfoot associated the “earnest expectation of the creature”
and the “whole creation groaning” with the mind and heart of man, and interpreted this passage as having nothing to do with the planet Earth— not even poetically.
. . . [T]his vanity [or futility] is improperly applied to this vanishing, changeable, dying state of the [physical] creation. For vanity, doth not so much denote the vanishing condition of the outward state, as it doth the inward vanity and emptiness of the mind. The Romans to whom this apostle writes, knew well enough how many and how great predictions and promises it had pleased God to publish by his prophets, concerning gathering together and adopting sons to himself among the Gentiles: themanifestation and production of which sons, the whole Gentile world doth now wait for, as it were, with an out stretched neck.” (John Lightfoot, COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT FROM THE TALMUD AND HEBRAICA, Vol. 2, p.422, Hendrickson pub. 1979, emphasis added.) 
And again,
The Gentile world shall in time be delivered from the bondage of their sinful corruption, that is, the bondage of their lusts and vile affections, (under which it hath lain for so long a time,) into a noble liberty, such as the sons of God enjoy. If it be inquired how the Gentile world groaned and travailed in pain, let them who expound this of the fabric of the material world tell us how that groaneth and travaileth. They must needs own it to be a borrowed and allusive phrase…” (Ibid., p. 227).
Lightfoot is on solid ground here citing 2 Peter 1:4; 2 Corinthians 11:3; and 1 Corinthians 15:33. Not only is there lexical evidence to interpret “vanity,” “corruption,” and “decay” as ethical and moral putrefaction in the heart and mind of man, but contextually the passage has nothing to do with hydrogen or oxygen or squirrels longing for a better day when they won’t get hit by cars.
“The sufferings of this present time.” As much as I can relate to R.C. Sproul Jr. losing his hair and gaining some weight around his midsection (WSTTB, ix), Paul’s mention of the “sufferings” and “the redemption of the body” have nothing to do with those kinds of issues. The context of the “groaning” of the first-century Christians can be found in the previous chapter. The sufferings Paul has in mind here were eschatological —the birth pains that were to precede Christ’s return in AD 70 (Matt. 24:8; Rom. 8:22). They had to do with the last days persecutions and with the saints of the universal church groaning under the tyranny of Sin and Condemnation under the Law.
For Paul, Sin had produced “death,” but not physical death. Contrary to Mathison’s assertions, “the body,” “death,” and “the flesh” in Romans 5–8 have nothing to do with the idea of men biologically dying as a result of Adam’s sin. Paul’s concern is with corporate-covenantal Death, as even some Reformed theologians teach.[3]   “Bondage,” according to the immediate context, had to do with groaning under the condemnation of the Law (cf. Rom. 7:2, 7, 15).
The “redemption” associated with the coming of the Son of Man in AD 70 entailed much more than a physical flight to the wilderness of Pella, as some commentators have proposed. Appealing to the principle of the analogy of Scripture, John Murray and other Reformed theologians understand Paul in Romans 8 to be speaking of the same “redemption” that Jesus discussed in the Olivet Discourse:
Now in Luke 21:28 . . . [t]his word ‘redemption’ (apolutrosin), when used with reference to the future, has a distinctly eschatological connotation, the final redemption, the consummation of the redemptive process (cf. Rom. 8:23; 1 Cor. 1:30; Eph. 1:14; 4:30). Hence analogy would again point to the eschatological complex of events.[4]
The following chart confirms that the “redemption” of Christ’s disciples in the first century in Luke 21:28 was the redemption of “the body” in Romans 8:18–23:

Romans 8 Olivet Discourse & Luke 17
Present sufferings (Rom. 8:17–18) Suffering to come (Matt. 24:9)
Receive and share in Christ’s glory (Rom. 8:17–18) Christ comes in glory (Matt. 24:30)
Glory will be “in” them (Rom. 8:18) Kingdom will be realized “within”at Christ’s return (Lk.17:21–37; 21:27–32)
Redemption and salvation – resurrection (Rom. 8:23–24; cf. 11:15–27; 13:11–12) Redemption and salvation – resurrection (Lk. 21:27–28; Matt. 24:13, 30–31/Matt. 13:39-43/Dan. 12:2-3)
Birth pains together (Rom. 8:22) Birth pains of the tribulation (Matt. 24:8)
This was “about to” take place (Rom. 8:18) This would all happen in their “this generation” (Matt. 24:34)

On page 200 of WSTTB, Mathison expresses willingness to concede that the imminence in Romans 13:11–12 was fulfilled in AD 70. The passage reads:
. . . it is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep; for now salvation is nearer to us than when we believed. The night is almost gone, and the day is at hand. . . .
But The Reformation Study Bible, of which Mathison is an editor, harmonizes Romans 13:11 with Romans 8:23, correctly teaching that “salvation” in that verse is not merely deliverance from persecution (as Mathison theorizes in WSTTB): “salvation. Here in the sense of future, final redemption (8:23).”[1] The connection between these two passages is made even stronger when we allow the Greek word mello in Romans 8 to be translated the way it is predominately used in the New Testament:
For I reckon that the sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory about to be revealed in us. (Rom. 8:18, YLT)
It is more than arbitrary for partial preterists such as Gentry to honor Young’s literal translation of melloin Revelation 1:19 when debating Dispensationalists and Amimmennialists, but then not honor it in Romans 8:18 when debating full preterists. Mello is used in the aorist infinitive in both verses. Gentry writes of mello in Revelation 1:19:
…this term means “be on the point of, be about to.” …According to Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible, Revelation 1:19 reads: “Write the things that thou hast seen, and the things that are, and the things that are about to come[mello] after these things.” The leading interlinear versions of the New Testament concur. This is surely the proper translation of the verse.[2]   …when used with the aorist infinitive — as in Revelation 1:19 — the word’s preponderate 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 the Rev. 3:10.[3] Unfortunately, none of the major translators cited above translates Revelation 1:19 in a literal fashion.[4]
Where is Gentry’s disappointment when it comes to translators not translating Romans 8:18 by the same grammatical standard? It is nowhere to be found, even though there are two other Greek words of imminence (apokaradokia and apekdekomai — “eagerly waiting”) within the immediate context.
At least partial preterist Gary DeMar has tried to be more consistent with a proper translation of mello in Romans 8:18. Citing Robert Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible he writes:
“Whatever the glory is it was ‘about to be revealed’…”[5]
We appreciate the honesty on properly translating mello here as “about to be revealed,” but contextually there is no ambiguity as to what the imminent manifestation of this “glory” was — the liberation of creation from its groaning and bondage, the full adoption of the sons of God, and the “redemption of the body” (vss. 18-23).
Interestingly enough though, according to Gentry and Mathison one of the things that was “about to come after” John wrote Revelation 1:19 was the arrival of the New Jerusalem and New  Creation of Revelation 21:1ff. Mathison and Gentry tell us in their other works that the time texts in Revelation point to a near fulfillment of the passing of “the first heaven and earth.” They point out that Revelation 21:1 is referring to the passing of the old covenant “creation” in AD 70 and is a fulfillment of Isaiah 65–66. Gentry even says:
The absence of the sea (Rev. 21:1) speaks of harmony and peace within. In Scripture the sea often symbolizes discord and sin (13:1–2; cf. Isa. 8:7–8; 23:10; 57:20; Jer. 6:23; 46:7; Ezek. 9:10).  Christianity offers the opposite: peace with God and among humankind (Luke 2:14; Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:12–18; Phil. 4:7, 9).
But then Mathison and Gentry assign an “expanded” meaning to 2 Peter 3, which discusses the same promises in Isaiah 65–66. They suggest that Peter is addressing the geological “elements” of the planet while the Apostle John, referencing the same Old Testament passage, is not.
This is not only arbitrary, it is amazing. If Gentry and Mathison can give prophetic New Testament passages “expanded” meanings to fit their eschatology, then they have surrendered their debate with Dispensationalists, who constantly employ this strategy to force their eschatology upon New Testament passages.
In Mathison’s section on the “Restoration of Creation” (195–197), he appeals to the literal and global beginnings of Genesis 1–3 to point out that preterists have interpreted “the end” in Romans 8 and in the rest of the New Testament in an inaccurate way. But Mathison should be open to considering the interpretations of Genesis 1–3 that are presented by some within the Reformed tradition and by other futurists.
Combined, authors such as Augustine, Milton Terry, David Snoke, Meredith Kline, and dispensationalist John Sailhamer teach the following:

  • Man was created a physical dying creature like all the plant and animal life around him.
  • The physics of the creation did not change after Adam.
  • Genesis 1–2 uses the Hebrew word eretz, which should be translated as “land” or “ground” and not [planet] “earth.”
  • God’s emphases in the early chapters of Genesis are not scientific but theological, emphasizing the origins of sin in the heart and man’s need for the Seed of the woman to redeem him from Sin.

As the theological emphasis in Genesis 1–2 is on the local land of Eden, which is both theologically and geographically tied to Israel’s Promised Land, so too is the emphasis of the New Testament on a Great Commission preached to the nations of Israel and to the Roman Empire with a judgment that would affect the nations of that world.
Both the localized and covenantal judgment in Eden and the one in AD 70 affected and continue to affect all humankind. The introduction of spiritual death (condemnation and alienation from God within the heart and conscience of man through Adam) was overcome by Christ’s death, resurrection, and indwelling presence in AD 70. All men and nations of the world are either inside the new Israel and New Jerusalem or outside her gates — as the gospel continues to bring healing and judgment to the nations today and forever (cf. Rev. 21–22:17).
When we take a combined look at some of the best theologians within the Reformed and Evangelical communities, we find a preterist interpretation of every eschatological de-creation prophecy in the Bible. Combined, John Owen, John Locke, John Lightfoot, John Brown, R.C. Sproul, Gary DeMar, Kenneth Gentry, James Jordan, Peter Leithart, Keith Mathison, Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis, Hank Hanegraaff, and N.T. Wright teach that the passing away of heaven and earth (Matt. 5:17–18; 24:3, 29, 35; 1 Cor. 7:31; II Peter 3; I Jn. 2:17–18; Rev. 21:1) refers to the destruction of the temple or to the civil and religious worlds of men—either Jews or Gentiles; and that the rulers of the old covenant system or world, along with the temple, were the “sun, moon, and stars,” which made up the “heaven and earth” of the world that perished in AD 70.”63 
DiscoursesAndSayings_SET
Reformed theologian John Brown not only stresses that the passing of “heaven and earth” in Matthew 5:18 is the OC system, but that those familiar with the OT should understand the phrase as such:
“But a person at all familiar with the phraseology of the Old Testament Scriptures, knows that the dissolution of the Mosaic economy, and the establishment of the Christian, is often spoken of as the removing of the old earth and heavens, and the creation of a new earth and new heavens.” (John Brown, Discourses and Sayings of Our Lord(Edinburg: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1990 [1852]), 1:170, MJS – emphasis added).
Like we saw with The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, Owen and Lightfoot — those that are familiar with the OT Scriptures have and continue to see this while you and liberals don’t.
Scholars that aren’t even Preterists (but often times give the impression that they are leaning in such a direction), such as G.K. Beale are admitting that the Jew understood his land or Temple to be a “heaven and earth,”
“…that ‘heaven and earth’ in the Old Testament may sometimes be a Unknown-4way of referring to Jerusalem or its temple, for which ‘Jerusalem’ is a metonymy.” (G.K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission A
biblical theology of the dwelling place of God, (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 2004), 25). See also J.V. Fesko, Last things first Unlocking Genesis 1-3 with the Christ of Eschatology, (Scottland, UK, 2007), 70.
I called in a radio show where Beale was being interviewed concerning this quote in his book and asked him why he didn’t apply his statements here with Jesus’ and the disciples discussion of the Temple in Matthew 23-24.  He avoided the subject and merely began name-calling.  Sad indeed.
But Evangelicals are making the Full Preterist connections with NT texts where Beale is afraid to.  Evangelical Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis makes the following comments on the heaven and earth in Matthew 5:18 and Mark 13:31/Matthew 24:35:
519MJRVKT5L._SX317_BO1,204,203,200_“The temple was far more than the point at which heaven and earth met. Rather, it was thought to correspond to, represent, or, in some sense, to be ‘heaven and earth’ in its totality.” And “. . . [T]he principle reference of “heaven and earth” is the temple centered cosmology of second-temple Judaism which included the belief that the temple is heaven and earth in microcosm. Mark 13[:31] [or Matthew 24:35] and Matthew 5:18 refer then to the destruction of the temple as a passing away of an old cosmology. (Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis a contributing author in, ESCHATOLOGY in Bible & Theology Evangelical Essays at the Dawn of a New Millennium, (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 1997), 157).

51vnAiyJTxL._SX319_BO1,204,203,200_Gary DeMar is exegetical and contextually consistent when he admits that the passing of “heaven and earth” in Matthew 24:35 is the same subject (the fall of OC Jerusalem and her OC world/age) and de-creation event as 24:29,
“The darkening of the sun and moon and the falling of the stars, coupled with the shaking of the heavens (24:29), are more descriptive ways of saying that “heaven and earth” will pass away” (24:35).” (Last Days Madness, 192).
DeMar and the Present Tense of 2 Peter 3:11
I agree with Gary DeMar that Futurists are biased to not see the present tense in 2 Peter 3:11,
“In fact, St. Peter was quite specific about the fact that he was not referring to an event thousands of years in their future, but to something that was already taking place:
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements (stoicheia) will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. Therefore, since all these things are being dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements (stoicheia) are being melted with fervent heat? (2 Pet. 3:10–12)
Contrary to the misleading renderings of translators blinded by their presuppositions, St. Peter insists that the dissolution of “the present heaven and earth”—the Old Covenant system with its obligatory rituals and bloody sacrifices—was already beginning to occur: the “universe” of the Old Covenant was coming apart, never to be revived.”
https://americanvision.org/…/what-does-peter-mean-by-the-p…/
But could DeMar, other Futurists and translator’s be “blinded by their presuppositions” when the NT is quite specific about the fact that the resurrection was not referring to an event thousands of years off in their future, but to something that was already taking place and would “soon” be fulfilled.
Was physical death to be overcome at the imminent parousia in Paul’s contemporary “we” audience OR the spiritual death and separation brought through Adam the very day he sinned?
“…death is being destroyed” (1 Cor. 15:26 WUESTNT).
“But God is giving it a body” (1 Cor. 15:32).
“…it is being sown…” (1 Cor. 15:38).
“…it is being raised in glory…” (1 Cor. 15:43).
“…it is being raised in power…” (1 Cor. 15:43)
“…It is being sown a natural body, it is being raised a spiritual body…” (1 Cor. 15:43).

Was a physical lowly body in the process of being conformed to a physical/spiritual glorious body at Christ’s “at hand” Second Coming in Paul’s day, OR was the OC body being transformed and conformed to the NC glorious body of Christ?
“…becoming conformed…” (Phil. 3:21YLT).
Would this understanding not be consistent with Paul elsewhere,
“And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory [Old Covenant glory] to another [New Covenant glory]. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.” (2 Cor. 3:18)
Was the physical heavens and earth in the process of being destroyed/dissolved or was it the OC heavens and earth or world?
“…are being destroyed/dissolved.” (2 Pet. 3:11).
Peter is consistent with Paul,
“those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.” (1 Cor. 7:31).
“The world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God remains forever.” (1 Jn. 2:17)

Isaiah 66:15-16:
“For behold, the LORD will come with fire, and his chariots like the whirlwind, to render his anger in fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.  For by fire will the LORD enter into judgment, and by his sword, with all flesh; and those slain by the LORD shall be many.”
2 Thessalonians 1:5-9
This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering— since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, 10 when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed. 11 To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his calling and may fulfill every resolve for good and every work of faith by his power, 12 so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ. 
The Jubilee “day of vengeance” is carried from Isiah 61 all the way to Isiah 66 which ushers in the sabbath rest of the New Creation.  Paul draws upon Isaiah 66 in 2 Thessalonians 1:5-9 and informs us that it is in the events of AD 66 – AD 70 that Christ would be revealed from heaven in vengeance giving relief to the first century Thessalonians while at the same time “repaying” with wrath and vengeance a “trouble” of fire and judgment.  These wicked Jews that were persecuting these Christians in the Thessalonians epistles, would go to the annual feasts and be ensnared by the false prophets prophecies of a coming deliverance from the Roman armies.  Therefore, they were consumed in the fire of God’s judgment in the events of AD 66 – AD 70 when Christ as revealed from heaven.
Old Covenant Salvation “in the Land” vs. New Covenant Salvation “in Christ” 

In typological form Israel’s promises were fulfilled during the reign of Solomon.  God’s promise to make Abraham a great nation and make his descendants as numerous as “the dust of the earth” and as the stars of the heavens was fulfilled in the OT (Gen. 12:2; 13:16 = 2 Chron. 1:9; 1 Chron. 27:23; 1 Kings 4:11).  Even Israel’s land promises “from the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates” were fulfilled (Gen. 12:7; 22:17 = 1 Kings 4:20; Josh. 11:23; 21:41-45; Neh. 9:21-25).

Once we reach the NT we learn that Israel’s promises have their ultimate fulfillment not in the literal land or literal real-estate, but rather in the New Covenant or being “in Christ.”  Christ Himself and those united to Him through faith are blessed with Abraham and fulfill the seed promise (Gal. 3:9, 16, 18, 28-29).  We also learn that Abraham’s faith in the promise was rooted in a spiritual fulfillment of a heavenly land and city that were “about to” be received at Christ’s “in a very little while” Second Coming to close the OC age (cf. Heb. 9:26-28—10:37—11:10-16—13:14YLT).  Even Paul’s statement that believers would inherit “the world” (Rms. 4:13) is understood in context to mean believers (Jew and Gentile) in all nations (Rms. 4:11-12, 16-17).

The heavenly land and city (New Jerusalem) that Abraham looked to for the ultimate fulfillment of God’s promise (along with the prophets promise of a New Creation – Isaiah 65-66) was in the process of coming down in John’s day and “shortly” did at Christ’s “soon” Second Coming in AD 70 (cf. Rev. 1:1, 3:12NIV—chapters 21:1–22:20).  This is not a literal cubed city/tabernacle/MHP that will someday float down to earth, but rather the perfecting of the New Covenant people of God or New Covenant believers (the “Jerusalem from above” – Gals. 4).  The coming Tabernacle/Temple of Ezekiel 37, 40-48 is referring to the Body – the Church (Ezek. 37:27=2 Cor. 6:16).  Again, the New Creation is not physical real-estate, but rather New Covenant believers (Isa. 65:17 = 2 Cor. 5:17).

Literal land or global real-estate inheritance concepts coming from say Premillennialism and Postmillennialism are “heretical” and on par with unbelieving “Jewish dreams and myths” originating in a hyper-literal non-apostolic hermeneutic and we reject them as such.

The Jew understood his Temple and Land to be a “heaven and earth” with the light of Torah radiating from it, while the Gentiles were in utter darkness outside.  Once a Gentile converted to the teaching of Torah and believed in Jehovah he entered the land and was declared a “new creation.”  This gives the historical context on how Revelation ends the way it does.  The Church is the spiritual New Jerusalem / Most Holy Place dwelling of God and a New Heaven and Earth with the light of the Gospel radiating from her bidding the nations to enter her with open gates.

Post AD 70 Salvation is Complete – No More Death, Tears or Pain (Rev. 21-22)
Because “the death” that came through Adam is spiritual death (alienation from God) realized through the commandment-breaker Adam and amplified or increased under the Law of Moses (the old covenant), we can see how God gave His elect the victory over “the death” in the end of the old covenant age of condemnation. The fact that men die physically is in no way evidence that the “spiritual conflict” of “the death” continues for the church throughout the new covenant age.
God’s people under the old covenant, unlike God’s people today, experienced covenantal and spiritual death (cf. Hosea 13:1–14; Isa. 25–27; Eze. 37). What made physical death dreaded for the saints under the old covenant was that they died with the awareness that their sins had not yet been taken away. In the new covenant creation, Jesus promises that whether we biologically die in Him or biologically live in Him, we “never die” (John 11:25–26). This was not the case before Christ.
Thus under the old covenant, the residents of Jerusalem wept because they did not have a lasting atonement or eternal redemption. They longed and groaned for the day of Messiah’s salvation. Until that day would come, they knew their sins were not put away (Heb. 9:26–28; 10:4, 11). The promise that there would be no more mourning or crying or pain does not refer to any and every kind of mourning, crying, and pain. It refers to mourning, crying, and pain concerning God’s people being dead in sin under the condemnation, curse, and slavery of God’s law. That sad Adamic state is no more. In the Son, God’s people are “free indeed” (Jn. 8:36).
As Athanasius wrote in his Festal Letters, iv. 3, “For when death reigned, ‘sitting down by the rivers of Babylon, we wept,’ and mourned, because we felt the bitterness of captivity; but now that death and the kingdom of the devil is abolished, everything is entirely filled with joy and gladness.”
Under the old covenant, when David or the nation was exiled from Zion and God’s city and temple, there was much inner pain, weeping, and bondage that followed (2 Sam. 15:30; Ps. 137; Isa. 14:3; Isa. 22:4–5; Jer. 9:1; 13:17; Jer. 22:9–10; Lam. 1:16; Joel 2:17). Under the new covenant, the heavenly country and Jerusalem are not subject to being made desolate or shaken by invading armies as was the old (Isa. 62:4; Heb. 12:27–28). The concept of the gates of the New Jerusalem always being open, even at night (Isa. 60:11; Rev. 21:25), is not merely a picture of evangelism; it is also a picture of security for the residents of God’s City. The believer, through faith in Christ, is the new covenant creation and it is impossible for him to be exiled from the City (2 Cor. 5:17; Rev. 3:12; 22:12). The new covenant believer is characterized as one whose weeping has ended, because God has forever taken away his sin and united Himself with him (Isa. 60:20; 65:14, 18–19; Jn. 17:21–23).
Christians in the new covenant world do not shed tears in agony and cry out to God to save them from the Adamic Death of Sin, as Jesus Himself did on our behalf (Heb. 5:7). “The sting [pain] of the Death” cannot harm us anymore (1 Cor. 15:56) because the power of Sin has been removed through Jesus, the Law-Fulfiller who clothes us and indwells us. Now we live and reign with Christ in the new covenant world, wherein dwells the Righteousness of God.
It is noteworthy that Partial Preterists usually avoid any mention of Paul’s declaration that Satan would be “crushed” “shortly” (Rom. 16:20). The reason for this is that the majority consensus among all brands of commentators is that the “crushing” of Satan in Romans 16:20 is a direct reference to the final “crushing” of Satan as predicted in Genesis 3:15 and Revelation 20. Manifestly, the judgment and wrath that came in AD 70 was not merely “a” “minor” judgment. It was “the” judgment. It was the crushing of Satan.
Future eschatologies would challenge us with the empirical reality that Death and Satan could not have met their ultimate demise in AD 70 because, after all, just look around and you will clearly see that people still physically die and that there are wars and murders taking place all over the world today. Are these clear evidence that Satan and his demonic hordes are active in our world?
There were certainly times that Satan moved men, such as Judas, to commit sins. But the Bible does not teach us that this was ever the norm. James tells us that wars and fights come from within men (Jms. 4:1) instead of from Satan and demons. Satan’s primary purpose has come to an end: He can no longer function as the accuser of the brethren (Rev. 12:10), because Christ came out of Zion a second time at the end of the old covenant age to put away Sin once and for all for His church (Acts 20:28; Rom. 11:26–27; 13:11–12; Heb. 9:26–28).
Our salvation and Christ’s Second Appearing/Coming as the Churches great High Priest are not events that take place at the end of time, but rather within time – namely at the end of the OC age in AD 70.  The seed of the woman has overcome the Sin, the Death, the Law and crushed Satan for His heavenly people – the Church/New Creation.  You may not feel perfect or like a city of jewels and gold, but that is how God views you through His Son’s finished redemption –  accomplished and applied for you through His work on the cross and Second Appearing.  Go now and preach this message (Rev. 22:17)!  

Concluding the Messianic Soteriological and Eschatological Promises of Isaiah 61-66

There can be little doubt that Yeshua was the ONLY Messianic candidate that came saying He was the fulfillment of the 10th cycle of the Jubilee of Daniel 9:24-27 and Isiah 61 (Lk. 4:18) in His earthly ministry and redemptive work on the cross and “day of vengeance” or Second Coming between AD 26 – AD 66-70.

Jesus not only appealed to the soteriological and eschatological promises of Isiah 61:1-11 to be fulfilled within His contemporary generation but Isaiah 62:11 as well (Mt. 16:27-28/Mrk. 8:38–9:1).

When we examine the same “day of vengeance” of Isiah 61:2 in Isaiah 63:1-6 — comparing it to John’s version of the Olivet Discourse (the book of Revelation), we again see this is a judgment upon OC Jerusalem — the harlot wife or “Babylon” and thus covenant wrath being poured out upon her land.

In Isiah 66 Messiah is once again described as coming to judge the wicked from heaven by fire and Paul in 2 Thessalonians 1:5-9 describes this as Christ being revealed from heaven to give relief to the first century church and render divine retribution of fire to their Jewish persecutors.  Did Christ come and give the first century Thessalonians “relief” from their Jewish persecutors, or do we have very old first century Christians still living and roaming the earth today among us still waiting for the Lord to come and give them relief?

It is this “soon” Second Coming of Christ that ushers in the New Creation or Jubilee Sabbath rest and restores the Church to Her inheritance in Christ as the Tree of Life (Rev. 21-22:6-7, 10-12, 20).

Jesus is the “Faithful and True Witness” having fulfilled His Messianic promises as Prophet, Priest and King in the time and manner He claimed to. He is the greatest expositor of the Law and the Prophets and we need to align our theology with His. Do not go “beyond what is written” and confess that “If God be true” makes “everyman a liar” in your particular theological circle you are currently swimming in, then so be it.  Selah.

Don’t forget to order our book:

You can pay me 18.00 through Pay Pal.  My account and or email is:  healinglvs@aol.com

[1]Lee Irons, Meredith Kline, J. Ligon Duncan, David W. Hall, Hugh Ross, Gleason L. Archer, THE GENESIS DEBATE Three Views on the Days of Creation,(Mission Viejo, CA: Crux Press, Inc., 2001), 227. I would also agree with Keil and Delitzsch onthe point that this is not a reference to a literal 490 years ofchronology: “That by this word common years are to be understood, is indeed taken for granted by many interpreters, but a satisfactory proof of such a meaning has not been adduced. Moreover, in favour of year-weeks (periods of seven years) it has been argued that such an interpretation was very natural, since they hold so prominent a place in the law of Moses; and the Exile had brought them anew very distinctly into remembrance, in asmuch as the seventy years’ desolation of the land was viewed as a punishment for the interrupted festival of the sabbatical years: 2 Chron. 36:21 (Hgstb., Kran., and others). But since these periods of seven years, as Hengstenberg himself confesses, are not called in the law שָׁבֻעִיםor שָׁבֻעֹות, therefore, from the repeated designation of the seventh year as that of the great Sabbath merely (Lev. 25:2, 4, 5;26:34, 35, 43; 2 Chron. 36:21), the idea of year-weeks in no way follows. The law makes mention not only of the Sabbath-year, but also of periods of seven times seven years, after the expiry of which a year of jubilee was always to be celebrated (Lev. 25:8ff.). These, as well as the Sabbath-years, might be calledשָׁבֻעִים. Thus the idea of year-weeks has no exegetical foundation. Hofmann and Kliefoth are in the right when they remark thatשָׁבֻעִיםdoes not necessarily mean year-weeks, but an intentionally indefinite designation of a period of time measured by the number seven, whose chronological duration must be determined on other grounds.”(Keil,C. F., & Delitzsch, F. (1996). Commentaryon the Old Testament(Vol. 9, pp. 717–718). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson). See also David Green’s comments as to why Daniel 9:24-27 can’t be a literal 490 years – see his Q & A #’s 96-97 http://www.preteristcosmos.com/question5.html#note97
[2]Ibid. 227.

[1] John Lightfoot, COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT FROM THE TALMUD AND HEBRAICA, Vol. 2, p.422, Hendrickson pub. 1979, emphasis added.

[2] ESV English-Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament.

[3] Don Preston states in his tract, Can You Believe Jesus Said This?!?, p. 11-12, “Unless “verily” is being used as an introduction and not for emphasis in Matthew 16:28/Mark 9:1 there is only one place in all the New Testament where the word is used to introduce a new subject [John 10:1]. In all other occurrences,…THE WORD IS ALWAYS USED TO EMPHASIZE A STATEMENT ABOUT A SUBJECT THAT IS ALREADY UNDER CONSIDERATION! Don was mistaken on (Jn.10:1). See my comments on (Jn.10:1) and how it applies to the previous context. Pink says, “The Pharisees’ ‘casting out’ of the poor beggar was, in reality, the Shepherd leading him out from the barren wilderness of Judaism to the green pastures of Christianity.” Christ in this text is contrasting the false shepherds of the Pharisees just mentioned to Himself. “Verily” is expanding the teaching of the miracle and bringing forth a deeper meaning to what had just happened. Arthur W. Pink, EXPOSITION OF THE GOSPEL of JOHN, 1Vol. unabridged version, p. 511, Zondervan pub., 1975, emphasis added. James Boice concurs, “What is the context? Well, obviously, the context is to be found in the preceding chapter in the story of the man born blind and in his mistreatment by those who were the leaders of the people. I say this is obvious because of the absence of any transitional words at the beginning of chapter 10. When John indicates a transition either geographically or in time he usually says something like ‘after these things,’ ‘after this,’ “on the next day,’ or ‘as Jesus passed by.’ Here the words of Jesus flow on immediately after his comments about the Pharisees at the end of chapter 9 and therefore are related to them.” As soon as we recognize this, we recognize that the thieves and robbers must refer to the false shepherds of Israel (the Pharisees) and that the sheepfold represents Judaism. The ones who hear Christ’s voice and respond to His call are those of His own who are within Israel, of whom the man born blind is an example.” James Montgomery Boice, The Gospel of John An Expositional Commentary Five Volumes In one, Zondervan pub.[emphasis MJS], 629-630, emphasis added.

[4]Tim LaHaye, Thomas Ice, END TIMES CONTROVERSY THE SECOND COMING UNDER ATTACK, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2003), 87, emphasis added.

[5] Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., HE SHALL HAVE DOMINION A POSTMILLENNIAL ESCHATOLOGY, (Draper, VA: Apologetics Group Media, Third edition 2009), 219-220, emphasis added

 

SHOULD KENNETH GENTRY, GARY DEMAR, AND KEITH MATHISON'S PROGRESSIVE PARTIAL PRETERISM BE JUDGED BY THE SAME MEASURE THAT THEY HAVE JUDGED PROGRESSIVE DISPENSATIONALISTS? A “FITTING” RESPONSE IS REQUESTED


In 1989 Greg Bahnsen, Kenneth Gentry, Gary DeMar and Gary North produced House Divided the Break-up of Dispensational Theology which sought to answer their dispensational critics when it came to theonomy and their eschatology – postmillennial partial preterism.   Gary DeMar suggested the title of the book and its apologetic strategy was to “reformulate” Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 12:25 into this,
“…Any theological position divided against itself is laid waste; and dispensationalism divided against itself shall not stand.”[1]
Gentry points out the division between more progressive dispensationalists such as Feinberg who would see the kingdom as present within the church age in an “already not yet” “spiritual” sense, verses old school dispensationalists such as Ice who believes:  1.  Jesus did not set up His kingdom with His first coming, 2.  The present age is not the kingdom age, 3.  The kingdom will only come at Christ’s Second Coming, are no small problems.  It is correctly pointed out that  since a distinction between the Church and Israel is foundational to the dispensational system promises made to Israel cannot be applied or fulfilled in the Church age.  If it is agreed that they do, then the system falls apart or crumbles from within.
In Appendix A THEOLOGICAL SCHIZOPHRENIA Gary DeMar quotes MacArthur – in which he admitted a hardline doctrinal distinction between say the church and Israel and or the church and the kingdom “has wreaked havoc on dispensatinalist theology…”  and correctly responded,
“Drawing a “hard line” between Israel and the church is fundamental to dispensationalism.  Once these “hard lines” go, the entire system is in jeopardy of collapsing.”[2]
DeMar also thought it would be “fitting” to demonstrate how the authors that endorsed House and Ice’s book actually at some points contradicted it and even their own writings at times:
“There is a great amount of theological schizophrenia from Charles W. Colson, Norman L. Geisler, John McArthur Jr., and Hal Lindsey.  Since these men endorse Dominion Theology, I thought it would be fitting to evaluate their views in the light of the book they are endorsing.  Some of these men seem to even disagree with what they themselves have written, while others disagree with House and Ice and traditional dispensationalism, the supporting theological position used to evaluate Christian Reconstruction.  The disagreements are not minor as we will see.  Moreover, House and Ice seem to have abandoned the essential distinctives of their system, doctrines that make dispensationalism different from historic premillennialism.”[3]
Shortly after Ice’s book came out Hal Lindsey also began attacking the views of theonomic postmillennial partial preterism.  In Appendix B Gary accused Hal Lindsey of “fraudulent” “scholarship” when he didn’t give credit to others for research etc…  He also accused Lindsey of making “Greek Errors” and “Faulty Arguments.”  He accuses Lindsey of giving a
“…mean-spirited analysis of Reconstructionism.  He is even less successful than House and Ice in his assault.  In all honesty it seems that the dispensational critiques of Reconstructionist theology are degenerating to ever new lows.  They have gone from bad (House and Ice) to worse (Hunt) to worst (Lindsey).”[4]
From beginning to end the attitude is that Reconstructionist theology and partial preterist postmillennial eschatology is gaining influence in dispensational circles.  Dispensationalism cannot give a consistent and exegetical defense of its system or refute postmillennial preterism and  therefore, Reconstructionists have won the debate while their opponents “Divided House” crumbles at their feet.  If dispensationalists cannot answer the postmillennial partial preterist responses, then in essence dispensationalism has lost the debate.

In 2003 dispensationalists produce a multi-authored book, THE END TIMES CONTROVERSY THE SECOND COMING UNDER ATTACK edited by Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice.  Apparently Ice and McArthur didn’t get the “House Divided” message that Gentry and DeMar were sending them because they both contributed chapters in this book.  In this book we learn that the over 100 time texts in the NT allegedly mean that whenever Christ decides to return – it will take place very quickly at that point (ETC, 102ff.) – not that the actual eschatological events themselves would take place “soon,” “shortly,” “at hand,” or in an “about to,” time frame.  Ice admits that Jesus’ use of “generation” everywhere else means his contemporaries except in one place (Matthew 24:34) – how convenient.  And in another work McArthur claims that preterists have to resort to using a hyper “wooden literalism” when interpreting Jesus’ words “this generation.”  Amazingly the hyper-literalists who won’t interpret words in their natural way or how they are used throughout the Bible are charging us with using a “wooden literalism” hermeneutic?!?   You just can’t make this stuff up folks!
Another amazing claim is that preterists believe what they do because they have known no better and therefore haven’t been exposed to dispensationalism or the “other side of the argument” (ETC, 7).  This of course is just another false statement to go along with the false exegesis in the book.  I have been both a partial preterist (for 1 year) and a full preterist (for 25 years) and like me, most of these people have come out of dispensationalism having already heard that “side of the story.”
This work acknowledged that both partial and full preterism are growing eschatological movements that need to be answered.  The premise of ETC seemed to be to echo what full preterism has been saying for years now – in that covenant theology/eschatology as a whole throughout church history has offered an interpretive system (coupled with the rise of the progressive partial preterist hermeneutic) – that has formed and continues to pave the way for full preterism to rise and thrive on an exegetical level.

A year later in 2004, Reformed theology as a whole (amillennialists and postmillennial partial preterists) decided to perhaps challenge these dispensational claims that their views do not lead to full preterism and that they could in fact give a “shoulder to shoulder” united refutation of  full preterism.  As we will see shortly that was a failed attempt and myth.  And if dispensationalism as an eschatological movement is a “House Divided,” then these seven conflicted Reformed authors were even more of a “House Divided…”:

In 2009 (and then a second and expanded edition in 2014) Calvinists and full preterists David Green, Edward Hassertt and I responded to this “Reformed response.”  In my chapter, I demonstrated that either classic amillennialism and partial preterism  lead us to a contradiction, or it forms full preterism.  The days of Reformed students having to choose between:  1)  trying to honor 90% of the imminent time texts (partial preterism) in the NT and or 2)  choose between the analogy of scripture (classic amillennialism) in that the NT only teaches one Second Coming/The parousia attended by one judgment and resurrection of the living and dead — has come to an end.  A third Reformed view has emerged (“Reformed and always reforming”) which honors all of the NT time texts while at the same time honoring the analogy of Scripture.
Mathison’s chapter was utterly confusing and didn’t even really defend his own partial preterism.  In one book he “knows” what “this generation” (Matthew 24:34) means, but when trying to refute full preterism and pacify his amillennialists, he simply could only tell the reader that there were several (wrong) options to choose from.  And as far as their “unity” (without embracing full preterism), that too needed to be challenged:
“This problem is alive and well today, as Mathison’s multi-authored book demonstrates.  Mathison uses wild understatement when he says of the authors of WSTTB:  “ . . . [T]he contributors to this volume do not completely agree in their interpretation of every eschatological text” (155).  The fact is that all seven of the contributors to Mathison’s volume do not agree at all on any (or at least virtually any) eschatological doctrine except the doctrine “that the second coming of Jesus Christ, the general resurrection, and the Last Judgment are yet to come” (155). Mathison can call that “shoulder-to-shoulder” agreement, but it is not impressive.  Agreement on only a few points out of a myriad merely indicates that those few points are wrong.
It is more than difficult to understand how the authors of WSTTB can portray their historical positions as unified when between their two systems (partial preterism and amillennialism) two contradictory propositions emerge:
“1)     “Partial Preterism – Imminence and fulfillment are accepted.  Christ appeared a second time at the end of the old covenant age.  There was a spiritual, corporate, covenantal judgment and resurrection of the living and dead which was attended by a passing of the old creation and arrival of the new in AD 70 (Dan. 12:1-4; Matt. 5:17-18; 13:39-43, 24-25; Acts 1:11; Rom. 8:18; 13:11-12; Heb. 8:13; 9:26-28;[5] 10:37; 1 Peter 4:5-7; 2 Peter 3; Rev. 1-22).
2)     Classic Amillennialism – The New Testament teaches only one future coming of Christ, general judgment, and resurrection of the living and dead attended by the restoration of creation at the end of the age.
How can these things be indeed? The only way both of these propositions can be true at the same time is if full preterism is true.
Amillennialism is correct that there is only one future coming of Christ in the New Testament.  And partial preterism is correct that the future coming of Christ in the New Testament was fulfilled in AD 70. Thus “orthodoxy” teaches us that the one Second Coming of 1 Thessalonians 4-5 is the same coming of Christ in Matthew 24-25, and that it was fulfilled in AD 70. But since futurism errs on the nature of the resurrection, assuming it is biological and at the end of time, futurists are forced into an either/or dillema, when the truth is both/and.
I think one can see the problem that the authors of WSTTB are sweeping under the rug when they speak of their “shoulder-to-shoulder” unity.  The choice is simple. Either one continues propagating the myth that these two propositions within the futurist paradigm do not lead to a contradiction, or one accepts the organic development of full preterism which unites them.”[6]
Since partial preterist exegesis and admissions on very important eschatological texts would point the reader in the direction of full preterism, Kenneth Gentry and Doug Wilson were assigned to regurgitate Roman Catholic creedal and church history type arguments in their chapters.  And the only other partial preterist in the book  – Keith Mathison tried to address the imminent time texts in the NT but didn’t want to come to any definite conclusions:
“In Keith Mathison’s chapter we learn that understanding the eschatological imminence that saturates the pages of the New Testament is a “difficult problem” (178, 204).  We learn that it is so difficult in fact, that there are perhaps an average of five to eight “possible” interpretations for any given imminence text.
After noting that Jesus “suggest[ed]” in Matthew 16:27-28 that the coming of the Son of Man would take place “within the lifetime of His hearers” (176), and after noting that Matthew 10:23; 16:27-28; 24-25 “seems to portray the coming of the Son of Man as something that would occur soon after the words were spoken” (178), Mathison concludes that there is nothing in the New Testament “that even remotely suggests hyper-preterism.”  He further concludes that preterism contradicts the most basic teachings of Jesus and the apostles (205, 213).
Earlier however, in his Editor’s Introduction, Mathison warned that preterists “have presented a significant challenge to orthodox Christian doctrine, and it cannot be ignored” (xviii).  So then, Jesus predicted that His coming would take place within the lifetime of His hearers, but yet nothing in the New Testament even remotely suggests preterism, but yet preterism is a significant challenge to orthodox Christian doctrine. You figure it out.”[7]
As I document in chapter four of House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to When Shall These Things Be? — there are many more doctrinal agreements between progressive partial preterists and full preterists than they want to share with the public in this debate:

Full Preterists

Partial Preterists

A.D. 70

At the end of history

A.D.   70

At the end of history

NT use of “last days” from old   covenant to new AD 30 –   AD 70 only – not end of Christian age

Yes

No

Yes

Yes & No

“This age” = old covenant age “age to   come” = new   covenant age transformed in AD 70

Yes

No

Yes

Yes & No

United Matt. 24-25 one parousia in AD   70

Yes

No

Yes

Yes & No

Resurrection and judgment of living  and dead between AD 30 – AD 70

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Glorification in Rom. 8:18-23YLT  “about to be revealed”

Yes

No

Yes

Yes & No

2 Peter 3 fulfilled

Yes

No

Yes

Yes & No

“All Israel” in Rom. 11:26 saved

Yes

No

Yes

Yes & No

Acts 1:11

Yes

No

Yes

Yes & No

Hebrews 9:26-28 Second Appearing of Christ at end of the age

Yes

No

Yes

Yes & No

1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 “rapture”

Yes

No

Yes

Yes & No

Perhaps the most significant change is that DeMar and American Vision authors and associates have oddly enough stolen the full preterist view of the judgment and resurrection of the living and dead and are now accepting that this was a progressive, corporate, covenantal, process between AD 30 – AD 70 resulting in the souls of the righteous being raised out of Hades or Abraham’s Bosom at Christ’s parousia in AD 70 to inherit the kingdom and eternal life (see HD, 89-95, 178).

Progressive Dispensationalism & Progressive Partial Preterism

Mathison (like DeMar and Gentry) does not like how progressive dispensationalists have operated in that they have not been exactly honest with the implications of their system:
“The church suffers far too much damage when people do not identify what they really believe.  For the sake of accuracy, honesty, and understanding, “progressive dispensationalists” should no longer claim to be dispensational.  Traditional dispensationalists would likely concur.  Do most dispensational laymen realize that the “dispensationalism” now taught in their seminaries is not the dispensationalism they know?  As much as I prefer to see Reformed theology taught in these seminaries, if someone is going to teach nondispensationalism in a dispensational seminary, students and donors should at least be aware of the fact.  It is not enough to redefine the essential doctrines out of a system and call the resulting opposite teaching “progressive.”[8]
And,
“Even its own proponents disagree on what that position is because it is in a constant state of flux.  To arrive at a consistent position they either must return to traditional dispensationalism, become historical premillennialists, or become Reformed.  My hope and prayer is that they continue their journey toward Reformed theology.”[9]
We too are calling for more “honesty” when it comes to progressive partial preterists and it is my hope and prayer that they continue their journey toward full preterism.
“Progressive” On:  The Coming of the Son of Man
I would consider Mathison to some degree a progressive partial preterist in that he no longer divides Matthew 24-25 up into two different comings of Christ (one in AD 70 Matthew 24:1-34 and the Second Coming at the end of history in Matthew 24:35—chapter 25).  He now believes that the coming of the Son of Man in both chapters refers to AD 70 (as does DeMar).  What reformed creed or major church father taught this?
“Progressive” On:  The Last/Latter Days
As I document in my chapter of HD, Gary DeMar and even Joel McDurmon at American Vision take the NT’s use of the “last or latter days” to be a reference from Christ’s first coming to His parousia in AD 70 to end the old covenant age, and is not a term descriptive of Christ’s Second Coming to end world history.
“Progressive On:  “This age” (old covenant age) and “Age to come” (new covenant age)
Progressive partial preterists such as American Vision’s Joel McDurmon are not exactly creedal when they interpret the parable of the wheat and tares to be fulfilled at the end of the old covenant “this age” (cf. Matthew 13:39-43).  Even American Vision’s Gary North (Joel’s father-in-law) has written,
“Anyone who equates the fulfillment of [the parable of the wheat and tares] with A.D. 70 has broken with the historic faith of the church.” (see HD, 91, n. 27 & 28).
DeMar publishes McDurmon and has a co-author (Peter Leithart) who has also gone into print taking a preterist view of the parable of the wheat and tares claiming it was fulfilled in AD 70 and is not descriptive of the end of history.  The Reformed and creedal understanding of the NT’s use of “this age” is the current Christian age and the “age to come” is the eternal state ushered in at Christ’s Second Coming.
“Progressive” On:  The Judgment and Resurrection of the Living and Dead
Kenneth Gentry should now be considered a “progressive partial preterist” in this area along with James Jordan whom both claim there was a progressive, covenantal, corporate judgment and resurrection of dead between AD 30 – AD 70 in Daniel 12:1-4, 13 which resulted in souls being raised out of Hades or Abraham’s Bosom at Christ’s parousia in AD 70 to inherit the kingdom and eternal life.  Where in the Reformed creeds and confessions of the church has this been taught?  How many times must Daniel be raised from the dead?
In Joel McDurmon’s debate with Don Preston, on virtually every main NT resurrection text Preston boxed him into, Joel conceded that there may be an AD 70 resurrection fulfillment but we await a literal and fuller fulfillment at the end of history.  What reformed creed or confession (or mainstream theologian for that matter) is teaching double or multiple fulfillments of such passages as Matthew 13:39-43; John 5:28-29; 1 Corinthians 15; Revelation 20?
If it is true that men like MacArthur have crossed “hard lines” between the church and Israel which cause their systems to fall apart and logically leads more to covenant theology, then it is also true that Partial preterists that used to hold these “hard lines” with a division in Matthew 24, a creedal understanding of “this age” and the “age to come,” and that the bible only teaches one resurrection and judgment of the dead – have crossed “hard lines” which likewise have caused their system to fall apart and which logically and exegetically leads to full preterism.
Where are these men getting these views?!?  This leads me to my next point.

“Fraudulent” and “Sloppy Scholarship”

Now remember DeMar charged Hal Lindsey of “Fraud” when he pretended to do his own research when in fact he was using others.  If the above “progressive” doctrines being taught by partial preterists cannot be found in the Reformed creeds and confessions of the church and are not considered to be within the “historic church” (North), then where might Mathison, Gentry, DeMar, McDurmon, Leithart etc… be getting them from if not from the full preterist movement?!?  Gentry realizes that a part of the move for progressive dispensationalists moving further away from old school dispensationalism, is the outside pressure they have gotten from Reformed theology.  And yet Gentry pretends he and Jordan came up with an AD 30 – AD 70 judgment and resurrection of the living and dead doctrine all by themselves – amazing arrogance, sloppy scholarship, and very “fraudulent” in my opinion.

“State of Flux”

Remember Mathison charged progressive dispensationalists as being in an identity crises of sorts – not really dispensational but not Reformed either.  How is he and these other progressive partial preterists any less in a “state of flux” when it comes to surrendering all of these key eschatological texts and doctrines to full preterism???
Ken Talbot is on the board of American Vision and has been secretly working on what he has called “Realized Preterism.”  Apparently it is so top secret that it has never been realized yet.  Perhaps some of it came from one of his confused disciples Sam Frost.  Sam for a while under Talbot didn’t know if the NT was teaching two or one parousias of Christ.  He even suggested at one point, that the parousia in 1 Corinthians 15 could have been fulfilled in AD 70, but that it awaits a fuller/manifestation of fulfillment at the end of history (perhaps similar to what progressive partial preterist Mike Bull has been teaching on this as well).  He also took mello in Acts 24:15 YLT and Romans 8:18 YLT as “about to be” fulfilled in AD 70 as well – apparently trying this double or multiple fulfillment/manifestation concept on Romans 8:18 but then backing out of it in Acts 24:15.
Obviously these men are in no place to try and take the speck out of progressive  dispensationalist’s eyes and call for “consistency” when in fact they are no more in a “state of flux” and confusion than they are!  They are in no place to be giving exhortations on “honesty” either.

Gary DeMar & “Fitting Questions” From Full Preterists

Gary DeMar has been critical of WSTTB? and didn’t think the Reformed authors did a very good job of refuting full preterism.  Of course we agree.  Perhaps Gary can explain to us how he might think American Vision’s Joel McDurmon hid any better when he has conceded to us that there “could” have been an AD 70 judgment and resurrection of the dead in major NT texts (John 5:28-29; 1 Corinthians 15; Revleation 20)?
Or perhaps Gary thinks his publication of Sam Frost’s little pamphlet did any better?  Remember I quoted Gary earlier in this article stating that it was only “fitting” of those authors that endorsed Dominion Blessing or Curse? to respond to his questions.  I made reference to him in our book and since he published and endorsed Sam’s pamphlet and we have refuted that pamphlet in the second edition of HD in an appendix section – it is only “fitting” that DeMar respond.
My Questions:
HD pages 89-94:
1. Does Gary DeMar agree with the writings and implications of Gentry, Jordan, and McDurmon that the resurrection and judgment of Daniel 12:1-4 was fulfilled between AD 30 – AD 70 to close the old covenant age in Matthew 13:39-43?
a. Does he continue to “cherry-pick” the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 as a future fulfillment while giving the other “all these things” an AD 70 fulfillment (Dan. 12:7)?  Or would he continue to “cherry-pick” it as Gentry does giving it a double type fulfillment while not giving the Tribulation and other events multiple fulfillments?  Was Daniel raised out of Abraham’s Bosom or Hades in AD 70?  If so, how many times does the NT teach that Daniel must be raised to inherit the kingdom and eternal life?
HD page 114:
2. If the coming of the Son of man in Matthew 24-25 was fulfilled in AD 70, then how many NT eschatological weddings are there?  Has DeMar adopted two eschatological weddings at this point to match his two comings, two Great Commissions, two de-creations/new creations, and two judgments and resurrections of the living and dead — doctrines?  If one thought dispensationalism’s hermeneutic is seeing double in the NT, the progressive partial preterists have definitely out done them at this point.
HD 120-121, 128:
3. Gary if the “glory was about to be revealed” in Romans 8:18 YLT was fulfilled in AD 70, then contextually doesn’t that also mean the liberation of creation and the redemption of the body was as well (vss. 18-23)? Wouldn’t that be in agreement with your views of Romans 13:11-12 and that the resurrection and salvation for “all Israel” in Romans 11 was fulfilled in AD 70?  Do you agree with John Lightfoot’s view that the “creation” “groaning” and it’s “decay” is not addressing the planet earth but people only?
HD 112-116:
4. Gary do you agree with Gentry that Paul’s source for eschatology in 1 and 2 Thessalonians is Matthew 24-25?  If so, why stop all of the parallels between 1 and 2 Thessalonians when it comes to 1 Thess. 4:15-17=Matt. 24:30-31? If there was a coming of Christ and resurrection for the dead in AD 70 (per AV), then why can’t this passage be that coming and resurrection?
HD, 128-133:
5. Gary since you have a problem with a full preterist view of the millennium, please engage in my 7 points summary which proves our view is exegetical, historical, and reformed.  Prove the eschatological judgment and resurrection as depicted in Revelation 20 would not “shortly” be fulfilled or that they have not been recapitulated earlier (the amillennial and full preterist views) in chapters you say were fulfilled in AD 70.
6.  You have stated that you do not desire to share a platform with those that “don’t come across very well.”  Yet you have published and have shared a platform with Sam Frost and Jason Bradfield whom have literally cursed us “f____ you,” called us “filth,” “goats,” “heretics,” “nut jobs,” “morons,” etc…  You have claimed in the past that Hal Lindsey has given you a “mean-spirited” response.  Do you think these are “mean-spirited?”  We do, but we are patient and have not stopped responding to these individuals with Scripture – “always being ready” and “answering fools according to their folly lest they be wise in their own eyes.”  You seem to never be ready to respond to full preterism — 25+ years and counting?
7.  What areas of Dave’s chapter on the resurrection and or his exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15 would you agree with and or disagree with and why?
Appendix:
Is there ANY argument that you agree with when it comes to the content of Sam Frost’s booklet that you published?  Did he persuade you that you have fallen prey to a “full preterist scheme” by taking the NT’s use of “the last/latter days” to be from AD 30 – AD 70?  Would Van Til agree with Sam’s Gordon Clark type “logical” “infinity” argument and consider it biblical or reformed?
Then there is the issue that Gary gives lip service to being open to hearing and responding to full preterism.  Gary wrote or said the following:
“The big debate among preterists is how far does preterism go? Is all prophecy fulfilled? Full preterists say yes. Partial preterists say no. In between there is a lot of work yet to be done on specific passages. The tendency of full preterists is to fit everything into an A.D. 70 matrix. They do this with 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18, 1 Corinthians 15, and Revelation 20. A similar approach is followed with a number of Old Testament prophecies (e.g., Ezek 38–39 and Zech 12). I am willing to listen to their arguments since preterism in its present form is only now coming to its own as we shake off the dust of dispensationalism that has so distorted our interpretation of prophecy. I am willing to cut those full preterists some slack who are attempting to do real exegetical work. Many partial preterists are not willing to do this. To my mind, this approach is counterproductive. Honest analysis of the Bible is required. I want to be challenged by the best arguments possible, whether they come from full preterists or dispensationalists. I refuse to adopt a position because I’ve been told to do so. To quote Posey from The Dirty Dozen, “I don’t like being pushed.””
So instead of Gary “listening”/reading our “real exegetical work” on say 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 or 1 Corinthians 15 in HD, Gary instead hastily publishes a little anti-full preterist booklet of which most of the “arguments” (I’m guessing) he would disagree with.  Makes perfect sense to me – huh???
David Green has also asked DeMar these questions on Facebook (Gary has joined the pretcosmos FB group) and he has yet to respond to them.
David Green’s Questions: 
[Since Talbot is on American Vision’s board] Do you agree with Ken Talbot’s doctrine that unbelievers should be executed if they don’t repent after three chances? [Who would constitute “heretics” to be executed – Sabbath breakers such as McDurmon?  Baptists who wouldn’t baptize their children?] Also, do you agree with Ken Talbot’s Nestorianism and Adoptionism?
And do you also agree with Ken Talbot’s view (which is taught in American Vision’s booklet “Why I Left Full Preterism”), that the Earth cannot abide forever in time because God is unable to fully know an ever-increasing kingdom?
And do you agree with the view that is taught in American Vision’s booklet, “Why I Left Full Preterism,” that “the Last Days” are actually “the afterward aeons”?
And do you agree with Dr. Talbot’s Docetism (which is taught in American Visions’ booklet, “Why I Left Full Preterism”), i.e., the doctrine that physical death (both that of the believer and of Jesus) is in “appearance” only (an illusion)?
And do you agree with Dr. Talbot’s doctrine (which is taught in American Visions’ booklet, “Why I Left Full Preterism”), that Abraham will be resurrected to inherit physical real estate, and even the stars, in fulfillment of “the land promise” given to Abraham?
And do you agree with the False Witness statement in American Vision’s booklet, “Why I Left Full Preterism,” that the doctrine of the past Second Coming and Judgment was invented in the 1970’s by Max King? (page 1)
From American Vision’s booklet, “Why I Left Full Preterism”:
[Begin quote] “Idealism, futurism, preterism, historicism, and dispensationalism. . . . all agree on four points:
1. Christ will return bodily . . .
2. at the end of time and history . . .
3. and raise our bodies . . .
4. and bring full judgment to all
. . . Christian history is unified on these essential matters.” [End quote] My response:
This is proof that the author of “Why I Left Full Preterism” wrote it while watching “Dancing With The Stars,” and that American Vision rushed it to print before proofing it, and that Ken Gentry endorsed it after doing little more than skimming over it, and that Keith Mathison probably read nothing more than the Table of Contents before endorsing it.
Christian history is *NOT* “unified” on the four points listed above.
* Premillennialists/Dispensationalists do NOT “agree” that Christ’s Second Coming will be “at the end of time and history.”
* Premillennialists/Dispensationalists do NOT “agree” that Christ’s Second Coming will be to resurrect “all” men who will ever live.
* Premillennialists/Dispensationalists do NOT “agree” that Christ’s Second Coming will be to bring full judgment to “all” men.
Premillenialists/Dispensationalists say that Christ’s Second Coming will be for the purpose of setting up an earthly, millennial reign of Jesus in the flesh –a full thousand years BEFORE the Final Resurrection and Final Judgment and “end of time.”
Keith Mathison, who –incredibly– endorsed “Why I Left Full Preterism,” actually made these very observations himself, in his book, “Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope” (pages 32-33)! 🙂
I don’t know what is more tragic: Sam Frost’s error-riddled and sin-riddled booklet (a.k.a., “Why I Sold My Soul”), or the partial preterists who made the titanic mistake of endorsing it.
And Gary, do you agree with this False Witness statement that is found in American Vision’s booklet, “Why I Sold My Soul” (page 3)? ” . . . [M]any . . . followers [of full preterism] are taught how to infiltrate the church.”
And do you see any problem with this glaring, self-defeating contradiction in American Vision’s booklet, “Why I Sold My Soul”?
Pages 19-20:
“[Full preterism] attempts to align itself as much as possible with [futurists], even claiming that it actually says, basically, the same thing as them.”
Page 42:
“[Full preterists] have the Old Testament saints transferred from Hades to Heaven [which is what full preterists call the Resurrection of the Dead]. That’s not really an issue, since a good deal of early church fathers held to that as well.”
do you agree with the False Witness statement in American Vision’s “Why I Sold My Soul,” that full preterists don’t believe in any concept of gradual fulfillment?
And do you agree with the statement in American Vision’s “Why I Sold My Soul,” that Adam and Eve hid because they were afraid that God was going to physically kill them (pg. 57), even though the Bible explicitly says they hid because they were naked? Thank you, Gary.
I have asked Keith Mathison if he agreed with R.C. Sproul’s comments that we quoted in HD about infinity or the booklet he hastily endorsed and he too was not available for comment.  Why is it any less “fitting” that you and Mathison not respond to a book you endorse, and yet you feel justified in requesting answers from your critics?

Conclusion:

  • Progressive dispensationalists and progressive partial preterists need to be more “honest” and “consistent” in where their views and exegesis are heading.  To quote DeMar, “Once these “hard lines” go (ex. no division in Matthew 24-25 and now teaching that the judgment and resurrection of the living and dead took place at end of old covenant age in AD 70 [Matthew 13:39-43/Daniel 12:1-4, 13/Revelation 20]), the entire system is in jeopardy of collapsing.” They will continue to send their readers to full preterism no matter how they try and re-package their views “Realized Preterism” etc….
  • Progressive partial preterists need to give credit to full preterism for developing the AD 30 – AD 70 corporate, covenantal, progressive, judgment and resurrection of the living and dead view and stop pretending that they came up with it on their own and or pretend that the change is not a result of outward pressure from full preterism.
  • According to the reasoning of Gary North and that of DeMar, the authors of WSTTB? should respond to our response and it is only now “fitting” that DeMar, Gentry, and Mathison respond to our refutation of a hastily written and read booklet that they have endorsed and published through American Vision.  If no response can be given, then we have won the debate – right Gary North?

According to DeMar’s reasoning when it comes to his critics, I would have to conclude that the “House Divided” critics of full preterism at this point, “have gone from bad (LaHaye, Ice, MacArthur) to worse (WSTTB? Mathison, Gentry, Strimple, etc…) to worst (American Vision – McDurmon & Frost).”  Well, maybe the truth is that they all contain the “worst” possible unbiblical and illogical “arguments” against full preterism imaginable.  But all Gary DeMar says he will do thus far is sit on the sidelines and “watch.”  You can’t make this stuff up folks – sad but true.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAFnbkEwqjI



[1] Greg Bahnsen, Kenneth Gentry, HOUSE DIVIDED THE BREAK-UP OF DISPENSATIONAL THEOLOGY, (Tyler, TX:  1989), 350
[2] Ibid., 366.
[3] Ibid. 349.
[4] Ibid., 379.
[5] This should have been footnoted on page 139 of my chapter in reference to Hebrews 9:26-28 but it got deleted for some reason in the editing process.  The admission here is from Milton Terry, “The ‘end of the age’ means the close of the epoch or age—that is, the Jewish age or dispensation which was drawing nigh, as our Lord frequently intimated. All those passages that speak of ‘the end,’ ‘the end of the age,’ or ‘the ends of the ages,’ refer to the same consummation, and always as nigh at hand.” “…the writer regarded the incarnation of Christ as taking place near the end of the aeon, or dispensational period. To suppose that he meant that it was close upon the end of the world, or the destruction of the material globe, would be to make him write false history as well as bad grammar. It would not be true in fact; for the world has already lasted longer since the incarnation than the whole duration of the Mosaic economy, from the exodus to the destruction of the temple. It is futile, therefore, to say that the ‘end of the age’ may mean a lengthened period, extending from the incarnation to our times, and even far beyond them. That would be an aeon, and not the close of an aeon. The aeon of which our Lord was speaking was about to close in a great catastrophe; and a catastrophe is not a protracted process, but a definitive and culminating act.” Milton S. Terry, Biblical HERMENEUTICS A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments, (Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), 441-442.
[6] David Green, Edward Hassertt, Michael Sullivan, House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to When Shall These Things Be? (Ramona, CA:  Vision Publishing 2014, Second Edition), 139-140
[7] Ibid., House Divided, 5-6.
[8]   Keith A. Mathison, DISPENSATIONALISM RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE PEOPLE OF GOD?  (Phillipsburg, NJ:  1995), 136-137
[9] Ibid., 137

House Divided – Excerpts From Chapter 6 (Expositions of Daniel 12:2 and John 5) and Chapter Seven – The Resurrection of the Dead An Exposition of 1 Corinthians 15

House Divided

Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

Excerpts From Chapter 6 (Response to Robert Strimple) &  Chapter Seven (Exposition of 1 Corinthians 15)
Including an Exegesis of:  Daniel 12:2, John 5:28-29, and 1 Corinthians 15
The Resurrection of the Dead Fulfilled by AD 70
David A. Green

Copyright 2009 and 2013 All rights reserved.  No part of this book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing or David A. Green), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.

1).  Exegesis of Daniel 12:2

Strimple Argument #5: Daniel 12:1-3 says that “many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, some to shame and everlasting contempt.” This is obviously referring to a physical resurrection of the dead. Additionally, God tells us that this prophecy is to be fulfilled in “the time of the end” (Dan. 12:4), which is the end of human history (295).
Answer: Daniel’s prediction of the resurrection of the dead begins with these words: “And at that time . . . ” “That time” refers back to the end of chapter 11. Philip Mauro in his book, The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation, argues convincingly that Daniel 11 ends with a prophecy of Herod the Great.[1]
Herod, the first enemy of the incarnate Christ, died very shortly after Christ was born. It was “at that time” that Christ (“Michael,” “the Chief Messenger”) stood up for the saints. It was at that time that Christ came into the world for His people and took on the body of sacrifice that the Father had prepared for Him (Dan. 12:1; Heb. 10:5-7; Ps. 40:6; cf. Rev. 12:7).
It was the “stand” for the elect that Christ made in His Incarnation that led to the “war in heaven” (Matt. 11:12; Rev. 12:7), which in turn led to fleshly Israel being overtaken in the death-throes of the Great Tribulation (Dan. 12:1). Jesus promised that that time of distress was going to take place within His own generation, and that it would be consummated in the destruction of the city and the sanctuary (Dan. 9:26; 12:1; Matt. 24:1-2, 21, 34). That event took place in August-September of AD 70.
According to the angel who spoke to Daniel, it was at that time that the power of the holy people would be shattered (Dan. 12:7), that the church would be delivered (Dan. 12:1), that the resurrection of the dead would take place, and that the righteous would inherit the kingdom (Dan. 12:2). Jesus, in harmony with Daniel, promised that the kingdom would be taken from the wicked and given to the righteous in the lifetime of the chief priests and Pharisees (Mat. 21:43-45). Therefore, “the time of the end” (not “the end of time,” as it is sometimes mistranslated) in Daniel 12:4, 9 was not the end of human history; it was the end of redemptive history in Christ’s generation.
It was in AD 70, therefore, that many who slept in “the earth’s dust” awoke. To “sleep in dust” is a figure of speech. The dead were not literally sleeping, nor were they literally in the dust. They were “in dust” only insofar as, in their death, they had not ascended into God’s presence in Christ. In terms of the righteousness and life of God, they were earth-bound. From a literal standpoint, they were in Sheol/Hades (the abode of the Adamic dead), and it was from out of Sheol that they were raised to stand before the heavenly throne of God (Dan. 12:1-2). Futurist James Jordan writes regarding Daniel 12:13:
What Daniel is promised is that after his rest in Abraham’s bosom, he will stand up with all God’s saints and join Michael on a throne in heaven, as described in Revelation 20, an event that came after the Great Tribulation and in the year AD 70.[2]
Regarding the word “many” in Daniel 12:2: The word is not used in contrast to “all” (as “the many” is used to limit the term “all men” in Rom. 5:12, 15, 18-19) or in contrast to “a few.” The angel simply referred to a large number of people; to multitudes (NIV). No inference can be made from the context as to whether “many” referred to all or to only a portion of the dead. Only subsequent scriptures revealed that the “many” in Daniel 12:2 referred to the whole company of all the dead from Adam to the Last Day.

2).  Exegesis of John 5:28-29

Strimple Argument #6: John 5:28-29 obviously teaches a physical resurrection of the dead in that it speaks of a time in which “all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment” (297).
Answer: In order to understand John 5:28 and 29, we must first look three verses above it, in John 5:25, where Jesus said that the hour “now is” when “the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live.” As most Reformed interpreters agree, Jesus in that verse was referring to the preaching of His death and resurrection. The preaching of that message commenced at Pentecost. “The dead” were physically living people who were spiritually dead in sin, and “the voice of the Son of God” was the gospel. Having heard the gospel, those who were spiritually “dead” were spiritually resurrected. They lived in that they received eternal life through faith in the gospel (“the voice of the Son of God”).
Then, in verses 28 and 29, Jesus expanded His teaching on the resurrection to include those who were not only spiritually dead, but who were also physically dead. He did not call them “dead” (as He had already called the living who were spiritually dead), but He referred to them through another figure of speech as “all who are in the graves.” They were not literally in their graves or tombs, of course, but were in Hades/Sheol.
What is often missed in this passage is that, like the physically living in verse 25, the physically dead in verse 28 were also going to live by means of hearing Christ’s “voice.” As we know from verse 25, that “voice” is the gospel. The physically dead therefore were going to hear the gospel (cf. 1 Pet. 4:6.) and were, as a result of hearing the gospel, going to be resurrected (regenerated, born from out of death and Hades). This means that the physically dead were, like the physically living, spiritually dead. And this inescapably means that both the physically living and the physically dead were going to be spiritually resurrected by means of the gospel-voice of the Son of God. One resurrection in two main stages: First, the last days saints; then, the Old Testament dead (“the rest of the dead” in Revelation 20:5). Note the parallels between John 4:21, 23 and John 5:25, 28:
1. . . . [T]he hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth. . . . (Jn. 4:23)
2. . . . [T]he hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. (Jn. 4:21)
1. . . . [T]he hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. (Jn. 5:25)
2. . . . [T]he hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice. . . . (Jn. 5:28)
These two sets of prophecies are parallel.  They speak of the same timeframes, which were these:
Pentecost (AD 30)
1. The true worshipers would worship the Father in spirit and in truth.
1. The dead would hear the voice of the Son of God, and live.
Fall of Jerusalem (AD 70)
2. God’s worshipers would no longer worship Him in Jerusalem.
2. All who were in the graves would hear His voice.

Interjection by Michael Sullivan – “Commentators have long understood that Daniel 12:2 is the source for Jesus’ teaching on the resurrection in John 5:28-29 because the only OT passage which mentions a resurrection for both the righteous and the wicked is Daniel 12:2 and the only OT passage addressing “eternal life” is Daniel 12:2.  G.K. Beale points out an additional connection – in that Jesus is following the (OG) LXX of Daniel 12:1-2, 4 when it comes to this coming resurrection “hour” of both believers and unbelievers (cf. G.K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of The Old Testament In The New (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), 131132).
That being the case, note these parallels:
Pentecost (AD 30)
1.  Daniel 12:1:  “And at that hour…”
1.  John 5:25:  “…an hour is coming and now is…”
Fall of Jerusalem (AD 70)
2.  Daniel 12:1:  “And at that hour…”
2.  John 5:28:  “…for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice,”
Pentecost (AD 30)
1.   Daniel 12:2:  “Many of those who sleep in the width of the earth will arise   [anatesontai]…some unto eternal life and others to reproach…and to eternal shame.”
1.  John 5:24:  “…he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life,   and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into   life.”
Fall of Jerusalem (AD 70)
2.  Daniel 12:2:  “Many of those who sleep in the width of the earth will arise   [anatesontai]…some unto eternal life and others to reproach…and to eternal shame.”
2.  John 5:29:  “and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection [anatasin] of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection [anatasin] of judgment.” (also related:  1 John 2:18: “Dear children it is the last hour…” and Revelation 14:7:  “…the hour of His judgment has come.”).
Partial Preterists such as Kenneth Gentry have finally conceded to Full Preterism that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 was fulfilled in AD 70 spiritually – “when the power of the holy people is/was completely shattered” (v. 7).  They also affirm that the last hour of John’s eschatology in John 4, 1 John 2:17-18, and Revelation 14:7 was fulfilled in AD 70.  There is obviously some arbitrary and inconsistent exegesis taking place from Mr. Gentry on the coming “hour” of judgment and resurrection in John’s writings.
Here are the exegetical challenges for Kenneth Gentry on the resurrection of John 5:28-29 at this point:
1.  If the judgment and resurrection “hour” of Daniel 12:1-2 was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70, and…
2.  If Jesus’ source for His teaching on the coming judgment and resurrection “hour” in John 5:28-29 was Daniel 12:1-2,
3.  Then the judgment and resurrection “hour” of John 5:28-29 was also fulfilled spiritually in AD 70.” (end note by Michael Sullivan)
David A. Green continued – After hearing the gospel, the dead were raised out of their Adamic graves (Hades) in the end of the age. And those among them who believed the gospel received eternal life in the kingdom of God. But those who hated the gospel (those who had done evil) were raised out of Hades only to stand before God and to enter into “eternal punishment” / “the second death” (Matt. 25:46; Jn. 5:28-29; Rev. 20:14).

[1] . Philip Mauro, The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation (Swengel, PA: Reiner Publications [now Grace Abounding Ministries]), 135-162.
[2] . James B. Jordan, The Handwriting on the Wall: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision Inc., 2007), 628. (Emphases added)

3).  An Exposition of 1 Corinthians 15

The position I take in this exposition is often called “the collective body view” or “the corporate body view.” It is as follows:
Some at Corinth were denying that the pre-Christian saints[1] would rise to inherit the kingdom at the Parousia. Those who were in error at Corinth were not arguing with Paul about the reality of the resurrection. They were arguing with Paul in regard to who would participate in the resurrection. They believed that believers in Christ would be resurrected but that “the dead” would not. Paul’s answer to their error was that “all”—not merely some of God’s people—would be raised. Through the Spirit-empowered dying (to Sin and to the Law) of the eschatological church on behalf of the dead (the Old Testament saints), the mortal “body” of Sin and Death (the Adamic/Mosaic saints and the eschatological church; the entire “world” of God’s people) would rise and be “changed”/“transformed” into the spiritual body of Christ in the kingdom of God.
Though this interpretation is commonly called “collective” or “corporate,” these terms are inadequate. Paul does not speak only or merely in collective terms of the resurrection body. Not even in 1 Corinthians 12 is “body” simply a reference to a collective or communal “body of believers.”
The terms “body of Christ” and “body of believers” are not synonymous. The church is not a “body” because it is a group of people who have organized and united around Christ. Nor is it a body because it is a kind of “corporation.” The church is the body of Christ because it is literally the dwelling and fullness of the individual Man, the Person, Christ Jesus (Gal. 4:19; Eph. 1:23; 4:13). “This mystery is great. . . ” (Eph. 5:32).
As we shall soon see, Paul used the word “body,” in the relevant passages, not as a term of either physicality or collectivity, or even as a term of mere anthropological wholeness. Paul used the word “body” as a term of theology, much as he used the terms “spirit,” “new man,” “the world about to come,” the “new creation,” the “kingdom of God,” and the heavenly “house/home.” All of these eschatological terms (and their opposites, “mortal body,” “flesh,” “old man,” etc.) are intimately related in their meanings, and are not easily defined with exactness.
As I will explain in more detail below, “body” describes God’s people, whether individually or as a whole, whether living or dead, in terms of their cosmic-covenantal self or identity, as they are constituted either in Sin and Death or in Christ. Thus the view I am presenting in this
self in this chapter to defining their error more generally as a denial that the dead from Adam until Christ would be raised.
chapter may more accurately be called “the cosmic-covenantal body view.”
Necessary Inferences
In beginning this exposition, we must understand that reading 1 Corinthians 15 is comparable to listening to one side of one phone conversation out of a series of phone conversations. Paul and the resurrection-of-thedead deniers have a long established context with long established word usages. We on the other hand, as a third party, may have our own context and our own usages that we unwittingly apply to the conversation.
This is the problem we face in 1 Corinthians 15. We hear Paul’s refutation of the resurrection error but we do not hear many details about what he is refuting. All we know from explicit statements in the chapter is that some at Corinth denied “the resurrection of the dead” because they believed “the dead” had no “body” with which they could be rising (1 Cor. 15:35). But what does this mean? What did Paul and those who were in error at Corinth mean when they used those terms?
If we do not make correct inferences from Paul’s side of the “conversation,” we not only misunderstand the error he was refuting, we misunderstand the truth he was defending. This has been the historic failure of the futurist interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15. Futurists have resisted making necessary inferences in Paul’s arguments because those inferences do not fit the futurist paradigm.
It is widely believed that the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers denied the very concept of the resurrection of dead people universally, and that they therefore denied the resurrection of Christ and of Christians. The implications of Paul’s words, however, do not support this view. As Paul argued, if the dead are not being raised, then:

  1. not even Christ has been raised” (1 Cor. 15:13-17)
  2. the apostles are liars (1 Cor. 15:14-15)
  3. those also who have fallen asleep in Christ perished” (1 Cor. 15:18)
  4. we are hoping in Christ “in this life only” (1 Cor. 15:19)

These four logical outcomes of the resurrection error were not doctrines that the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers were teaching. These conclusions were not designed to describe the error. They were designed to overthrow it, through reductio ad absurdum. Paul was bringing the resurrection error to absurd conclusions that were antithetical to the beliefs of the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers. Paul was essentially saying:
“We all believe in the resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. 15:13-17) and in the eschatological hope in Christ that all believers share (1 Cor. 15:19), both living and asleep (1 Cor. 15:18); but you do not realize that if there is no resurrection of the dead, as some of you are saying, then these gospel truths that we all hold so dear are nothing but falsehoods and delusions.”
We can infer from Paul’s “if . . . then” arguments that the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers did not espouse those inevitable results of their teaching. Instead, they agreed with Paul that:

  1. Christ had been raised from the dead.
  2. The apostles were faithful and true witnesses of God.
  3. Christians who had “fallen asleep” had not “perished” (i.e., had not died in their sins).
  4. All Christians, both living and “asleep,” had a sure “hope” in Christ. Their hope in Him was not a pitiable delusion.

Because the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers believed in the resurrection of Christ, and because they believed that sleeping Christians had therefore not died in their sins (“perished”) but were, along with the living, looking forward to the fulfillment of the Christological “hope,” we must infer that the “hope” to which the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers looked was that of the Christological resurrection of Christians, both living and “asleep” (Acts 23:6; 24:15; 26:6-7; 28:20; Eph. 4:4). They did not believe merely in the continuation of existence after death; they looked forward to the fulfillment of the eschatological “hope” in Christ.
We can also reasonably surmise that since the resurrection-ofthe-dead deniers believed that the apostles were faithful witnesses and since they believed in the apostolic gospel of the historic resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. 15:13-17) and in the Christian resurrection-“hope,” it is not unlikely that they also believed the apostolic testimony that Christ Himself had raised multiple people from the dead and that the apostles themselves had raised multiple people from the dead.
(We can add to this that since the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers were members of the church at Corinth, which was filled with the gifts of the Holy Spirit, including miracles, it is not far from the realm of possibility that resurrection-miracles were performed at the Corinthian church before the very eyes of the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers.)
So from verses 13-19, we must infer that even though those who were in error at Corinth denied the resurrection of “the dead,” they nevertheless believed in the resurrected and resurrecting Christ, and in the resurrecting apostles, and in the miracle-working church at Corinth, and in the resurrection-“hope” of all Christians, living and asleep.
These inferences have been overlooked because under the assumption of futurism, they make no sense. How could someone deny the very concept and possibility of the resurrection of dead people and at the same time believe in the resurrected and resurrecting Christ, and in the resurrecting apostles, and in the Christological resurrection-“hope” of all Christians, living and asleep? With futurism as our starting point, there is no answer to this question. There are only strained theories.
The problem for futurism thickens when we see other implications of Paul’s arguments in 1 Corinthians 15. In verses 35-37 we read:
But someone will say, “How are the dead raised? And with what body do they come?” You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies; and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else.
We know that Paul’s argument here was aimed at those who already believed in the eschatological resurrection of Christians. We can infer then that he was not trying to convince them of the concept of resurrection. We can also infer that body-sowing and body-rising (bodyresurrection) were “givens” in the seed analogy. The only doctrines that Paul was defending and seeking to prove in his analogy were body-death (“You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies”) and body-change (“and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be”). Sowing and coming to life (resurrection) were givens. Putting the body to death and changing the body were not givens.
The resurrection-of-the-dead deniers believed in the sowing of the body and in the resurrection of the body but they denied that the body had to die and be changed. They erroneously espoused the burial and resurrection of the same, unchanged, living body. This makes no sense in the futurist framework, but we shall see below that it makes perfect sense in Paul’s preterist framework.
We see again that the resurrection body was a given, in verse 46: But the spiritual [body] was not first, but the natural [body], then the spiritual [body].
No one at Corinth needed to be convinced of the coming “spiritual body . . . that shall be” (1 Cor. 15:37), or of the “hope” of the raising up of Christians, whether dead (“asleep”) or living (1 Cor. 15:19), or of the coming kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50). They needed only to be convinced that there was a “natural body” that came first, and that it had to be put to death and “changed” into the differentspiritual body.”
The Dead
Let us now look at one more inference we must make from Paul’s arguments—an inference that will begin to allow us to undo the confusion of the futurist interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15. Verse 35:
How are the dead raised? And with what body do they come?
As this verse implies, the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers could not fathom the possibility of the resurrection of the dead. They could not so much as conceive of “how”the dead” could have a “body” with which they could be raised. The very idea was beyond their capability to believe.[2]
As we have seen, those who were in error at Corinth believed in the historic resurrection of Christ and in the “sowing” of the “spiritual body” and the resurrection of the same “spiritual body.” They looked forward to the fulfillment of the “hope” that all Christians, living and asleep, would be raised with the spiritual body in the kingdom of God. Yet at the same time, according to verse 35, we see that those who were in error at Corinth were unable to conceive of the feasibility of the bodily resurrection of the dead.
How can this be? In the futurist paradigm, this simply “does not compute,” and the exegetical dilemma is mind-bogglingly insoluble. The blinders of futurism have thus made it impossible for interpreters to make sense of all of 1 Corinthians 15. The result has been that, through a time-honored exegetical haze, futurism has unwittingly transformed the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers into veritable madmen.
There is no doubt that the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers were ignorant and foolish regarding the resurrection of the dead, but it is not reasonable to portray them as thinking in insanely contradictory propositions, i.e., believing in the reality of resurrection and at the same time being unable to conceive of the very possibility of resurrection. The resurrection-of-the-dead deniers had no rational reason to reject the believability, imaginability, thinkability, or feasibility of a biological resurrection of the flesh. Therefore, what they denied—and what Paul was defending—was something else.
Those who were in error at Corinth were denying neither the existence of, nor the futurity of, nor the somatic (bodily) character of the resurrection. They believed in the future body-resurrection of Christians. Yet at the same time, they denied the resurrection of “the dead” because they could not conceive of the possibility of the dead having a body with which they could rise. This means that the resurrection-ofthe-dead deniers were not denying the bodily resurrection of everyone, but were denying only the possibility that certain people other than Christians—“the dead”—were participating in the resurrection of the body.
“The dead” in 1 Corinthians 15 were, in contrast to dead Christians, Hadean saints (1 Cor. 15:55). They were, as Paul says, those “out from among” whom Christ had been raised (1 Cor. 15:12, 20). Christ did not rise “out from among” dead, Spirit-indwelt Christians. “The dead” were the saints who had lived and died, not in Christ, but “in Adam” (1 Cor. 15:22), before Christ. They were those who were “asleep” (1 Cor. 15:20), in contrast to those who had “fallen asleep in Christ” (1 Cor. 15:18).
They were none other than the pre-Christian saints;[3] which inescapably means they were primarily and for the most part those who lived within the Abrahamic community of historic covenant Israel.[4]
Buried Alive
Let us look again at 1 Corinthians 15:36:
. . . That which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die.
As I mentioned above, Paul teaches in this verse that the body is first sown (planted, buried, or entombed), and then it dies in order that it can be raised a changed body. If Paul was teaching a biological resurrection of the dead, then we must admit that he was saying that only physical bodies that have first been buried alive and have then been put to death underground can be raised to eternal physical life on Resurrection Day.
Futurism has thus created an absurdity and a contradiction in verse 36. The absurdity is the teaching that only physical bodies that have been buried alive can be resurrected. The contradiction is the idea that physical death is a prerequisite to being resurrected. This contradicts verse 51, where Paul said that the physically living would be “made alive” (resurrected) and changed along with the physically dead (cf. verse 22).
No one believes that Paul was teaching that living physical bodies must be physically buried, and that the physically buried bodies must then physically die underground in order that the physically buried-and-dead bodies can then be physically resurrected and changed. Although that is definitely what Paul’s words say in the futurist framework, no futurist accepts this meaning. Instead, most interpreters apply themselves to Herculean efforts to making the verse make sense in the futurist framework.
Their time, however, would be better spent finding Paul’s meaning, letting him say what he says, rather than making his words conform to the futurist paradigm. To find Paul’s meaning, we need only find where in Scripture Paul elaborated on the doctrine of a human “body” that had to be sown/planted/entombed and concurrently put to death, in order that it could be made alive and changed in the resurrection of the dead. This takes us to Romans 6-8, Colossians 2, and Philippians 3.
In these Scriptures, especially in Romans 6, Paul teaches that believers had been bodilyplanted,” through Spirit-baptism, into death / into the death of Christ, in order that the body that had been planted/buried (the “body of Sin,” the “mortal body,” the “body of Death,” the “body of the sins of the flesh,” the “vile body”) would be abolished / put to death, and then be made alive and changed/conformed to the image of the Son of God in the kingdom of heaven. Note the order: Burial then death.
This sequence in Romans 6 is exactly, step by step, what Paul teaches concerning the resurrection of the body in 1 Cor. 15:36-37 and its context. Romans 6-8 and 1 Corinthians 15 both speak of concurrent bodyburial and body-death, followed by consummated body-death, bodyresurrection, and body-change. Futurist assumptions notwithstanding, there is no doubt that 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 6-8 are speaking of the same burial, death, resurrection, and change—and therefore of the same body.
The Body
What then is “the body” that was being put to death in Romans 6-8 and 1 Corinthians 15? What is the meaning of the word “body” in these contexts? Essentially, or basically, the “body” is the “self” or “person/personality” or “individual,” whether that of a singular saint or of the singular church universal (the body of Christ). According to definition 1b of the word σωμα (body) in Arndt and Gingrich’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, the word “body” in Paul’s writings is sometimes “almost synonymous with the whole personality . . . σώματα [bodies] = themselves.”[5]
Note how that “body” and “yourselves” are used interchangeably in Romans 6:12-13:
Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body that you should obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting your members [of your mortal body] to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members [of your mortal body] as instruments of righteousness to God.
Compare also 1 Corinthians 6:15 and 12:27, where “you” and “your bodies” are synonymous:
. . . your bodies are members of Christ . . . . (1 Cor. 6:15)
. . . you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it. (1 Cor. 12:27)
See also Ephesians 5:28, where a man’s body-union with his wife is equated with “himself”:
So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself.
However, the word “body,” when it is used in reference to the eschatological resurrection, means more than merely the “self.” Paul is not using the word as a common reference to “the whole person.” It does not refer to man’s anthropological wholeness (i.e., Material body+soul+spirit=the body). Paul is using the word in a theologicaleschatological sense to describe God’s people as they are defined either by the wholeness/fullness (body) of Adamic Sin and Death or the wholeness/fullness (body) of Christ. The body is either the “person” united with Sin and Death, or the “person” united with Christ, whether individually or corporately.
We can begin to see this in Colossians 3:5 (KJV), where the body parts (members) of the Sin-body are not arms and legs or other physical limbs. The members of the “earthly body” were death-producing “deeds,” such as “fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness . . . ” (cf. Rom. 8:13). Thus John Calvin wrote in his commentary on Romans 6:6: “The body of sin . . . does not mean flesh and bones, but the corrupted mass . . . of sin.” Since a body is the sum of its parts, and since the parts of the Sin-body are sins/sinful deeds, it follows that “the body of Sin” is not the physical aspect of man. Instead, the whole of the sins/deeds of the body equals the body of Sin. Or more accurately, the body of Sin was God’s people as they were identified with and defined by the Sin-reviving, Sin-increasing, Death-producing world of the Law.
When Paul said that believers were no longer walking according to “the flesh” (Rom. 8:1, 4, 9), he was saying that believers were putting to death the deeds of the “body” (Rom. 8:10-11, 13). The parts/members of the body equaled the deeds of “the body,” which equaled the walk of “the flesh.”   “Flesh” and “body” in this context, therefore, describe man as he was defined by Sin, not man as he was defined by material body parts.
In Colossians 2:11, Paul said that God had buried believers with Christ, raised them up with Him, and had removed “the body of the flesh.” “The body of the flesh” was not the physical body. It was the Adamic man/self/person that had been dead in transgressions and in the spiritual uncircumcision of his “flesh” (Col. 2:13). That “body” (or as Ridderbos puts it, that “sinful mode of existence”)[6] had been “removed” in Christ and was soon to be changed into the glorious, resurrected “body” of Christ.
As a comparison of Colossians 2:11 and Colossians 3:9 reveals, “the body” of Sin is virtually synonymous with “the old man”:
. . . the putting off of the body of the sins of the flesh . . . . (Col. 2:11)
. . . having put off the old man with his practices (Col. 3:9; cf. Eph. 4:22)
Compare also 1 Corinthians 15:42 with Ephesians 4:22:
[The body] is sown in corruption . . . . (1 Cor. 15:42)
. . . the old man being corrupted . . . . (Eph. 4:22)
Compare also the references to “man” and “body” in Romans 7:24:
Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from this body of Death?
And in Romans 6:6:
Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. (Rom. 6:6)
And in 1 Corinthians 15:44, 45:
. . . There is a natural body [the old man], and there is a spiritual body [the new Man]. And so it is written, the first [old] man [the natural body] Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [the last Man, the spiritual body] a quickening spirit.
Since the natural body is nearly synonymous with the old man, we should expect that the spiritual body is nearly synonymous with “the new man,” the Lord Jesus Christ. Compare 1 Corinthians 15:53-54 with Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:10 and Romans 13:14:
For this perishable [body] must put on the imperishable [body] . . . . (1 Cor. 15:53-54)
and put on the new man [the spiritual body], which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth. (Eph. 4:24) and have put on the new man [the spiritual body] who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him. (Col. 3:10)
But put on the Lord Jesus Christ [the new man, the spiritual body], and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts. (Rom. 13:14)
As most futurists agree, “the old man” and “the new man” are not expressions that describe man in terms of physicality. “The old man” was man as he was in Adam, alienated from God and dead in Sin. He was “the body of Sin.” The new Man is man as he is reconciled to God in Christ, the lifegiving Spiritual Body.
The World-Body
Note that in Colossians 2:11-14, believers had been bodily buried and bodily raised with Christ, but it was the “handwriting in ordinances” that God had crucified. In Romans 6:6, it was “the old man” that had been crucified. In Galatians 5:24, it was “the flesh” that had been crucified.
And in Galatians 6:14, it was “the world” that had been crucified. These verses together demonstrate the “cosmic” dimension of the Pauline, eschatological “body.” The Spirit was not merely changing hearts and lives of individuals; He was changing the “world-body” of Adam/Moses (Israel as it was defined by the earthly temple-system of Law-Sin-Death) into the world-body of Christ.
Thus it is in 2 Corinthians 5 that the soon-to-be-destroyed “mortal . . . body” is equal to the “earthly [made-with-hands] house of the tabernacle” (2 Cor. 5:1, 4, 6, 10), i.e., the old covenant world. The “house,” or world, of the man-made temple of God was “the mortal . . . body” that had been buried with Christ, and that was being put to death, and that was soon to be clothed with the heavenly/spiritual body of Christ.
Though all believers were individually “putting on Christ” in anticipation of the Last Day (Rom. 13:11-14), believers were not doing this merely as a collective of individuals. They were together, through the power of God, putting on (becoming clothed with) the Lord Jesus Christ who is Himself the Tabernacle/House/Body of God from out of heaven. They were being changed into the cosmic New Man—the “body” of God Himself.
Through the indwelling Holy Spirit,

  • the mortal body of Sin and Death (The Adamic-Mosaic world),
  • the old man/humanity and,
  • the flesh had been sown/planted/buried and were being put to death through

the eschatological work of the Holy Spirit, and were being raised

  • the body of the triune God (“that God may be All in all”),
  • the new Man and
  • spirit (that which is spiritual; that which is of the Spirit),

i.e., the habitation of

  • the Father,
  • the Son and
  • the Holy Spirit

The consummated change took place when the world of the handmade city and sanctuary (the body of Sin and Death) was thrown down, and the heavenly/spiritual city and sanctuary (the body of Christ) were established “among men” in AD 70 (Heb. 9:8).
Through the indwelling of the Spirit, the church’s body of Sin and Death (its old, pre-Christ world-identity; the fleshly, Adamic “man” or self) was buried into the death of Christ. It was put to death, having been buried with Him through the without-hands baptism of the Holy Spirit into the dead-to-sin body of Christ. Believers had thus been “bodily” buried together into body-death, and their body-life was hid with the soon-to-be-revealed Savior of the Adamic world (Rom. 6:11, 13; Phil. 3:10; Col. 3:3).
The two contrasting and co-existing eschatological bodystates in Paul’s epistles (the concurrent dying and rising and changing of “the body” that had been buried) depended on neither physicality nor nonphysicality.[7] They depended on the saints’ relationship to Sin or to Christ. They depended on whether one was in Adam (under the dominion of Sin and Death) or in Christ (under grace and indwelt by the life-giving Spirit).
The elect before Christ were the body of Sin and Death in that they had been incorporated into Sin and Death in Adam. They were wholly defined, constituted, organized, systematized, and comprehended in (i.e., indwelled by and “clothed with”) Adamic Sin and Death through the curse of the commandment of God. They were both individually and collectively the embodiment (the body) of Sin and Death.
But in the new world in Christ, through faith in His shed blood, all of His saints in heaven (non-physical) and on earth (physical) are the cosmic embodiment, “fullness,” and habitation of the triune God. The fulfillment of the resurrection of “the body” in AD 70 brought into being the universal communion of all the saints (old covenant and new covenant) in the one, spiritual body (Christ Himself). This is what the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers denied would take place. They denied the death and resurrection with Christ of the natural body (the preChristian world of God’s people) and its change/transformation into the universal (Christian and pre-Christian), spiritual body of Christ.
The Universality19 of the Resurrection (1 Cor. 15:20-28)
In denying the resurrection of the pre-Christian saints, or of old covenant Israel, the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers were denying not the fact of the resurrection, but the “all-ness” of the resurrection and the “all-ness” of Christ’s atoning work. They denied that Christ had died for “all,” and therefore they denied that “all” would be raised. Though they agreed with Paul that Christ had died for “our” (the eschatological church’s) sins
(1 Cor. 15:3, 11), they denied that Christ had died for the sins of “the dead.”
Contrary to their doctrine, the resurrection of Christ was not the begin-
ing either material or immaterial.” The Body, John A. T. Robinson (SCM Press Ltd., Bloomsbury Street London, 1966), 32. Reformed theologians Ridderbos and Holland acknowledge that some of Robinson’s exegeses are flawed, but they endorse the substance of his insights on “the body.” I cite Robinson here in the same spirit.

  1. When I use the terms “universal” and “universality,” I am not referring to any form of “Universalism.” I am referring to the trans-historical assembly of the saints of all generations, from Adam to AD 70, or from Adam to the present day.

ning of the resurrection of the last days church only. It was also the beginning of the resurrection of the great cloud of saints (“the dead”/“them that slept”) who had come and gone before the advent of the last days church. Christ became the “First Fruits” of the eschatological church and of the Hadean saints “out from among” whom He had been raised (1 Cor. 15:55; Rev. 1:5). His resurrection was the beginning of the resurrection of “all” the saints who were “in Adam” (1 Cor. 15:20), not merely of the eschatological church. As all the saints, Christian and pre-Christian, had been condemned and alienated from God (i.e., had died) in Adam through Sin (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 7:9), so “all[8] were going to be raised up in “the Christ,” the second “Man” (or the second Humanity), the Savior of “the world” (1 Cor. 15:21-22). Because Christians were “of Christ,” and because Christ was the First Fruit of the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:23), Christians were, in Him, “first fruits” of the resurrection (James 1:18; Rev. 14:4), so that Christ was “the First Fruits” of “the first fruits.”[9] The resurrection of Christians “in His Parousia,” therefore, was not to be the consummation of the life-giving reign of Christ (1 Cor. 15:22-24), as the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers supposed. The eschatological church’s resurrection in “Christ the First Fruits” was instead the beginning of the end of the resurrection-harvest, and was to be followed by “the end,”[10] or “consummation,” which was the resurrection of the dead, i.e., the death of Death (the abolition of the alienation of God’s people from Him)—when “all” the elect became the habitation of the lifegiving Spirit through the gospel (Jn. 5:25; 1 Cor. 15:24-28; Rev. 20:5-6).
Christ, through the Holy Spirit, was not reigning in the Spirit-indwelt, eschatological church merely so that the church by itself would attain unto the resurrection and inherit the kingdom. He was reigning in the church so that the historic kingdom would, in Him, be universalized” in and brought under the rule of “the God and Father” of “all” the saints (1 Cor. 15:24). The Adamic saints were not going to be left unredeemed from the “rule,” “authority,” and “power” of Satan, Sin, Death, and Condemnation. Rather, the Father was going to place all those kingdom-enemies under the feet of Christ, and Christ was going to “abolish,” or “annul,” them all.
He was already in process of abolishing the last and greatest kingdom-enemy, Death itself, through the kingdom-transforming, kingdom-universalizing work of the Cross and the indwelling Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 15:26). “All things” (or literally, “the All Things,” the cosmic body of Sin and Death) were going to be subjected to Christ, and changed (Phil. 3:21) in the Father, by the power of the Father, and under the authority of the Father, so that all of the enemies would be done away; so that all of the Father’s elect (from Adam to AD 70) would be made alive in Christ; so that the universal church would become the habitation of the triune God, so that He would become “All Things in all” (1 Cor. 15:28).
If the Resurrection is not Universal (1 Cor. 15:12-19; 29-34)
The Son did not come to set up His own new religion that excluded the historic saints who had worshiped the Father in the Adamic ages. To the contrary, the Son was sent by the Father and under the authority of the Father for the purpose of restoring “all” the elect to the Father, to “universalize” the Father’s dominion. Unbeknownst to the resurrectionof-the-dead deniers, if Christ had come to save only the eschatological church and to exclude the pre-Christian world, this would have left only two possibilities. Either:

  1. Christ would be the conqueror of the God of the pre-Christian world, and the Father would be put in subjection under the feet of the Son (1 Cor. 15:27).[11]

Or

  1. Christ was not sent to accomplish the Father’s cosmos-saving work; therefore the Father had never raised Him from the dead, and the gospel was a lie, and Christianity was merely a man-made religion.

Of these two possibilities, Paul countered the first in passing (1 Cor. 15:27), but rigorously pursued the implications of the second. As we know, many at Corinth were living as though the second possibility was the truth.
As Paul reasoned: If Christ did not come to accomplish the Father’s work of restoration (Isa. 55:11), to gather and unite “all” (Christian and pre-Christian) who were chosen in the Father from before the world began, then Christ was not of the Father. Then neither the doctrine of the resurrection of Christ nor the resurrection-hope of the eschatological church was true or valid. Then Paul and the other apostolic preachers were liars, and Christ did not die for the sins of the eschatological church, and the Father never raised Him from the dead (1 Cor. 15:3-4, 11, 13-16).
Consequently, Christ was not reigning. Therefore no one had been born of the Spirit that proceeded from the Father. Then the gospel was vain, and the faith of believers was vain (1 Cor. 15:14, 17). Then no one had been saved and empowered by the grace of God either to preach the gospel or to believe it (1 Cor. 15:1-2, 5-8, 10-11).
Christians were, then, still in their sins, and those who had fallen asleep in Christ had died in their sins (1 Cor. 15:17-18). Then the resurrection-hope that believers had in Christ was false (1 Cor. 15:19). Then those Christians who were undergoing baptism (Spirit-led suffering and death) on behalf of the dead (1 Cor. 15:29; Matt. 20:23; 23:34-35; Luke 12:50; Heb. 11:40; Rev. 6:9-11) were in reality suffering for nothing more than a man-invented delusion. They were not being led by the Spirit but were instead going to a hopeless, meaningless death.
Moreover then, the apostles were fighting with “beasts” (enemies of the gospel) and were standing in jeopardy every hour, dying daily, not to change the world of God’s people, but for absolutely nothing, because
of Israel and His law) was the root error of the doctrine that would later be known as Gnosticism.
their gospel sufferings were not being wrought through the cosmosresurrecting, cosmos-changing power of the indwelling eschatological Spirit, but through the power of mere man (1 Cor. 15:30-32).
If the gospel was a lie and there was no God-ordained, worldchanging need of dying daily through the Spirit, of suffering hardships, humiliations and dangers, then the apostles should logically have lived as the arrogant, carnal Corinthians themselves were living (I Cor. 4:8). They should have rejected their humiliating sufferings for the gospel and put off dying for some other day (“tomorrow”) (1 Cor. 15:32-34).
In the end, the whole church, following the apostles and the Corinthians, would have forsaken the shame of the Cross of Christ and escaped the eschatological sufferings to which it had been called. All believers would have lived in the status quo of the old world. Though the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers did not know it, this was the practical, church-corrupting result of their dead-excluding error. This is why it was urgent for them to “awake righteously” from out of their shameful and sinful ignorance of God.
Contrary to the resurrection error, believers were being called to “die” for (on behalf of) “all” (the whole “creation”/“body” of God’s people). The church’s eschatological death and resurrection with Christ was for the purpose of bringing about the transformation of the preChrist world of the saints (“all Israel”). Though the resurrection-of-thedead deniers were unaware of it, their doctrine was implicitly opposed to the cosmic gospel-purpose of the Father.
The first-fruits church, through the indwelling Spirit of the reigning Christ, was putting to death the Adamic world-body of Death itself (alienation from the Father) through the newly-revealed gospel of God. Through the Death-destroying, Life-giving, “man”-changing power of the gospel of the death and resurrection of Christ, the fleshly, Adamic “man” or “body” or “creation”—the whole world-system of the dominion of Sin and Death—was being put to death and “abolished.” It was that body which would soon be raised up and “changed” (in AD 70) into the new, Christological, spiritual “body” in the kingdom of God (the new covenant world).
The Seed Analogy (1 Cor. 15:35-50)
Paul’s illustrations from nature in verses 36-41 are problematic if they are interpreted as arguments that are aimed at someone who denies the very possibility of resurrection. How does the fact that sheep differ from sparrows serve in any way to validate the doctrine of resurrection for someone who does not believe in the very concept of resurrection? How does it serve to make the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead imaginable or feasible (345)? It doesn’t.[12][13]
The difficulty with Paul’s words concerning the bodies/fleshes/glories of creation vanishes only when we let it sink into our minds that Paul was reasoning with people who already believed in the eschatological, body-resurrection of Christians. The resurrection-of-the-dead deniers would have already agreed that a seed rising up to become a plant illustrates the truth of resurrection. And that is why Paul used the analogy. The fact of resurrection was common ground between Paul and the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers.
Paul therefore made reference to the universal death and change of seeds,[14] not to demonstrate the already-agreed-upon fact of resurrection, but to demonstrate the following four things that those who were in error at Corinth were denying:

  1. The necessity of the death of the pre-resurrection body (1 Cor. 15:36)
  2. The differentness of the pre- and post-resurrection bodies (1 Cor. 15:37)
  3. The necessity of the change of the pre-resurrection body (1 Cor. 15:38a)
  4. The universality of the pre-resurrection body and the postresurrection body (1 Cor. 15:38b)

After establishing these premises through the common-ground analogy of the “resurrection” of seeds, Paul went on to reference the whole of the material universe, because insofar as it is filled with innumerable, different bodies—just like the multitudes of different kinds of seeds and plants in verse 38b—it confirms the universality of the two different bodies (the existence of which Paul established in the seed analogy itself).
The universal diversity of the Genesis creation served as an analogy of the cosmos-changing work of the gospel. As the whole Genesis creation is filled with differing bodies (fleshes, glories), so the whole “creation” (the body) of God’s chosen ones in Adam, living and dead, “from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other,” was going to put off the old “body” of Sin and Death (the Adamic, mortal, corruptible, dishonorable, weak, and natural “old man”), and was going to be “clothed” with the wholly otherbody of Christ” (the immortal, incorruptible, glorious, powerful, and spiritual new Man; the Christological “new creation”) (Matt. 24:31; 1 Cor. 15:42-44).
The resurrection-of-the-dead deniers thought that the eschatological church was an altogether separate entity from the Adamic, old covenant world. They thought that the body of Christ essentially appeared out of nowhere, as it were, absolutely disconnected from the world that preceded it. They thought the eschatological church was buried the spiritual body and that it was going to be raised the same spiritual body on the Last Day.
The reality though was that the eschatological church was itself in the mortal, corruptible, dishonorable, weak, and natural “body” of the pre-Christ saints. It was still bearing “the image of the earthy” (1 Cor. 15:49), not in a biological sense, but in a cosmic-covenantal sense. God’s old covenant ministration of Death and Condemnation still stood, and God’s church was still an organic part of that world-order. It was therefore still in the body of Sin and Death, and was putting that body to death through the Spirit.
The pre-Christian, Adamic saints existed in a state of “mortality” in that they did not yet have consummated eternal life, redemption, and face-to-face union with God (Rom. 8:23; 1 Cor. 13:12; 1 Jn. 2:25; Rev. 22:4). They were in a state of “corruptibility[15] in that they did not yet have the incorruptible, “eternal righteousness” of Christ (Dan. 9:24). They were in a state of “dishonor” in that they were not yet clothed with the glory of the new covenant in Christ’s justifying blood (Rom. 4:24; 2 Cor. 3:7-18). They were in a state of “weakness” in that, as long as the condemning old covenant world remained standing, they had not yet inherited eternal life (cf. 1 Cor. 6:14; Heb. 7:6; 1 Jn. 2:25). They were “natural” in that they had not yet been made the spiritual dwelling of the triune God (Jn. 14:23).
Before Christ, the saints bore the image of Adam, the disobedient one. They were unable to attain to heavenly life (1 Cor. 15:45, 48-49). Their sins had grounded them in the mundane, the worldly, the carnal, the “corruptible.” Their worship of God consisted in earthly types, shadows, and copies of the heavenly. Their fellowship with God was not face to face, but was through the agency of sinful, earthly mediators. Their sacrifices were reminders of sin. They were separated from the Father.
They were under the reign of Sin and Death.
Through its body-burial and body-death with Christ, the church was putting to death that old, corruptible “world” or “body” or “creation” or “man” through the sin-killing Spirit on behalf of the dead. In the consummation of the Spirit’s work in the church, the body of God’s people, living and dead (“all Israel”), was going to be redeemed, changed, and gathered together into the eternal, spiritual kingdom of Christ.
This is the “knowledge of God” of which the resurrection-of-thedead deniers were woefully ignorant. Because they thought that the eschatological church, to the exclusion of “the dead,” was “the body [of Christ] that shall be,” they could not grasp “how” the saints of old could be resurrected with the church. Here is an expanded paraphrase of their objection in verse 35:
“We, the eschatological church, are the blood-bought body that has been sown (planted, buried) with Christ through the Holy Spirit in order that we might be raised with Him to inherit the kingdom of God. The saints of old lived and died before Christ arrived. They have not been sown (planted/buried) with Him, as we have. There is no resurrection outside of Christ’s body, and we are His body. Therefore, the dead have no part in the resurrection body. How then are the dead being raised with us? If your doctrine is true Paul, then answer this question: With what body are the dead being raised?”[16]Paul’s answer (verses 36-37):
“The dead are being raised through the burial and death of the body of Sin, of which we are still a part (since the old covenant world has not yet vanished). The dead, therefore, are being raised through our (the last-days, first-fruit church’s) dying to Sin (the burial and death of the Adamic ‘body’ with Christ) on their behalf, and they will therefore be ‘changed’ with us into the resurrected, spiritual body of Christ in the new covenant world.
“Look at your own experience for confirmation of this truth. When you yourselves are planting a seed (as God has planted us with Christ) you are not planting the tree that will be. Likewise, God did not plant the ‘spiritual body’ of the age to come in order that the same ‘spiritual body’ will emerge. That is not God’s purpose. The Christological resurrection-body is not what has been sown/buried. It is not we alone who shall be raised. Rather, it is the Adamic ‘natural body’ that has been ‘sown’ with Christ, through the Spirit in us, so that the ‘natural body’ (the dead together with the last-days-of-the-Adamic-ages church—the whole Adamic ‘man’) is now being raised up and
changed’/‘transformed’ into the spiritual body of Christ.”
The objection of the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers was not biological; it was theological. Though they understood that the eschatological church had been “buried” with Christ through the Sin-killing work of the Holy Spirit in order that the church would be raised up on the Last Day, they erroneously thought that the church had been buried so that the church alone would be raised up on the Last Day. Thus Paul’s corrections in verse 44 (KJV):
. . . [T]here is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
That is, there was not a spiritual body only, as the resurrection-ofthe-dead deniers supposed.
And in verse 46:
Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
The spiritual body did not appear out of nowhere, as the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers imagined. Rather, the pre-existing “natural body” was being raised up and transformed into the “spiritual body.”
The reality that the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers did not apprehend was that the eschatological church was in a state of Adamic bodyunion (solidarity, interdependence) with “the dead,” and it therefore stood in need of a universal body-change. The church was not merely the new man and the spiritual body. It was the dying old man; the dying body of Sin and Death.
It was not the case that the Old Testament saints would be replaced by the body of Christ. Instead, the body of Sin had to die through the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and be raised, and be changed by the same Spirit (Heb. 11:40). The church could not be saved by itself. The church was bearing the image of “the first man” and was in process of being transformed, on behalf of the dead and with the dead, into the image of “the Christ” (Rom. 8:29; 1 Cor. 15:45-49; 2 Cor. 3:18).
Without the death and universal change of “the body” through the power of the eschatological Spirit, not so much as one Christian could be made alive in the Father. The resurrection in Christ was to be cosmos-wide, or not at all. The whole world of God’s people had to be transformed.
The eschatological church thus stood in need of the consummated world-change from the “flesh-and-blood” world-body of “corruption” (sub-divine righteousness) to the “spiritual,” Christological body of incorruptible and eternal righteousness in the new covenant world (1 Cor. 15:50). If that change did not take place when the temple fell in AD 70, then Christ was never raised from the dead, the gospel was a lie, and all Christians were and are without hope. Either the eschatological church and “the dead” were changed and God became All Things in “all,” or Christ was never raised, and the church remains in her sins, and the world-body of the hand-made temple of God maintains its standing before God today.
The Universal Change (1 Cor. 15:51-58)
The coming transformation of God’s covenant-universe (dead and living, Jew and Gentile) through the gospel of the death and resurrection of the body of Christ was the “mystery” that had been kept secret since the world began. It was the mystery that the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers failed to grasp. “The dead” and the eschatological church were going to be made alive together in Christ and were going to be united in the Father. “All things . . . in the heavens and things upon the earth” were going to be summed up in Christ (Rom. 11:15, 25-26; 16:15; 1 Cor. 2:7; Eph. 1:9-10; 3:6-10; Col. 1:26-27).
The world-change, or body-change, took place and the “mystery” was fulfilled before Paul’s generation passed away (1 Cor 15:51). The sounding of the symbolic “last trumpet[17] took place when the worldly city and sanctuary fell in AD 70 (Rev. 10:7; 11:2, 8; cf. Heb. 9:8). When that old “house” fell and the old Adamic “garment” was folded up and “changed,” the dead were raised and all the elect were “clothed” with the body of Christ in the new covenant world (Heb. 1:10–12). “All” put off the old man (Adamic Sin) and “put on” the new Man (the righteousness of Christ). “All” God’s people were “clothed with” the tabernacle/body of the triune God.
When the old garment was removed and the house of the old covenant was thrown down, believers were not found “naked,” nor left “unclothed” or homeless for even the indiscernible “moment” of “the twinkling of an eye,” as would have been the case if there was no resurrection of the dead and consequently no world-change (Rev. 3:17-18; 16:15; 17:16). If there was no resurrection, then the fall of the city and the sanctuary would have been the death knell for Christians just as much as it was for unbelieving Jews. Indeed, it would have been the death knell for humanity. But because the dead were raised and the cosmos of God’s people was transformed in Christ, believers were clothed in AD 70 with the Christological, new covenant house from out of heaven (Col. 2:2; Heb. 1:12; 8:13; Rev. 16:15).
Death (condemnation and alienation from God) was deprived of its sting, which was Sin, when Sin was finally sealed up, covered over, and done away in the consummation of the Adamic/Mosaic ages through the power of Christ’s death and resurrection. This happened when Christ appeared the second time in AD 70, having consummated His high-priestly work of atonement (Lev. 16). This is when He swept away the old covenant world of Sin, Death, condemnation, and alienation and changed the universal church into the completed, anointed, Most Holy Place of God Himself (Rev. 21:2, 16; Heb. 3:6, 9:6-8).
Sin was deprived of its power, which was the Law of Moses, when through the power of the Cross, the Law came to its end in AD 70. That is when the Law-covenant (the ministration of Death and Condemnation) vanished[18] (Heb. 8:13) and “all things” in earth and in heaven (“all” the saints, living and dead) were reconciled to God (Col. 1:20).
When all these things were consummated, the corruptible and mortal Adamic body “put on” the incorruptible and immortal body of Christ (1 Cor. 15:53). The old, corruptible house (the old covenant world) fell.
The new, eternal house (the New Jerusalem) came down from out of heaven. The church and the Hadean saints were raised up and united in the one body of Christ, and were irrevocably and gloriously “changed” into the “perfect” tabernacle of God.
Thus, through the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, God gave His church the eschatological, cosmos-transforming victory of faith over Sin, Death, and the Law. Her gospel labors in Him bore world-transforming fruit. Reigning with the risen “Christ of God,” her worldburying, world-destroying, world-resurrecting, and world-changing labors were consummated in the AD-70 realization of the hope of Israel —in the universal gathering of “all” the saints, living and dead, in “the God and Father of all” (1 Cor. 15:57-58). Thus was the beginning of the Christian age, “a dispensation more divine than many are disposed to think.”[19]
Summary and Conclusion
The resurrection-of-the-dead deniers believed the following: The eschatological church was the “spiritual body” of Christ that had been buried with Christ and which was being raised up the same spiritual body of Christ. There was no “natural body” involved in the church’s resurrection with Christ. There was no body-union between the church and the pre-Christian saints (“the dead”). The dead were not going to be included in the resurrection and the kingdom. God, through the indwelling Spirit, had “sown,” or “buried,” the spiritual body of Christ (the church) so that the church by itself (to the exclusion of the dead) would be resurrected unchanged (still the same spiritual body of Christ that it was when it was buried with Christ) in the consummation.
If there was no resurrection of the Old Testament dead, these were the undesired results:

  1. God did not raise Christ from the dead.
  2. The eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ were liars.
  3. The preaching of the apostles was vain.
  4. The faith of Christians was vain.
  5. Christians were still in their sins.
  6. Christians who had fallen asleep had died in their sins (perished).
  7. The persecuted apostles were to be pitied more than all men.
  8. Christians who were being martyred for the dead were doing so for nothing.
  9. Christians were battling the enemies of the gospel by merely human power.
  10. Christians should have forsaken their sufferings and lived mundane lives.
  11. Christians would not be able to inherit the kingdom of God.
  12. Christians would remain under the curse of Sin, Death, and the Law.
  13. Christians would remain clothed with corruption, mortality, dishonor, and weakness, and would remain natural.

Here is why those results necessarily followed from the denial of the resurrection of the Old Testament dead:
God raised Christ from the dead not so that the natural Adamic body (the people of God in their Adamic state of Sin and Death) would be replaced by the spiritual body of Christ (the church). The Father raised the Son from the dead so that the Adamic body would be buried, put to death, resurrected, and transformed into the universal body of Christ. The eschatological church was not in a separate body from the Adamic dead. It was part of the natural, corruptible, dishonorable, and weak Adamic body, and was putting that body to death through the Spirit on behalf of the dead.
Apart from the creation-wide “body-change” of “all” the elect from Adam to the Last Day in AD 70, there could be no resurrection-life for any Christian. The church could not inherit the kingdom of God unless the whole universe of God’s people was resurrected and changed together. This was the cosmic scope and purpose of the Cross of Christ. This is what those who were in error at Corinth did not understand.
Though futurists today do not realize it, they are, in principle, unknowing followers of the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers at Corinth. Futurists believe that the church (the body of Christ) has been spiritually resurrected and seated with Christ in the spiritual kingdom for 2,000 years now, but that the pre-Christian (Old Testament) dead have not yet been resurrected into that kingdom. Though many futurists inconsistently believe that the Old Testament saints were released from Hades between Jesus’ death and resurrection (contradicting the timeframe of Rev. 20:14), they do not hold that those saints have been “resurrected” into the kingdom. As anti-preterist Strimple teaches (in contrast to anti-premillennial Strimple), physically dead people cannot experience a resurrection and remain physically dead.
Though futurists certainly do not deny the resurrection of the dead, they unwittingly teach a “short circuit” in the cosmic gospel-purpose of the Father when they teach that God gave the spiritual kingdom to the church on Earth, but has put off “resurrecting” the Old Testament dead into the kingdom until 2,000+ years later.
This “gap” between Christians and “the [Old Testament] dead” is not a biblical option. As Paul argued, either the dead and the church would inherit the kingdom together, or no one could inherit the kingdom at all. Either all the elect, the church and the dead, were made alive (resurrected) together in Christ in the end of the old covenant age, or all the elect remained dead in Adam (cf. 1 Thess. 5:10). In other words, either all the saints were resurrected in AD 70, or none were resurrected, not even Christ. There is no other possibility.
Therefore, as with the error at Corinth, the undesired implication of the doctrine of a yet-future resurrection of the dead is that Christ has not been raised and that our faith is vain and that we are still in our sins. Futurism is not a damnable doctrine, just as the error at Corinth was not a damnable doctrine. Nevertheless, futurism, with its parousiadelay and resurrection-delay, shares implications with the Corinthian error which, if followed through logically, ultimately serve to destroy the Faith. If Paul were alive today, it is possible that he would say to futurists what he said to his Corinthian brethren, and for essentially the same reason:
. . . [S]ome have ignorance of God. I speak this to your shame.
(1 Cor. 15:34)

[1] . Those who hold to “the collective body view” of 1 Corinthians 15 believe that the root error at Corinth was a radical kind of “replacement theology,” i.e., a disdain for Israel and a denial that historical Israel would take part with the church in the resurrection and in the kingdom of God. While that interpretation of the error at Corinth may be entirely correct, I am not convinced that it is provable that the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers had antiIsrael or anti-Semitic sentiments (though their error was certainly implicitly antagonistic to God’s historic covenant nation). For this reason, I confine my-
[2] . Charles Hill is therefore incorrect when he says: “It is not that the Corinthians could not comprehend what Paul was talking about; rather, one party in Corinth, comprehending all too well what Paul had in mind, did not find it to their liking and were opposing it.” (104)
[3] . When we consider that 1 Corinthians was written a mere twenty-five years after the beginning of Christianity, and when we consider that the eschatological, first-fruits church was already partaking of the coming resurrection, and when we consider the eager expectation in that era of the imminent fulfillment of the end of the Adamic ages and of the resurrection the dead, we should expect that believers in that historical moment would refer to the vast multitudes that had lived and died before the advent of Christ as the “dead [ones].” This is not to say that the term “the dead” in the New Testament was code for “the dead of the Old Testament in contrast to dead Christians.” It is to say only that in that eschatological generation, if reference were made to the pre-Christian dead in contrast to the relatively few dead Christians (in about AD 55), the designation “the dead” or “dead ones” sufficed.
[4] . There was therefore no need for Paul to say explicitly that the dead were primarily “historical Israel,” as Hill insists in his chapter (115). If “the dead” were the righteous, pre-Christian dead, then they were (with relatively few exceptions) none other than the saints of the historic, Abrahamic covenant community (i.e., Israel) along with the saints who lived before the promises given to Abraham.
[5] . Similarly in American law today the basic meaning of the word “body” is “a person.” “A corporalis [bodily] injuria” is “a personal injury.” We use the word “body” this way when we speak of “somebody,” “anybody,” “nobody,” or “everybody.” This usage of the word used to be more common than it is today: “The foolish bodies say in their hearts: Tush, there is no God.” (Ps. 14:1, Coverdale translation, 1535)
[6] . Although Reformed theologian Herman Ridderbos was a futurist and expected a literal transformation of the physical bodies of believers, he nevertheless understood that such Pauline terms as “the body of sin,” “the body of the flesh,” “the earthly members,” and “the body of this death” “are obviously not intended of the [material] body itself, but of the sinful mode of existence of man.” Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975), 229; Cf., Tom Holland, Contours of Pauline Theology: A Radical New Survey of the Influences on Paul’s Biblical Writings, Mentor, 2004.
[7] . “[The spiritual body] is not in the least constituted what it is by its being physical. It fulfills its essence by being utterly subject to Spirit, not by be-
[8] . “All” in 1 Cor. 15:22 corresponds to “the many” in Rom. 5:15-16 and 19. When Paul says that “all” died in Adam and that “all” would be made alive in Christ, he means that all of God’s people (the whole cosmos of Gods’ elect) died in Adam and would be made alive in Christ.
[9] . Strimple inexplicably denies this doctrine on pages 309 and 342 of
WSTTB.
[10] . In Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond, on page 62, Strimple teaches that “the end” in 1 Corinthians 15:24 is the same “end” that Jesus said would come after the gospel was “preached in the whole world” in Matthew 24:14. Thus Strimple holds that the resurrection of the dead takes place upon the completion of the preaching of the gospel “in the whole world.”   But this presents a problem for Strimple, because the gospel was “preached in the whole world” almost 2,000 years ago, in Christ’s generation, shortly before the fall of the earthly house (the old covenant world) in AD 70 (Rom. 16:25-26; Col. 1:23; 2 Tim. 4:17). If we are to accept Strimple’s sequence of events, we must conclude that the resurrection of the dead happened at the fall of the temple in AD 70, as Jesus and the apostles said it would.
[11] . This hyper-dispensational implication of the Corinthian resurrection-error (i.e., that Christ came to wage war against and to conquer the God
[12] . If the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers already believed in the historic, physical resurrection of Christ, as Strimple admits (309, 333), why would Paul have needed to convince them of the “feasibility,” “imaginability,” and “thinkability” of the very concept of physical resurrection, as Strimple says elsewhere quoting Berkouwer) (341)? How could it be that the resurrectionof-the-dead deniers were unable to accept the feasibility of a concept (1 Cor.
[13] :35) to which they already held as the gospel truth (1 Cor. 15:11)?
[14] . The necessary “death” of seeds, by the way, demonstrates that physical corruption and physical death existed before Adam sinned. The earth, by God’s decree, brought forth seed-yielding plants on the third day of creation (Gen. 1:11-13), and Adam was placed in the Garden to dress and keep the plants (Gen. 2:15). Therefore the cycle of literal seed-death and seed-resurrection/ change was already in process before Sin entered the world through the disobedience of Adam. In the same way, God’s decree to the animals and to man that both “be fruitful and multiply” implied the cycle of biological birth, biological reproduction, and biological death; and that cycle was instituted before Adam sinned (Gen. 1:22, 28). Biological death did not enter the world through Sin. It was already in the world. It was alienation from God and slavery to Sin (Sin-consciousness, spiritual Death) that entered the world through Sin.
[15] . The terms “mortal” and “corruptible” do not describe the quality or duration of Adam’s physicality or the quality or duration of his soul. They describe the quality and duration of his sub-divine righteousness and works.
[16] . Strimple favorably quotes Robert Gundry as saying, “Paul uses soma precisely because the physicality of the resurrection is central to his soteriology.” In reality, Paul used soma precisely because the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers used the word soma in their objection (1 Cor. 15:35). The meaning of the word cannot be deduced from the fact that Paul repeated it.
[17] . In Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond (112), Strimple says that since the Greek word “eskatos” (“last”) is used in the term “last trumpet,” it would “seem strange” if the “last” trumpet did not signal the end of Christ’s mediatorial reign and of the resurrection of the dead. Yet in the same book, Strimple does not think it “strange” when he says that the “last” (“eskatos”) days have thus far lasted almost 2,000 years (TVMB, 64).
[18] . Pratt (the author of chapter three of WSTTB) speaks for perhaps most futurists when he puzzles over the mention of “the law” in First Corinthians 15:56: “The emergence of the second theme regarding the law, however, seems to have no real antecedent in this letter.” (Holman New Testament Commentary: I&II Corinthians, 272) In the futurist paradigm, there is no real connection between the condemning power of the Law of Moses and the resurrection of Christians in the end of world history. Paul though makes the connection because the resurrection of the dead was going to happen when the old covenant (the Law) vanished in his generation. The two events were simultaneous (cf. 1 Cor. 7:29, 31; 10:11; 15:51-52). Cf., Law, Sin, and Death: An Edenic Triad? An Examination with Reference to I Corinthians 15:56, by Chris Alex Vlachos (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, volume 47; June, 2004).
[19] 0. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book I, chapter II.

House Divided Chapter Seven The Resurrection of the Dead Amillennialist Robert B. Strimple Vs. Full Preterist David A. Green Part 13 Romans 8:11

House Divided

Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

Chapter Seven
The Resurrection of the Dead
 
Part 13 Romans 8:11
 
David A. Green
Copyright 2009 and 2013 All rights reserved.  No part of this book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing or David A. Green), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.
Strimple Argument #13: Christ’s redeeming experience is the
model and pattern of what lies ahead for us. Romans 8:11 says that
God “will also” (i.e., just as He did for Christ) “give life to your mortal
bodies” (288, 294, 297, 326-330, 333-337). Therefore, the word “soma
(body), when used in reference to the resurrection of the dead, means
“the physical, material aspect of our person.”
 
Answer: Strimple is correct that the physical death, physical burial,
and physical resurrection of Christ was the “pattern,” “parallel” and
“model” of the church’s body-burial, body-death, and body-resurrection
with Him. And Strimple is correct that Paul said in Romans 8:11
that the same Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead “will also” give life
to the “mortal bodies” of believers.
 
Nevertheless, the eschatological church’s Spirit-empowered bodyburial,
body-death, and body-resurrection with Christ were not physical/
biological events. The “redemptive experience” of the eschatological
church was not a literal replay-in-process of what Christ experienced.
What Christ experienced physically (literal death, literal burial, and literal
resurrection), the eschatological church was experiencing spiritually
throughout the eschaton: Burial with Christ, death with Christ,
and resurrection with Christ through the age-changing power of the indwelling
Holy Spirit (Rom. 6:4-6,8; 8:17; 2 Cor. 13:4; Gal. 2:20; 3:27; Eph.
2:5,16; Col. 2:12-13,20; 3:1,3; 2 Tim. 2:11).
 
Most futurists accept the doctrine of a non-physical body-burial
with Christ and a non-physical body-death with Christ through the
Spirit. And they should. For as Paul said, “If Christ is in you, the body
is dead because of sin” (Rom. 8:10). The indwelling, Sin-killing Spirit
of Christ brought about the death of the mortal body of Sin and Death
while believers were still physically alive.
 
Preterists and futurists agree that Paul speaks of non-physical
body-death in Rom. 8:10. Yet when the doctrine of non-physical bodyresurrection
is offered, Strimple claims that such a non-physical usage
of the word “body” is “semantic sleight of hand” and a “contradiction in
terms.” He compares those who employ such a non-physical usage of
the word “body” to Humpty Dumpty arbitrarily changing the definition
of words (335-336).
 
Despite Strimple’s irrational ridicule, the Scriptures teach us that as
Christ was crucified physically, put to death physically, buried physically,
and resurrected from the dead physically, so were His people, through
His indwelling Spirit, buried bodily (yet non-physically) with Him into
His death; and while thus dying bodily (yet non-physically) with Him (to
Sin), His people were concurrently being resurrected bodily (yet nonphysically)
with Him through the same indwelling Spirit (Rom. 8:11) in
anticipation of the end of the old covenant age.
 
We know that the “body” was raised non-physically, because the
body” that was non-physically buried with Christ and non-physically
put to death with Him was, as Paul’s logic demands, to be resurrected
with Christ out of its non-physical burial and non-physical death (which
was death to the Adamic world of Sin, Death, and the Law). Therefore,
the eschatological resurrection of “the body” was necessarily non-physical
(not a biological resurrection).
 
In the second half of this chapter I will discuss the meaning of the
word “body” in eschatological, resurrection-of-the-dead contexts. For
now though, I will close this section with a preliminary argument that
bears directly on the historical basis for a resurrection unto biological
incorruptibility.
 
On page 332 of WSTTB Strimple says that Christ’s individual, postresurrection
body was physically “endowed with new qualities” so that it was physically
imperishable, physically glorious, physically powerful, and physically heavenly.
How does Strimple know this?
 
Strimple acknowledges that although Jesus, after His resurrection,
passed through locked doors, and though God “caused Him to be
seen,” and though Jesus suddenly “disappeared from their sight,” these
occurrences do not prove that Jesus’ post-resurrection body had been
changed. As Strimple agrees, even before Jesus was raised from the
dead, He walked on water, was transfigured, and “walked right through
a mob. Even the apostles themselves had passed through locked doors
and had vanished and reappeared (329).
 
Since none of those events indicate that either Jesus or the apostles
had physically imperishable bodies,[1] how does Strimple know that Jesus
had a physically imperishable body after His resurrection? Strimple
offers one piece of evidence, which is this:
 
Christ’s body would never die again. Therefore it was a physically
“imperishable, glorious, powerful, heavenly” body.
 
But this is hardly biblical proof. Enoch and Elijah were physically
taken up without seeing death. According to Strimple’s evidence,
Enoch and Elijah must have had biologically incorruptible bodies. But
if the hope of the promise is to receive a biologically incorruptible body,
then Enoch and Elijah could not have received such a body, because
Heb. 11:39 tells us that they “received not the promise.” If then, in the
futurist framework, Enoch and Elijah could not have put on physically
incorruptible bodies when they were taken up without seeing physical
death, why assume that Jesus became physically incorruptible when He
was assumed into the divine glory-cloud?
 
The fact is there is no scriptural proof that Christ’s body became biologically
incorruptible. That means that the four gospel narratives offer
no historical foundation and no Scripture-proof for the doctrine of a resurrection
of the dead unto biologically incorruptible bodies. The concept
has to be introduced into the gospel so that the gospel will better fit the
futurist supposition of an eschatological “resurrection of the flesh.”
 
Nevertheless, Strimple is so bold as to state, “ . . . [B]ut of course
the New Testament . . . lays great stress on the wonderful discontinuity
between Christ’s body before his resurrection and his body after it”
(332). Strimple offers no hint as to where in the New Testament this
“great stress” is found. That is because the “great stress” is found only
in the assumption of the futurist framework which has been imposed
upon the gospel narratives.
 



[1] Mathison in his chapter did not see what Strimple sees here. As
Mathison said: “Jesus’ resurrection body was changed enough that he was not
always recognized immediately. . . . He was also able to travel unhindered by
normal impediments. . . . ” Mathison did not realize that he was “proving” that
before Jesus’ resurrection, both He and the apostles had physically imperishable
bodies (193).
 

House Divided Chapter Seven The Resurrection of the Dead Amillennialist Robert B. Strimple Vs. Full Preterist David A. Green Part 12 Job 19:25-27

House Divided

Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

Chapter Seven
The Resurrection of the Dead
Part 12 Job 19:25-27
David A. Green
Copyright 2009 and 2013 All rights reserved.  No part of this book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing or David A. Green), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.
Strimple Argument #12: Job 19:25-27 says that Job himself, with
his own “eyes” and in his own “skin,” would “see God.” This is an allusion
to a physical resurrection of the dead. Job 14:13-17 confirms this
interpretation. In that passage it says that if Job’s vindication were to
come after his death, God would hide him in the grave until the time set
for Job’s “renewal,” and that God would then “long for the creature [His] hands have made” (294-295).
 
Answer:
For I know that my Redeemer lives, and that He shall stand at
the latter day upon the earth. And though after my skin worms
destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God. Whom I shall
see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another;
though my reins be consumed within me. (Job 19:25-27)
 
As Strimple admits, the phrase “from my flesh,” or “in my flesh,” in
Job 19:26 can be translated “without my flesh” (i.e., outside of my flesh).
Job could have been saying that he expected to be vindicated at a nonfleshly
resurrection (“without my flesh”) on the Last Day. Some preterists
take this interpretation.
 
But even if we translate the phrase to read, “from my flesh” (i.e.,
from the vantage point of my flesh), this could be taken to mean that Job
expected to see God within his own lifetime, while still in his flesh. And,
as a matter of fact, that is exactly what happened.
 
After Job’s time of tribulation and anguish, his Redeemer at last
arose on the dust and answered Job out of the whirlwind (Job 38:1).
After God’s “archers”/“troops” (i.e., Job’s accusers) surrounded and “devoured”
Job, and after Job was filled up with the afflictions of his flesh,
he was redeemed from his sufferings. He was vindicated as “a perfect
and upright man” and his enemies were judged (cf. Job 19:29 and 42:7-
9). Thus Job, with his own eyes, and from his flesh, saw God:
 
I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye
has seen You. (Job 42:5)
 
Regarding Job 14:13-17:
 
O that You would hide me in Sheol, that You would keep me secret,
until Your wrath be past, that You would appoint me a set
time, and remember me! If a man dies, shall he live again? All
the days of my appointed time [literally, “warfare”] will I wait,
till my change come [or, “until my exchanging or replacement
come”]. You shall call, and I will answer You. You will have a
desire to the work of Your hands. (Job 14:13-15)
 
If Job was prophesying concerning the resurrection of the dead in
this passage, then we must say that Job was triumphing in the idea that
his wretched and miserable condition (his “warfare”) would continue
for hundreds or even thousands of additional years while in Sheol (Job
14:14), and that only at the end of human history would God’s “wrath
(Job 14:13) against him pass, and that, only then, would Job be relieved
from his warfare as a battle-wearied soldier is replaced by another
(“changed”) (cf. Job 10:17; 14:14-15).
 
According to the logical implications of Strimple’s interpretation of
the above scripture, Job remains hidden in Sheol to this very day and
God remains angry with him to this very day. At the same time, according
to the anti-premillennial Strimple, New Testament saints who have
died are in the face-to-face presence of Christ Himself and are reigning
with Him today. Yet Strimple tells us that we cannot establish a contrast
between the afterlife of Old Testament saints, such as Job, and that of
New Testament saints (293).
 
Either God remained/remains angry with Job for hundreds or thousands
of years after Job’s death, or Job was not speaking of a vindication
at the resurrection of the dead. As the context leads us to believe, what
Job desired was vindication instead of death. Instead of resigning himself
to dying, stricken of God, Job yearned by faith for vindication and
redemption in his own lifetime. He hoped that God would not crush
him as an enemy, but would instead relent and restore him to Himself
(Job 14:14b, 15). As we know, Job’s hope was not deferred, as per futurism
(Prov. 13:12). Instead, it was fulfilled and Job was delivered and
vindicated in his own lifetime. “So the Lord blessed the latter end of Job
more than his beginning” (Job 42:12).

House Divided Chapter Seven The Resurrection of the Dead Amillennialist Robert B. Strimple Vs. Full Preterist David A. Green Part 11 Can Souls Be Raised?

House Divided

Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

Chapter Seven
The Resurrection of the Dead
Part 11 Can Souls Be Raised?   
 
David A. Green
Copyright 2009 and 2013 All rights reserved.  No part of this book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing or David A. Green), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.
Strimple Argument #11: We know that the resurrection of the
dead will be physical because there is no such thing as a non-physical
resurrection of a physically dead person (296-297, 299-300, 326).
 
Answer: The short answer to this argument is that the Bible does
not teach that there is no such thing as a non-physical resurrection of
a physically dead person. Regeneration is a non-physical resurrection,
and nowhere does the Bible exclude the old covenant dead from that
resurrection. Jesus in fact referred to the resurrection of the dead as
the regeneration” or rebirth (Matt. 19:28), and the Scriptures elsewhere
imply that the physically dead saints were “born” out of Death and Hades.
(Rom. 8:29; Col. 1:15, 18; Rev. 1:5; see answer to Strimple Argument
#6 above.)
 
Now the long answer: This answer is lengthy because Strimple’s argument
above opens up a futurist “can of worms.” I ask the reader to bear
with me as I navigate through a tangled web of futurist reasoning.
 
Strimple agrees with preterists that “resurrection” (the word and
the concept) can be used as imagery and metaphor, such as when Israel
was promised a “resurrection” to its land in Ezekiel 37:1-4. But, says
Strimple on page 326 (quoting Raymond E. Brown), when it comes to
physically dead people, there is “no other kind of resurrection” than a
physical resurrection. On page 296, Strimple quotes Murray Harris as
saying, “No one could be said to be resurrected while his corpse lay
in a tomb.” And on page 297, Strimple says that the use of the modifier
“bodily” in the term “bodily resurrection” is redundant, because a
physically dead person can only be raised physically/bodily.
 
Additionally, on pages 299 and 300, Strimple argues that the Greek
word for “resurrection” (“anastasis,” literally, “standing up” or “standing
again”), when used in reference to physically dead people, always
meant to first-century Jews and Greeks alike, the resurrection of the
physical aspect of man in contrast to the soul. Strimple supports this
claim by quoting Tertullian, who said that anastasis cannot refer to
the soul because only the physical part of man can fall down, lie down,
sleep, and “stand up.”
 
Now that we have established Strimple’s teaching on the anastasis/
resurrection of physically dead people in WSTTB let us confer with
Strimple’s refutation of premillennialism in the book, Three Views on
the Millennium and Beyond (TVMB). In that book, Strimple actually
teaches that anastasis (“standing up,” resurrection) in Revelation 20:4
refers to a non-physical soul-resurrection of physically dead people.
He defines the “resurrection” in that Scripture as the ushering in of the
disembodied (non-physical) “soul” of a believer upon biological death
into the presence of Christ to reign with Him. Strimple even goes so
far in that book as to say that physical death for the believer today is “in
truth a [non-bodily] resurrection into the very presence of the Savior
in heaven” (Emphasis added) (TVMB, 125-127, 261-262, 276).
 
If this were not confusing enough, on pages 319–320 and 337
of WSTTB Strimple says (quoting John Murray and Murdoch Dahl)
that dead believers today—even though they have been resurrected
“into the very presence of the Savior in heaven”—are actually experiencing
punishment and “condemnation” under the curse of “sin,”
“death,” and “corruption.” He says that our departed loved ones are
actually in a state of soul-and-body death (“psycho-physical death,”
as Strimple calls it). He says they are actually in a “dreadful” state
(319). Quoting Rudolf Bultmann, he teaches that they are even in
a state of “horror,” and that Jesus Himself was in the same horrific
state before He was raised from the dead (320).[1]
 
Finally, Strimple adds that our departed brothers and sisters who
are with Christ today are non-human, i.e., non-man. They are no longer
of the same human nature as Christ, and will remain sub-humans until
they are resurrected at the end of human history. (More on this below)
So we see that when Strimple is refuting premillennialists, he portrays
the Bible as teaching a present-day, non-physical resurrection of
physically dead believers into the very presence of the Savior in heaven
where they are reigning with Him. But when Strimple is refuting preterists,
he portrays the Bible as teaching strictly and only a physical resurrection
of physically dead saints, and he says that disembodied saints
today are in a state of punishment where they are longing for the day
when they will no longer be sin-cursed, condemned, sub-human, and in
a dreadful state of horror.[2]
 
In 1993, in a paper he presented in Mt. Dora, Florida, Strimple suggested
that physically dead persons cannot experience a non-physical
resurrection. Then in 1999, in TVMB, Strimple taught that physically
dead persons do experience a non-physical resurrection. Then in 2004,
in WSTTB, Strimple reverted to teaching that physically dead persons
cannot experience a non-physical resurrection. It seems that some of
Strimple’s central theological convictions come and go roughly every
six years, depending on who he is refuting.
 
The incredible tension between Strimple’s positions here is not “paradox.”
It is not an expression of “already but not yet.” Strimple’s views
are none other than the consummate example of radical contradiction.
Throughout his chapter Strimple makes much of the fact that preterists
disagree with other preterists. Yet as we have seen in this book, futurists
such as Keith Mathison and Robert Strimple not only disagree with
other futurists, they disagree with their own faith-convictions.
In view of the fact that some of the authors of WSTTB have made
their own interpretations of Scripture a proverbial “nose of wax” that
can be reshaped for the sake of expedience (304), we can begin to see
why it is appropriate that their book was called a “reformed” response.
Nevertheless, Strimple deems himself a worthy judge to call into question
the doctrinal “credibility” of preterists (300, 335-336).
 
To be fair, Strimple and Mathison are not the only ones guilty of wild
self-contradiction. The guilt belongs to the futurist camp as a whole. At
funeral services, departed believers are said to be in the highest Heaven
beholding the face of the Lord. But in seminary classrooms, departed
believers are said to be in Hades waiting for the Last Day at the end of
human history, when Hades will be cast into the Lake of Fire and believers
will finally be able to behold the face of the Lord (Rev. 22:4).
 
As far as we know, a human soul cannot be in two different places,
or in two contradictory states of being, at the same time. So where do
the dead in Christ today reside? Is it in Hades or in the highest Heaven?
 
Strimple is an amillennialist. Although the anti-premillennial
Strimple (who says that Revelation 20 teaches a spiritual resurrection
of physically dead people) roundly contradicts the anti-preterist
Strimple (who says that physically dead people cannot be spiritually
resurrected), most of Strimple’s amillennialist brethren disagree with
both Strimples. They define “anastasis” in Revelation 20:4 as regeneration;
that is, not a soul-resurrection at physical death, but a here-and now
spiritual birth through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
 
Paul agrees with amillennialists that Holy Spirit rebirth, received at
the moment of faith in Christ’s sin-atoning blood, was “the first resurrection
with Christ:
 
. . . hath quickened us [made us alive] together with Christ.
(Eph. 2:5)
 
. . . you are risen with him through the faith of the operation of
God. . . . (Col. 2:12)
 
And you . . . hath he quickened [made alive] together with him,
having forgiven you all trespasses. (Col. 2:13)
 
If ye then be risen with Christ . . . . (Col. 3:1)
 
But ye are come unto . . . the . . . church of the firstborn. . . .
(Heb. 12:22-23)
 
And because Holy Spirit regeneration was the first resurrection
with Christ” (Eph. 2:5; Rev. 20:4-6), it irresistibly follows that Christ
was the beginning and “First Fruit” of that spiritual resurrection (334).
 
Strimple rightly concedes on page 334 of WSTTB that the resurrection
of Christ was “the beginning” of the resurrection of the dead.
Apparently though, according to Strimple, Christ’s resurrection was
“the beginning” of a harvest that was interrupted as soon as it began
and which will not be restarted until thousands of years after its beginning,
even though the “first fruits” (beginning) invariably signals
not merely the nearness but the commencement of the harvest.
 
Though Christ our Forerunner was eternally begotten of God and
eternally God’s Son, He was the first to be “born” or “begotten” of God
when He was raised from the dead and given all authority to reign as
High Priest unto God (Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5). He was, for our sakes,
born” out of Adamic Death (the condemnation and alienation from
God He endured on the Cross) and Hades into the Presence of the Father.
For this reason, the Son is called:
 
The “firstborn” among many brethren (Rom. 8:29)
 
The “firstborn” of every creature (Col. 1:15)
 
The “firstborn” from the dead (Col. 1:18; Rev. 1:5)
 
Thus, the rebirth of the Hadean (Old Testament) saints in Christ
with the body-of-Christ church in AD 70 was the regeneration of “all
things,” i.e., of the universal body of the saints:
 
Your dead men shall live; together with my dead body shall they
arise. Awake and sing, you that dwell in dust: for your dew is as
the dew of herbs, and the earth shall give birth to the dead. (Isa.
26:19)
 
. . . in the Regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the
throne of his glory, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging
the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matt. 19:28)
 
Before we move on to Strimple’s next argument, let us briefly
examine Strimple’s teaching that a man without his physical body is no
longer a man:
 
Strimple teaches the non-humanity of the dead on page 337
(through a reference to Rudolf Bultmann and through a correction of
Robert Gundry). According to Strimple, one of the reasons that Paul
defended the resurrection of the body is because a departed believer is
actually a non-human until he or she is physically resurrected.
 
R. C. Sproul Jr. makes the same mistake in his Foreword to
WSTTB where he implies that his daughter will be an incomplete
“ethereal creature” between the time of her death and the time of
Christ’s Second Coming —a span of time that according to Sproul
Jr.’s view could theoretically last a million years or more. It should go
without saying that it is an unbiblical thing to believe that our loved
ones in Christ will suffer “the ravages of . . . sin” (as R. C. Sproul Jr.
puts it) potentially for aeons after the time of their death (ix). But this
is the sad, logical necessity of futurism. If our departed loved ones already
have perfect and complete sinless blessedness today before the
face of God, then there is no scriptural justification for a yet-future
resurrection of the dead.
 
In contrast to Rudolf Bultmann and Strimple, the Bible nowhere
suggests, implies, or otherwise hints that those who die become nonhumans
until they are resurrected. The resurrection of the dead is never
characterized in Scripture as the restoration of former humans back to
their lost humanity. Jesus made reference to a man in Hades (Lk. 16:22-
23), and Paul spoke of the possibility that a “man” was caught up “out
of the body” (2 Cor. 12:2). (He would not cease to be a man outside of
his body.) In both of these instances, the “man” was the non-physical
spirit/soul of the man. Additionally, if we are to say that a departed saint
is a sub-human because he is without his physical body, then we must
also say that Jesus Himself was a sub-human for the three days and three
nights that elapsed between His death and resurrection, because He did
not have his physical body at that time. We could also say, by the same
line of reasoning, that unborn babies and people with missing limbs are
not 100% humans because they also are not “complete.”
 
Contrary to the ghastly horrors of logically consistent futurism, the
departed spirit of the believer is fully human. Whether living in the
flesh or living in the heavens after physical death, the believer today is
complete in Christ. The departed believer in the new covenant world
today is not a homeless, wraithlike phantom, like an exorcized demon.
He is not a “shade” (295). He is not a quivering, shapeless “mist” like
some kind of escaped gas.
 
In stark contrast to such wildly extra-scriptural, futurist notions,
the Bible teaches us that the saints in heaven today are “like the angels
(Matt. 22:30; Mark 12:25; Heb. 1:7; 12:22-23). And they are not “naked,”
but they are “clothed” with the everlasting righteousness of Christ, the
new Man (Rev. 6:9-11; 14:13; 15:6; 19:8, 14).



[1] Yet, oddly enough, Strimple dismisses “tales of the shadowy world of
Hades and of Christ’s ‘harrowing of hell’ after his death” (293).
[2] It is noteworthy that Jesus did not say to the thief on the cross, “Today
you will be with me in a paradise of condemnation, sin, death, corruption,
punishment, curse, dread, and sub-human horror” as the anti-preterist
Strimple would have it.
 

House Divided Chapter Seven The Resurrection of the Dead Amillennialist Robert B. Strimple Vs. Full Preterist David A. Green Part 10 The Charge of Gnosticism

House Divided

Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

Chapter Seven
The Resurrection of the Dead
Part 10 The Charge of Gnosticism
 
David A. Green
Copyright 2009 and 2013 All rights reserved.  No part of this book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing or David A. Green), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.
Strimple Argument #10: Because preterists deny the physicality
of the resurrection of the dead, preterists are teaching a new form of
the old heresy of Gnosticism (313). Preterism is therefore a physicalbody-
disparaging doctrine.
 
Answer: Before answering this argument, we must first note that
though preterists deny the physicality of the resurrection of the dead,
preterists do not agree with the Gnostics on the meaning of “resurrection.”
Preterists do not believe that “resurrection” is a mystical attainment
that is realized through knowledge, secret or otherwise. The Reformed
preterist understanding of life in Christ is radically other than
the Gnostic understanding.
 
We believe that we are raised to life through one thing, and one
thing only: Faith in the historic (real, actual, physical) death and resurrection
of God the Son, the Creator of Heaven and Earth. The Gnostic
denial of this core gospel truth is one of the central errors that made
them heretics in the worst sense of the word.
 
As for the idea that preterism necessarily leads to the Gnostic view
that the body is to be despised or that it is evil, this can be quickly dismissed
with a look at Matthew 22:30. It is in that verse that Jesus said
that those who had physically died would, in the resurrection of the
dead, “neither marry nor be given in marriage.”
 
The opponents of preterism accept this teaching of the Lord, but
they do not realize that if the preterist interpretation (a non-physical
resurrection) necessarily implies that the physical body must be despised
or viewed as evil, then Jesus’ teaching (no more marriage for
those who participate in the resurrection of the dead) necessarily im-
plies that marriage, and by implication sex and reproduction, must also
be despised or viewed as evil.
 
If the preterist teaching that the physically dead saints were raised
non-physically necessarily implies that the physical aspect of man is
to be despised or that it is evil, then Jesus’ teaching that there is no
marriage for the physically dead after they are raised must likewise
necessarily imply that marriage, sexuality, and reproduction are to be
despised or considered evil. If one conclusion is necessarily true, the
other is necessarily true. If preterism is necessarily anti-body Gnosticism,
then Jesus was, by the same logic, necessarily anti-marriage, anti-
sex, and anti-reproduction. Therefore, the futurist claim that preterism
is necessarily Gnostic (physical-body-disparaging) is fallacious.
 
The truth is that marriage, sex, reproduction, and the physical body
are all good and temporary (Job 14:12; Eccles. 9:6; 1 Cor. 6:13). “Temporary”
does not equal “despised” or “evil.” As with the temporality of
marriage, sex, and reproduction, the temporality of the physical body
in no way minimizes or negates the eternality of the Spirit-empowered
works that are wrought by means of it. A temporal “tabernacle” (2 Pet.
1:13-15) in which and through which we obey and worship God “in spirit
and in truth” is by no stretch of the imagination evil or to be despised.
 
Ironically, the reason that the physically dead saints who were raised
in AD 70 did not get remarried and procreate again is because they were
raised in a non-biological manner. They were and are spirits, “like the
angels” (Matt. 22:30; Heb. 1:7). The Sadducees, like the futurists after
them, did not understand this.
 
Before I conclude this answer, there is another, related charge of Strimple
against preterists that I should address here, and that is that preterists
are naturalistic rationalists and skeptics. This accusation comes as a surprise
because it is difficult to understand how one could simultaneously
be a Gnostic and a naturalistic rationalist. How can preterists believe in
an over-spiritualized resurrection of the dead and at the same time be
steeped in, as Strimple puts it, old-fashioned, blatantly naturalistic, “the
universe is a closed system” rationalism? (307, 310, 328, 339)
 
As though these accusations were not contradictory enough, Strimple
admits elsewhere that preterists are devoted to the defense of the
divine origin and the divine authority of the Scriptures: “ . . . [T]he motivation
behind their theology and their exegesis is apologetic” (289). The
question now is how can preterists be defenders of the divine origin and
authority of Scripture and also be naturalistic rationalists and skeptics
and Gnostics at the same time?
 
While it is true that we can find certain preterists who have argued
that a physical resurrection of the dead is an impossibility because of the
dispersal of molecules throughout the aeons, it is not correct to paint preterists
in general as people who argue in that manner. I am sure that I speak
for the vast majority of preterists of Reformed background when I say that
God is able at any time to physically resurrect all people of all generations.
 
Preterists do not reject a physical resurrection of the dead because
we believe in a “closed universe,” or because we think that God lacks
ability, or because we are skeptics or rationalists or naturalists, or because
we have a Gnostic, matter-despising bent. We reject a physical
resurrection of the dead for one reason and one reason only: Because
we believe that the Word of God—the divine origin and authority of
which we are championing—teaches a spiritual, non-physical (yet
bodily”) resurrection of the dead in the end of the old covenant age.
 
Our belief in the inerrancy and divine authority of the Bible, and in
the deity of Christ, and in the goodness of God’s physical universe, and
in regeneration by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone does
not prove that we are correct in our understanding of the resurrection
of the dead, but it does prove that we are not “naturalistic Gnostics.”

House Divided Chapter Seven The Resurrection of the Dead Amillennialist Robert B. Strimple Vs. Full Preterist David A. Green Part 9 Genesis 3:19

House Divided

Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

Chapter Seven
The Resurrection of the Dead
Part 9 Union in Christ’s Death and Resurrection
 
David A. Green
Copyright 2009 and 2013 All rights reserved.  No part of this book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing or David A. Green), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.
Strimple Argument #9: If we’re not going to be resurrected physically,
then the physicality of the resurrection of Christ was redemptively
meaningless. If the resurrection of the dead is non-physical, then
Christ could have been raised non-physically only. Then the physicality
of His resurrection was merely a “brute fact” of history (330).
 
Answer: We can see the fallacy of this argument if we apply Strimple’s
logic concerning the resurrection of Christ to the Cross of Christ:
If we’re not physically crucified with Christ” (Gal. 2:20), then the physicality
of the crucifixion of Christ was redemptively meaningless. If the
crucifixion of believers is non-physical, then Christ could have been
crucified non-physically only. Then the physicality of His crucifixion
was merely a “brute fact” of history.
 
Like all futurists, Strimple knows that the physical work of Christ in
His crucifixion was to be spiritually reproduced in His people (spiritual
crucifixion with Christ); but then like all futurists, Strimple assumes
that the physical work of Christ in his resurrection was to be physically
literally reproduced in His people. Part of the reason for this assumption
is that the resurrection of His people is future in Scripture and
“bodily.” But what is missed by futurists is that the crucifixion of His
people is not altogether past in Scripture, and it is also bodily.
 
“Our old man was crucified with Him, that our body of sin might
[in the future] be annulled. . . . ” (Rom. 6:6)
 
For Paul, the past and ongoing crucifixion of believers with Christ
will be consummated in the future annulment/abolition/destruction of
the body of sin.” No futurist contends that our bodies are now spiritually
crucified with Christ and that our bodies will be literally crucified
with Him in the end of world history. In neither case (past crucifixion or
future crucifixion) is bodily crucifixion with Christ literal, even though
Christ was literally-physically crucified in His flesh-and-bone body.
In the same way, from Paul’s perspective, the resurrection of Christ’s
people with Him is past and future, and bodily. And in neither case
(past resurrection or future resurrection) is resurrection with Christ literal-
biological, even though Christ was literally-physically resurrected
in His flesh-and-bone body. (I will discuss the meaning of “bodily” crucifixion
and resurrection with Christ below.)
 
Jesus was unique in the physicality of His resurrection (just as He
was in the physicality of His crucifixion) because He was God’s one and
only body of sacrifice for sin and justification. In this sense there is discontinuity
between Christ and believers. But there is perfect, spiritual
continuity. Because we have been justified through Jesus’ physical, sacrificial
body, we now—like Jesus—bodily die to sin and bodily rise to
walk in newness of life while still in our physical bodies (Rom. 6:4).
Now we do not die alienated from God as Jesus did for our sakes. We
do not die forsaken under God’s wrath as Jesus did for our sakes. We do
not die a futile death and go to Hades as Jesus did for our sakes. Jesus
 
suffered that penalty in order to save us from experiencing it.[1] Because we
put our faith in Him, we will never be the objects of God’s wrath. Adamic
Death and Hades will never separate us from God or from His City. As
Jesus and John taught, though our physical bodies die in the new covenant
world, we “never die” “from now on” because we have already (in
our physical bodies) been given eternal life through His body of sacrifice.



[1] This is not to say that Jesus suffered torments in Hades. Jesus descended
into Hades to preach the gospel to the dead saints (1 Pet. 3:19; 4:6) in anticipation
of their imminent liberation (their resurrection into the kingdom). In a
manner of speaking, Jesus went to Hades/Sheol to distribute to His elect the
keys” out of their Hadean place of waiting (Rev. 1:18).

House Divided Chapter Seven The Resurrection of the Dead Amillennialist Robert B. Strimple Vs. Full Preterist David A. Green Part 8 Genesis 3:19

House Divided

Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

Chapter Seven
The Resurrection of the Dead
Part 8 Genesis 3:19

 
David A. Green
Copyright 2009 and 2013 All rights reserved.  No part of this book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing or David A. Green), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.
Strimple Argument #8: Genesis 3:19 (and Rom. 5:10, 14) teaches
that biological death was part of the curse. Therefore, resurrection
from biological death will be part of the reversal of the curse (317-318).
 
Answer: We must all agree that physical death was at least involved
in the curse. Genesis 3:19 cannot be interpreted any other way:
In the sweat of your face shall you eat bread, till you return to
the ground; for out of it were you taken: for dust you are, and
unto dust shall you return. (Gen. 3:19)
 
Because Adam had sinned, he was doomed to labor in vain over
a cursed earth of thorns and thistles all the days of his life, separated
from the presence of God, until he returned to his place of origin and to
the substance of his identity, which was “dust.” Because he had sinned,
Adam was dust. That is, he was defined by dust because his life had
come from the dust instead of from the tree of life.
 
Because he was condemned and alienated from God (i.e., dead),
Adam had no higher point of origin or higher identity than the earth. He
was earthy, not heavenly. Therefore his ultimate destiny as an earthbound
sinner alienated from God was to remain what he was and to
return to the dust from whence he came. Adam could not rise up and
enter again into the presence of God when he died (John 3:13), because
he was dead in the bondage and futility of Sin.
 
Though physical death was thus involved in the curse, Adam and
Eve’s Death was not physical or biological death. Their Death was the
Death that they experienced in the day that they ate of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil. God promised Adam and Eve that they
would surely die in the day that they ate of the tree. Therefore, we can
rest assured that Adam and Eve surely died in that day (cf. James 1:15),
regardless of the difficulty that Genesis 2:17 presents for futurism, and
regardless of the elaborate schemes that futurists devise in order to insert
physical death into the verse.
 
To say that Adam and Eve did not die or that they only began to die
in the day that they ate of the tree is to force fit Genesis 2:17 into the
futurist framework. And this is what Strimple attempts to do (317). Let
us note the contrast between the clarity of Scripture and the labors of
futurists to make Scripture fit futurism:
 
God: “ . . . in the day that you eat thereof you shall surely die.”
(Emphasis added)
 
Strimple: “ . . . surely . . . the seeds of psycho-physical death were
sown in [Adam’s] body and began to go to work.” (Emphasis added)
 
One might just as reasonably argue that in the day that they ate of
the fruit, “the seeds of openness were sown in their eyes and began to
go to work.” Futurist absurdities aside however, Genesis 3:8 indicates
that Adam and Eve’s Death was their Sin-consciousness, their condemnation
before God, and alienation from Him. Paul echoes this doctrine
in Romans 7. It was as a result of that Death that their existence became
a futile drudgery/slavery (a “body of Death”) that led inexorably to a
futile, sub-heavenly defeat (“dust”). Solomon reiterated the curse centuries
later in the book of Ecclesiastes where he cried out concerning
the pointlessness of both physical life and physical death in the Sin-dead,
Adamic world:
 
As he came forth of his mother’s womb, naked shall he return to
go as he came, and shall take nothing of his labor, which he may
carry away in his hand. And this also is a sore evil, that in all
points as he came, so shall he go: and what profit hath he that
hath labored for the wind? (Eccl. 5:15-16)
 
That was the dusty wilderness of futility in which the saints lived
under the reign of Adamic Death (from Adam until Christ). Despite
the discouraging claim of consistent futurism, this is not the state of the
universal body of the saints in Christ today. In Christ, the saints have
been born of (i.e., have originated from and are identified by) the Spirit
(Gal. 4:26), not the dust. They are no longer defined by Adam but are
defined by the heavenly Man, the life-giving Spirit. The saints in Christ
today have a higher point of origin and a higher identity than the saints
had in Adam.
 
Because God’s faithful ones are now reconciled to Him in one body
in the new covenant world, neither their life nor their labors in Christ
begin or end in “dust” or futility or defeat. God’s covenant-creation
(the world of His people) has been set free from the Adamic bondage
of the futility that God imposed upon it in Genesis 3:17-19 (Rom. 8:20).
The curse of Death and Hades has long been lifted through faith in the
reigning Savior.
 
And there shall be no more curse. . . . And he said unto me,
These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the
holy prophets sent his angel to show unto his servants the things
which must shortly be done. (Rev. 22:3a, 6)
 
Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from now on [c. AD
70]: Yea, says the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors;
and their works do follow them. (Rev. 14:13)
 
Note that Revelation 14:13 implies that after men are rewarded according
to their works at the eschatological judgment, generations will continue
to come and go and to be judged for their works: “Blessed are the dead
which die in the Lord from now on . . . and their works do follow them.”
Ever since the destruction of Adamic Death in the Parousia in Christ’s generation,
those who die in Christ are immediately rewarded for their works
and are greatly “blessed.” As the verse implies, and as Solomon said in
Ecclesiastes 5:15-16, this was not the case for those who died previously.
 
The coming of Christ in the end of the age did not merely “reveal”
the condition of the saints in Sheol/Hades, as Strimple supposes (292-
293). It altogether “changed” it. In the Messianic/Christian (post AD
70) world, our loved ones in Christ are not in Hades under the curse of
Sin, Death, and corruption as were the saints before Christ (319). They
do not suffer the pre-Christ fate of Ecclesiastes 5:15-16. Their righteousness,
life, and works are not Adamic, corruptible, and “ futile” (Rom.
8:20). Their service to God did not end in dust. They did not labor for
the wind. Instead: “ . . . from now on [since AD 70] . . . their works do
follow them.”
 
Compare the wonderfully comforting, preterist doctrine of Revelation
14:13 with Strimple’s dispiriting and hope-deferring claim that,
“attempts to establish a contrast between the afterlife of Old Testament
saints and that of New Testament saints are misguided” (293).
Jesus said that the Old Testament saints had not ascended up to heaven
(John 3:13). Strimple does not seem to realize that if the resurrection
of the dead did not take place when Christ and the apostles said
it would, then our loved ones today have also not ascended to heaven
and are no more blessed than were the unredeemed Jews who died
before the advent of Christ.

House Divided Chapter Seven The Resurrection of the Dead Amillennialist Robert B. Strimple Vs. Full Preterist David A. Green Part 7 Acts 17:32

House Divided

Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

Chapter Seven
The Resurrection of the Dead
Part 7 The Mocking of the Greeks in Acts 17:32
 
David A. Green
Copyright 2009 and 2013 All rights reserved.  No part of this book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing or David A. Green), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.
Strimple Argument #7: The Greeks tended to believe in soul-immortality
and had a low view of the body. This is why the Greek philosophers
in Athens mocked Paul, because he was teaching a physical
resurrection of the dead as opposed to an immaterial concept of the
afterlife like that of the Greeks (Acts 17:32) (300, 311).
 
Answer: And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead,
some mocked: and others said, ‘We will hear you again on this matter’”
(Acts 17:32).
 
From the futurist perspective, it is plausible that the philosophers
were rejecting the idea of a physical resurrection. However, it is also
plausible (even from the futurist perspective) that they were rejecting
the idea of personal existence of any kind after death, whether material
or non-material.
 
Though many of the Greeks believed in soul-immortality, the Stoics
(Acts 17:18) did not believe in a personal existence of the soul after
death, such as would allow for the dead to stand in judgment for their
works (Acts 17:31). And the Epicureans (Acts 17:18) tended to reject
the very existence of the soul after death.
 
We cannot infer from the mockery of the philosophers at Athens
what kind of resurrection of the dead Paul was teaching or what kind
of resurrection of the dead they were rejecting. We cannot infer from
the passage whether the philosophers were rejecting the idea of a biological
resurrection, or the idea of a non-biological resurrection, or the
idea of a personal resurrection (whether it be biological or not), or the
idea of any kind of resurrection whatsoever (whether personal, impersonal,
biological, or non-biological). All we know is that “some” of the
philosophers sneered when they heard Paul’s teaching concerning the
resurrection of the dead (Acts 17:31-32).

House Divided Chapter Seven The Resurrection of the Dead Amillennialist Robert B. Strimple Vs. Full Preterist David A. Green Part 6 John 5:28-29

House Divided

Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

Chapter Seven
The Resurrection of the Dead
 
Part 6 John 5:28-29
 
David A. Green
Copyright 2009 and 2013 All rights reserved.  No part of this book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing or David A. Green), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.
Strimple Argument #6: John 5:28-29 obviously teaches a physical
resurrection of the dead in that it speaks of a time in which “all who are
in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good
to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection
of judgment” (297).
 
Answer: In order to understand John 5:28 and 29, we must first look
three verses above it, in John 5:25, where Jesus said that the hour “now is
when “the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear
shall live.” As most Reformed interpreters agree, Jesus in that verse was
referring to the preaching of His death and resurrection. The preaching
of that message commenced at Pentecost. “The dead” were physically
living people who were spiritually dead in sin, and “the voice of the Son of
God” was the gospel. Having heard the gospel, those who were spiritually
dead” were spiritually resurrected. They lived in that they received eternal
life through faith in the gospel (“the voice of the Son of God”).
 
Then, in verses 28 and 29, Jesus expanded His teaching on the resurrection
to include those who were not only spiritually dead, but who were
also physically dead. He did not call them “dead” (as He had already called
the living who were spiritually dead), but He referred to them through another
figure of speech as “all who are in the graves.” They were not literally
in their graves or tombs, of course, but were in Hades/Sheol.
 
What is often missed in this passage is that, like the physically living
in verse 25, the physically dead in verse 28 were also going to live
by means of hearing Christ’s “voice.” As we know from verse 25, that
voice” is the gospel. The physically dead therefore were going to hear
the gospel (cf. 1 Pet. 4:6.) and were, as a result of hearing the gospel,
going to be resurrected (regenerated, born from out of death and Hades).
This means that the physically dead were, like the physically living,
spiritually dead. And this inescapably means that both the physically
living and the physically dead were going to be spiritually resurrected
by means of the gospel-voice of the Son of God. One resurrection in
two main stages: First, the last days saints; then, the Old Testament
dead (“the rest of the dead” in Revelation 20:5).
 
After hearing the gospel, the dead were raised out of their Adamic
graves (Hades) in the end of the age. And those among them who believed
the gospel received eternal life in the kingdom of God. But those
who hated the gospel (those who had done evil) were raised out of Hades
only to stand before God and to enter into “eternal punishment” /
the second death” (Matt. 25:46; John 5:28-29; Rev. 20:14).

House Divided Chapter Seven The Resurrection of the Dead Amillennialist Robert B. Strimple Vs. Full Preterist David A. Green Part 5 Daniel 12:1-3

House Divided

Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

Chapter Seven
The Resurrection of the Dead
Part 5 Daniel 12:1-3
 
David A. Green
Copyright 2009 and 2013 All rights reserved.  No part of this book (or article)may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing or David A. Green), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.
Strimple Argument #5: Daniel 12:1-3 says that “many of those who
sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, some to
shame and everlasting contempt.” This is obviously referring to a physical
resurrection of the dead. Additionally, God tells us that this prophecy
is to be fulfilled in “the time of the end” (Dan. 12:4), which is the end
of human history (295).
 
Answer: Daniel’s prediction of the resurrection of the dead begins
with these words: “And at that time . . . ” “That time” refers back to the
end of chapter 11. Philip Mauro in his book, The Seventy Weeks and
the Great Tribulation, argues convincingly that Daniel 11 ends with a
prophecy of Herod the Great.[1]
 
Herod, the first enemy of the incarnate Christ, died very shortly
after Christ was born. It was “at that time” that Christ (“Michael,” “the
Chief Messenger”) stood up for the saints. It was at that time that Christ
came into the world for His people and took on the body of sacrifice
that the Father had prepared for Him (Dan. 12:1; Heb. 10:5-7; Ps. 40:6;
cf. Rev. 12:7).
 
It was the “stand” for the elect that Christ made in His Incarnation
that led to the “war in heaven” (Matt. 11:12; Rev. 12:7), which in turn
led to fleshly Israel being overtaken in the death-throes of the Great
Tribulation (Dan. 12:1). Jesus promised that that time of distress was
going to take place within His own generation, and that it would be consummated
in the destruction of the city and the sanctuary (Dan. 9:26;
12:1; Matt. 24:1-2, 21, 34). That event took place in August-September
of AD 70.
 
According to the angel who spoke to Daniel, it was at that time that
the power of the holy people would be shattered (Dan. 12:7), that the
church would be delivered (Dan. 12:1), that the resurrection of the dead
would take place, and that the righteous would inherit the kingdom
(Dan. 12:2). Jesus, in harmony with Daniel, promised that the kingdom
would be taken from the wicked and given to the righteous in the lifetime
of the chief priests and Pharisees (Mat. 21:43-45). Therefore, “the
time of the end” (not “the end of time,” as it is sometimes mistranslated)
in Daniel 12:4, 9 was not the end of human history; it was the end of
redemptive history in Christ’s generation.
 
It was in AD 70, therefore, that many who slept in “the earth’s dust
awoke. To “sleep in dust” is a figure of speech. The dead were not literally
sleeping, nor were they literally in the dust. They were “in dust
only insofar as, in their death, they had not ascended into God’s presence
in Christ. In terms of the righteousness and life of God, they were
earth-bound. From a literal standpoint, they were in Sheol/Hades (the
abode of the Adamic dead), and it was from out of Sheol that they were
raised to stand before the heavenly throne of God (Dan. 12:1-2).
Futurist James Jordan writes regarding Daniel 12:13:
 
What Daniel is promised is that after his rest in Abraham’s bosom,
he will stand up with all God’s saints and join Michael on
a throne in heaven, as described in Revelation 20, an event that
came after the Great Tribulation and in the year AD 70.[2]
 
Regarding the word “many” in Daniel 12:2: The word is not used
in contrast to “all” (as “the many” is used to limit the term “all men” in
Rom. 5:12, 15, 18-19) or in contrast to “a few.” The angel simply referred
to a large number of people; to multitudes (NIV). No inference can be
made from the context as to whether “many” referred to all or to only
a portion of the dead. Only subsequent scriptures revealed that the
many” in Daniel 12:2 referred whole company of all the dead
from Adam to the Last Day.



[1] Philip Mauro, The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation (Swengel,
PA: Reiner Publications [now Grace Abounding Ministries]), 135-162.
[2] James B. Jordan, The Handwriting on the Wall: A Commentary on the
Book of Daniel (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision Inc., 2007), 628. (Emphases
added)
 

House Divided Chapter Seven The Resurrection of the Dead Amillennialist Robert B. Strimple Vs. Full Preterist David A. Green Part 4 Acts 23:6 Paul's Agreement With the Pharisees On a Coming Resurrection

House Divided

Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

Chapter Seven
The Resurrection of the Dead
Part 4 Acts 23:6 Paul’s Agreement With the Pharisees on a Coming Resurrection

David A. Green
Copyright 2009 and 2013 All rights reserved.  No part of this book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing or David A. Green), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.


Strimple Argument #4: In Acts 23:6, Paul aligned himself with the
Pharisees regarding the resurrection of the dead. This indicates that Paul
believed with the Pharisees in a physical resurrection of the dead (296).
 
Answer: I am not aware of any evidence that the Pharisees would
have rejected a man from their party if he believed in a non-physical
resurrection of the dead. For all we know, a certain percentage of the
Pharisees (including Saul/Paul) believed in a non-physical resurrection
of the dead.
 
But even if there is evidence that belief in a non-physical resurrection
of the dead disqualified a man from being a Pharisee, the issue in
Acts 23:6-8 was not the nature of the resurrection of the dead. It was
the existence of the resurrection of the dead vs. the non-existence of the
resurrection of the dead. As we know, The Sadducees were denying that
there was any afterlife, while Paul and the Pharisees agreed that there was
an afterlife, and an imminent resurrection of the dead. Other issues connected
with the resurrection of the dead were not under consideration.
 
It has been argued by some that Paul would have had to have agreed
with every major doctrine the Pharisees taught about the resurrection
of the dead. It is argued that if he didn’t, then it would have been deceptive
for him to call himself a Pharisee in regard to the resurrection of
the dead.
 
But this argument proves too much. Are those who make this argument
prepared to say that Paul believed that the souls of dead saints
hovered over “Luz bones”? Are they prepared to say that Paul believed
in a whole host of Jewish resurrection-myths, including the myth that
the dead will be raised wearing clothes, and the myth that those who
died outside of Jerusalem would have to dig their way back to the city in
order to be resurrected?
 
But beyond such myths, we know that Paul and the Pharisees could
not have possibly agreed on every major point touching the resurrection
of the dead. Though the Pharisees agreed with Paul that the resurrection
of the dead was a true doctrine and that it was about to happen,
the Pharisees definitely did not believe that Christ Jesus Himself
was “the Resurrection” (John 11:25); and they definitely did not believe
that the resurrection “hope” of Israel was “Christ in you” (Acts 23:6;
24:15; Col. 1:27). As concerns the Christological nature of the resurrection,
Paul and the Pharisees were worlds apart. Yet Paul said he was a
Pharisee concerning the resurrection of the dead, because Paul and the
Pharisees, in contast to the Sadducees, believed in the existence of the
resurrection of the dead. With that point of agreement, Paul divided
and conquered his enemies.

House Divided Chapter Seven The Resurrection of the Dead Amillennialist Robert B. Strimple Vs. Full Preterist David A. Green Part 3 Carnal Jewish Hopes

House Divided

Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

 
Chapter Seven
The Resurrection of the Dead 
Part 3 Carnal Jewish Hopes
 
David A. Green
Copyright 2009 and 2013 All rights reserved.  No part of this book (or article)
may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher
or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing or David A. Green), except
in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.

Strimple Argument #3: Mainstream Jews in the time of Jesus believed
in a physical resurrection of the dead. Martha reflected that
“standard Jewish hope” when she said that Lazarus would “rise again in
the resurrection on the last day” (John 11:24) (295-296).
 
Answer: Preterists are not the only ones who differ with the Jews
in the time of Jesus. Strimple also disagrees with them. As far as we
know, mainstream Jews at that time believed in the shadowy realm of
Hades. Strimple apparently rejects that doctrine. It is also likely that
the Jews in the time of Jesus erroneously believed that “the Christ” and
the Prophet” were two different people (John 1:25). It is probable that
Strimple rejects that mainstream Jewish doctrine as well. The Jews further
believed that the Messianic kingdom would be a literal, nationalistic
kingdom. Strimple disagrees with that “standard Jewish hope.”
 
More importantly though, many or most of the Jews at that time
believed the resurrection and judgment of the living and the dead were
about to happen. In fact, we know that most Christians in the time of
Jesus believed that very same doctrine, because there is no doubt that
the authors of the New Testament books believed it. Yet Strimple and
all other futurists categorically reject the doctrine that the resurrection
and judgment were about to happen in the apostolic generation, despite
the sure, prophetic, and authoritative word of Jesus and the Apostles:
 
The Son of Man is about to come in the glory of His Father with
His angels; and will then recompense every man according to
his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are
standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son
of Man coming in His kingdom [to recompense every man according
to his deeds]. (Matt. 16:27-28)
 
He has fixed a day in which He is about to judge the world in
righteousness. . . . (Acts 17:31)
 
There is about to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the
wicked. (Acts 24:15)
 
As he was discussing . . . the judgment about to come. . . .
(Acts 24:25)
 
The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.
(Rom. 16:20)
 
Christ Jesus, who is about to judge the living and the dead. . . .
(2 Tim. 4:1)
 
Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. . . .
(1 Pet. 4:5)
 
Evidently, Strimple feels that he is at liberty to reject the consensus
of the Jews and even of the church and of the apostles themselves in the
time of Jesus regarding the timing of the prophesied consummation. Yet
at the same time, Strimple believes that the consensus of Jews in the time
of Jesus can serve as legitimate contributing evidence against preterism.
Strimple is here using an unjust weight to judge preterism.
 
Regardless of the majority view of the Jews in Jesus’ day,[1] if we assume
that Martha did express a belief in a physical resurrection of the dead, we
can only interpret Jesus’ response to her as a correction of that belief:
 
I am the Resurrection and the Life; he who believes in Me shall
live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me
shall never die. Do you believe this?” (John 11:25-26)
 
Biological reanimation is not the resurrection and the life. Jesus
is the Resurrection and the Life. To “live” (i.e., to be resurrected) is to
believe in Him. We who put our trust in Christ’s sin-atoning blood in
the new covenant world today are in “the Life,” and we shall “never die.”
As we will discuss in more detail below, since the consummated death
of the Adamic, old covenant “man” in AD 70, the universal church is
now and forever the resurrected, living, and “spiritual body” of Christ.



[1] According to Keith Mathison, the prevailing belief of the Jews in Jesus’
day was that “when Israel was restored in the age to come, those faithful Jews
who had died would be raised to participate in it” (172). Mathison believes
that Israel was restored in the first century (169). If we accept Mathison’s
timeframe for the restoration of Israel, and if we must accept the “prevailing
belief” of the first century Jews, then we must conclude that the resurrection
of the dead took place in the first century.
 

House Divided Chapter Seven The Resurrection of the Dead Amillennialist Robert B. Strimple Vs. Full Preterist David A. Green Part 2 Romans 8 and 2 Peter 3

House Divided

Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

 
Chapter Seven
The Resurrection of the Dead
Part 2 Romans 8 and 2 Peter 3
 
David A. Green
Copyright 2009 and 2013 All rights reserved.  No part of this book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing or David A. Green), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.
Strimple Argument #2: According to Romans 8 and 2 Peter 3,
when the resurrection of the dead takes place, the heavens and the earth
—the whole physical creation—will be physically transformed and
physically renewed. Therefore the resurrection of the dead will also be
physical and will involve a physical transformation/renewal (321-326).
 
Answer: When Paul and Peter wrote their epistles:
 
1. God was “ready to judge the living and the dead” (1 Pet. 4:5).
2. It was “time for the judgment to begin” (1 Pet. 4:17).
3. Believers were living in “the last days” (2 Tim. 3:1; 2 Pet. 3:3).
4. Believers were living in “the last times” (1 Pet. 1:20).
5. Believers were “hastening” the coming of the day of God, when
the Morning Star would arise in their hearts (2 Pet. 1:19-20;
3:3, 5, 11-12).
6. The glory and salvation of Israel was “about to be
revealed”/“ready to be revealed” (Rom. 8:18; 1 Pet. 1:5; 5:1).
7. The night was “almost gone” (Rom. 13:12).
8. The day of salvation was “at hand” (Rom. 13:12).
9. God was “soon” to crush the ancient enemy, Satan, under the
feet of the first-century church (Rom. 16:20), in fulfillment of
Genesis 3:15.
10. “The end of all things” was “at hand” (1 Pet. 4:7).
 
If we are to let the words of Scripture say what they say in their
context, we must admit that the biblical time of eschatological crisis is
now history. The apostles Paul and Peter, through the inspiration of the
Holy Spirit, fully expected the heavens and the earth (the world) to burn
and dissolve in their own generation (2 Pet. 3:7, 10-12). Therefore, we
are to rest in faith that this event, according to God’s faithful and sure
prophetic word, was fulfilled in the apostolic generation.
 
Futurist objections notwithstanding, it requires no stretch of the
imagination to believe God’s word in this regard. We know that when
Peter spoke of the “heavens” and the “earth,” he did not mean the literal
sky and the planet. Peter believed that the heavens and the earth of
Noah’s day were destroyed (2 Pet. 3:5-6). Peter certainly did not think
that the literal stars (“the heavens”) were destroyed in Noah’s flood.
 
When Peter spoke of the end of the world (“the end of all things”), he
was speaking of the world-order in which he lived. He was speaking of
the pre-redemption world that was speedily coming to a consummation
through the power of the recently slain Lamb of God. Peter was not
writing in scientific terms concerning hydrogen and oxygen melting.
He was writing in the fervent, poetic language of the prophets concerning
the impending end of the old covenant age and the resulting liberation
of “the creature” / “all Israel” (all the saints, living and dead) from
the slavery and futility of the spiritual corruption of Sin.
 
Peter’s prophecy in 2 Peter 3 was a reiteration of Isaiah 24. In that
chapter, Isaiah spoke of the time when the sun and the moon (the heavens)
would be confounded and ashamed (Isa. 24:23) and when the earth
would be burned, broken down, dissolved, and would fade away (Isa.
24:4, 6, 19-20). Isaiah was speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem.
 
The heavens and the earth” referred to the pre-Messianic, dead-in-
Sin world of God’s people. That old creation or cosmos was dissolved,
and it vanished shortly after Peter wrote his epistles, in AD 70. There is
no biblical rationale for appending a “resurrection of the flesh at the end
of human history” to the teachings of the apostles.
 
One final note: The Bible says that after the Parousia, after the fulfillment
of all prophecy, in the new heavens and the new earth, there will
be cursed nations that will, year by year, refuse to worship God (Zech.
14:16-19). After the fulfillment of all prophecy, there will be those who
attack God’s people, though ultimately to no avail (Isa. 54:15-17). After
the fulfillment of all prophecy, there will be people loving and practicing
lies outside the city of God in the new heavens and new earth (Rev.
22:14-15).
 
Strimple says that this biblical doctrine is “incredible” and that it
does not “satisfy” him (323). It is the task of futurists to believe and to
be satisfied with what God’s word teaches concerning the eternal, Messianic
world in which we live today.

House Divided Chapter Seven The Resurrection of the Dead Amillennialist Robert B. Strimple Vs. Full Preterist David A. Green Part 1 2 Timothy 2:16-18

House Divided

Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

 
Chapter Seven
The Resurrection of the Dead
 
David A. Green
Copyright 2009 and 2013 All rights reserved.  No part of this book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing or David A. Green), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.
Dr. Robert B. Strimple’s sixty-six page chapter in WSTTB can be
summed up in thirteen basic arguments that defend the doctrine
of a literal, physical resurrection of the dead. In this chapter, I will respond
to Strimple’s thirteen arguments. I will then offer a brief exposition
of 1 Corinthians 15.
 
Strimple’s Thirteen Arguments[1]
 
Strimple Argument #1: Preterists teach that the resurrection is past.
Therefore preterists are under the condemnation of the heretics Hymenaeus
and Philetus, who said that “the resurrection is past already” (2
Tim. 2:16-18) (WSTTB, 287, 312-315).[2]
 
Answer: If we read 2 Timothy 2:16-18 on the premise of futurism
(belief in a literal, physical resurrection of the dead), we will reason that
Hymenaeus and Philetus were not only wrong about the timing of the
resurrection, as Paul said they were, but that they were more importantly
wrong about the nature of the resurrection. We will reason that
the faith-overthrowing aspect of their error must have been their denial
of a biological resurrection of the dead. This would mean that the malignancy
of their doctrine had to do with the nature of the resurrection,
even though Paul condemned only their timing of the resurrection.
 
Futurism must, against the flow of thought in the text, smuggle its
own assumption (a biological resurrection of the dead) into 2 Timothy
2:16-18 in order to make it a preterist-anathematizing text. This means
that the only exegetical argument that is used for condemning preterists
as false brothers is based on the logical fallacy of question begging.
 
But if we read the passage on the premise of preterism (a non-biological
resurrection of the dead), we should reason that the error of Hymeneus
and Philetus was that they were teaching that the resurrection had
been fulfilled under the Law (1 Tim. 1:8; Titus 1:10; 3:9; Heb. 8:13). They
were teaching that “the hope of Israel” (Acts 23:6; 24:15, 21; 28:20) was
already fulfilled in the AD 60’s and that there was therefore never to be a
termination of the covenant of fleshly circumcision and animal sacrifices.
 
Their error implied that the kingdom was not going to be taken
from the scribes and Pharisees, as Jesus said it would be. It implied
that the final destruction of the city and sanctuary would never happen.
It implied that fleshly Israel had inherited the eschatological kingdom
with the church and that the ministration of death and condemnation,
with all of its reminders of sin, would continue forever. It implied that
believers, having already attained unto the resurrection (cf. Phil. 3:11–
12), would be forever under the yoke of the Law of Moses.
This is why the doctrine of a pre-70 resurrection was a radically anti-
gospel, anti-grace, faith-overturning blasphemy (1 Tim. 1:20; 2 Tim.
2:18). This is why Paul condemned the timing instead of the nature of
the error, because insofar as the realization of the hope of Israel (the resurrection)
was necessarily synchronous with the eternal disinheritance
of the Christ-rejecters in Israel, timing was everything.
 
Perhaps we cannot know with certainty what date Hymenaeus and
Philetus assigned to the resurrection. Perhaps they taught that the Jewish
revolt against Rome in AD 66 was the fulfillment of the resurrection.
Whatever the case, the resurrection error at Ephesus was a Judaizing
heresy that served to put believers back under the slavery of the Law.
 
Before we go on to Strimple’s next argument, let us look briefly at
Paul’s silence in regard to Hymeneus’ and Philetus’ concept of a non-biological
resurrection of the dead. If Paul was expecting a literal, biological
resurrection, is it not odd that his only criticism of the gangrenous
resurrection-error was in regard to its timing? Could it be that Paul
agreed with Hymeneus and Philetus in regard to the nature of the resurrection,
and disagreed with them only in regard to the timing? Paul’s
words in 2 Thessalonians 2:2-8 give us the answer to this question.
 
In that scripture, Paul told believers how they could know, after the
fact, that the Day of the Lord had taken place. First, Paul said, “the
apostasy” or “the falling away” would take place and “the man of sin”
would be revealed (2 Thess. 2:3). This “man of sin” would take his seat
in the temple of God, thus displaying himself as being God (2 Thess.
2:4). Then he would be slain and brought to an end (2 Thess. 2:8). By
the unfolding of these events, believers would know that the Day of the
Lord had come.[3] The man of sin was, after all, to be destroyed on the
Day of the Lord.
 
However, Paul had taught in his previous epistle to the Thessalonians
that on “the day of the Lord,” the dead in Christ would rise and be
caught up” together with the living (1 Thess. 4:15-5:2). If Paul thought
those events were going to involve the literal, biological metamorphosis
and removal of the dead and of the church on Earth, then Paul would
have known that there were, inescapably, only two possible ways that
anyone could know that the day of the Lord had already come.
 
Either:
 
1. You suddenly found yourself in a new body made of “spiritual
flesh” while hovering in the clouds during a meeting with the
Lord in the air.
 
Or:
 
2. You suddenly discovered that the tombs of believers were
empty and that the church no longer existed on planet Earth
and you were left behind.
 
But Paul did not use either of these arguments. Paul instead told
believers simply to look for the rise and destruction of the man of sin in
order to know that the day of the Lord had come. According to Paul, if
believers perceived that the man of sin had been destroyed, then believers
could know that the day of the Lord (and therefore the resurrection
and the “catching away” of the church) had come to pass. The resurrection
of the dead and the “catching away” were not events that involved
the molecular change or disappearance of corpses or the disappearance
of the church from planet earth.[4]



[1] Though I label these arguments as “Strimple” arguments, most of them
are not, strictly speaking, Strimple’s arguments, but are the standard arguments
used by futurists to defend the doctrine of a “resurrection of the flesh.”
[2] Strimple’s editor Mathison undercuts Strimple’s effort here (and the effort
of most or all others who anathematize preterists) by casting a haze of
uncertainty over 2 Timothy 2:17-18 and refusing to use the passage to anathematize
“hyper-preterists.” Mathison forfeits all biblical authority to anathematize
“hyper-preterists” when he implies that “the resurrection” in 2 Timothy
2:17-18 could possibly have been fulfilled in AD 70 (194-195).
[3] The Zealots captured the temple in AD 68. They abolished the priesthood
and turned the temple of God into their own personal house of murder.
They were destroyed in AD 70.
[4] See Michael Sullivan’s response to Mathison for an exposition of 1
Thessalonians 4:14-17 and 2 Timothy 2:17-18.

Philippians 3 – Question/Challenge on What Death/Resurrection is in View

Anti-preterism:
why did Paul claim his hope was to attain the resurrection of the dead [Phil. 3:11], if the “death” to be overcome was purely a relational issue with God.  Had Paul’s relationship with God not been restored?  Are we to believe the man who wrote the majority of the N.T. had not been “raised”?
Response:
To reduce the biblical-preterist understanding of Adamic death to “purely a relational issue with God” void of any cosmic-covenantal context or meaning, is a False Witness caricature.    🙂
Another question:
If the resurrection was going to be literal-physical, why did Paul have to explain to his readers that he had not “already attained” to the resurrection of the dead?  Why did he have to explain to his readers that he was not already “perfect“?  Why did he have to explain to his readers that he did not consider himself to have already “apprehended” (Phil. 3:12-13)?      🙂
Philippians 3 portrays the contrast between the fading body of humiliation (the sinful old covenant life-work-world of God’s people) and the advancing, descending-out-of-heaven
body of Christ’s glory (the redeemed, new covenant life-work-world of God’s people).
The Old covenant =
* Fleshly circumcision (Phil. 3:5)
* The stock of fleshly Israel (Phil. 3:5)
* Human righteousness of the law (Phil. 3:6, 9)
* Minding “earthly things” (Phil. 3:19)
= The earthly, fleshly, and merely human “body” of humiliation (Phil. 3:21)

The New covenant =

* Circumcision made without hands (Phil. 3:3; Col. 2:11)
* Worshiping God in the spirit (Phil. 3:3; Jn. 4:23-24)
* Righteousness “through the faith of Christ, the righteousness
which is of God by faith” (Phil. 3:9)
* “the resurrection of the dead” / perfection (Phil. 3:11)
= The divine body of Christ’s glory, from out of heaven (Phil. 3:20-21)
In AD 70, the Savior descended from out of heaven and subjected the fading old-covenant world (Israel’s humiliating body of Sin and Death) to Himself, and transformed it, through the indwelling Spirit, into the body of His divine righteousness, life, and glory (Phil. 3:21; John
3:16-17; Rom. 8:10-13; 2 Cor. 3:7-18; 2 Cor. 5:1-5).
Dave   🙂

Commentary on the Gospel of John

By David A. Green
www.PRETERISTCOSMOS.COM
God sent His Son to save His chosen ones out from among His covenant-people, the Jews, and to save His chosen ones who were scattered among the nations (Jn. 10:16; 17:2).  God sent His Son to make these two One (i.e., “one new man” in Christ), to raise them up to become the dwelling of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Jn. 14:23).
Apart from those whom the Father had chosen, God’s people rejected His grace, His righteousness, and His salvation.  But Jesus, God’s Word made flesh, accomplished salvation by the Father’s sovereign will (Isa. 55:11; Jn. 6:65).  Jesus died for sins, rose from the dead, and then returned to the Father and gave his chosen ones the Holy Spirit –the Comforter; the Spirit of truth; the living Water of eternal life (Jn. 7:38-39; 14:16-18, 26-27; Jn. 15:26; Jn. 16:7, 13-14).  In so doing, He granted them faith in His Cross, divine righteousness, and heavenly birth (Jn. 3:3, 7).  He gave them ears to hear, and life from the dead (Jn. 5:25).  He set them free from the bondage of the slavery of Sin (Jn. 8:34-36).
He also equipped them for the eschatological ministry of calling out His people from within the old world of Law and Condemnation (Jn. 1:17), to build them up to become the house of God through the power of the Holy Spirit, that they would bear the eternal fruit of the kingdom of heaven, as branches in Christ the true Vine (Jn. 15:1-8, 16).  Through the Spirit, God put to death and buried the “old man,” and raised up the new, heavenly Man of divine righteousness in Christ (Jn. 12:24).
As Christ was from above (Jn. 3:31; 8:23), so His church had been born from above.  Its life and righteousness were from heaven, by grace, instead of from commandment-keeping.  For this reason, the world of “flesh” and “blood” and “the will of man” hated and persecuted the church as it had hated and persecuted Christ (Jn. 1:11-13; 15:18-19).  But the church, through the power of the Spirit, endured its trials and kept the faith to the end of the age.
On that “last day,” the church’s world-changing death and resurrection with Christ was complete.  His Parousia (coming/presence) was consummated, and He raised up His chosen, His bride.  The good Shepherd, He gathered all his sheep together to inherit eternal life in the kingdom of God (Jn. 10:2-16, 27-30), making them one with Himself –the true, living, and spiritual Bread and Body of Life that has come down from out of heaven and remains forever (Jn. 1:14; 6:32-58; 1 Cor. 10:17).
It was thus, in the consummation of the ages, that God, through Christ, both saved “the world” (all who were chosen of the Father –the believing Jews/Israelites, living and dead, and the gentiles who were united with Israel in Christ –Jn. 3:16-17), and condemned “the world” (His old covenant people who remained in unbelief, and all who rejected the gospel of His sin-atoning death and resurrection –Jn. 17:9).
In my Father’s house are many mansions [abodes]. . . . I go to prepare a place for you.  And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.  And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. . . . I am the way, the truth, and the life” (Jn. 14:2-4, 6).
In the old covenant age, the earthly temple was the Father’s house (Jn. 2:16).  But when the Gospel of John was written, that house was soon to be gone (Jn. 4:21; 5:2).  It was going to be “swallowed up,” as it were, by the temple that was not made with hands, and that was about to begin its descent from out of heaven.  That house was going to clothe the universal church, in the new covenant world, on the last day (Acts 7:49):
For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.  For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven.  If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.  For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.  Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit” (2 Cor. 5:1-5).
Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5).
And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after; But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end” (Heb. 3:5-6).
The “place” that Jesus “prepared” for His church was “the New Jerusalem” (Heb. 11:16; Rev. 3:12; 19:7; 21:2).  He prepared it by means of the Holy Spirit, which He poured out upon His people.  As the church (God’s new covenant tabernacle/house) was being progressively built up in the last days of the old covenant, the (most holy) “place” / “city” / “abode” / “tabernacle” / “house” of God was progressively coming down out of heaven.  This was the eschatological process of Christ being “formed” in His people (Gal. 4:19)The Parousia of Christ took place, through the Spirit, from Pentecost to the fall of the Jerusalem of bondage in AD 70 (Matt. 26:64; 28:20; Jn. 14:18; Rev. 3:12; 21:2-3, 10; Gal. 4:25).  When the city and the sanctuary fell, the Father and the Son consummately arrived from out of heaven, and made Their Most Holy Place, or “abode,” (Greek mone –Jn. 14:23) in and among “the bride” who had been “prepared” through the Spirit (Dan. 9:24; Rev. 21:2).
Since that day nearly 2,000 years ago, all believers in heaven and earth, living and dead, are where Jesus is:  With the Father in the Holiest of Holies, which is now the church itself –the Father’s new covenant house of many “abodes” (Greek mone –Jn. 14:2).
Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him” (1 Thess. 5:10).
For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living” (Rom. 14:9).
As other scriptures confirm, the “blessed hope” of every Spirit-indwelt believer in “the last days” (AD 30-70) was that he/she would, on “the last day,” become the completed temple, not of the Holy Spirit only, but also of the Father and the Son:
If anyone loves Me [through the Holy Spirit], he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We [the Father and the Son] will come to him [on the Last Day], and make Our abode with him” (Jn. 14:23).
My children, with whom I am again in labor until Christ is formed in you” (Gal. 4:19).
in whom the whole building, being fitted together is growing into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit” (Eph. 2:21,22).
that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man; so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith…” (Eph. 3:16,17).
to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Col. 1:27).
And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts” (II Peter 1:19).
Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him, and will dine with him, and he with Me” (Rev. 3:20;  This promise was written to believers.).
And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband.  And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He shall dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be among them” (Rev. 21:2,3).
The following events in the Gospel of John were about to take place, or be consummated, on the last day:
1.         The destruction of Jerusalem (Jn. 4:21; 11:48)
2.         The Judgment (Jn. 12:48)
3.         The burning of the fruitless branches (Jn. 15:6)
4.         The harvest (Jn. 4:35-38)
5.         The resurrection of the living and dead, just and unjust (Jn. 5:28-29; 8:56; Jn. 6:39-40, 44, 54)
6.         The Second Coming (Jn. 14:3; 21:22)
7.         Christ taking His chosen ones to be with Him (Jn. 14:3; 17:24)
8.         The scattered children of God being gathered together and made one (Jn. 10:16; 11:52)
9.         The marriage of the Lamb and His bride (Jn. 1:29, 36; 3:29; Rev. 19:7-9; 21:9-10)
10.       The triune God making His abode in the church (Jn. 14:23)
11.       The church attaining to the perfect knowledge of her union with God (Jn. 14:20; 1 Cor. 13:12)
12.       God’s people no longer worshiping in Jerusalem, but in spirit and in truth (Jn. 4:21-23)
God had told Caiaphas (who was high priest during Jesus’ ministry in the flesh) that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation and “gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad” (Jn. 11:51-52; 18:14).  Shortly after Caiaphas had received that prophecy, the chief priests and the Pharisees (the thieves, robbers, strangers, and hirelings of John 10:1-13) had a council.  They feared that if the people believed Jesus to be the King of Israel (as so many were coming to believe), that Caesar would send his armies to put down the sedition, and take away their place and nation (Jn. 11:48).  So Caiaphas advised the council, based on the prophecy he had received from God about Jesus.  He said, “It is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not” (Jn. 11:50).  It was because of that advice that the chief priests and the Pharisees “took counsel together for to put [Jesus] to death” (Jn. 11:53).
This is a subtle yet profound irony in the Gospel of John.  The chief priests and Pharisees, based on a prophecy given by God, took counsel to murder Jesus in order to save their place and nation from being taken away by the Romans.  (Or at the least, that was their faithless and perverted rationale for killing the righteous One.)  But as was foreordained of the Father, their murder of Jesus and of His disciples was the direct cause of God bringing the Romans to take away their place and nation, i.e., to shatter the power of the chief priests and Pharisees (Dan. 12:7), to destroy Judea, Jerusalem, and the temple in AD 70 (Matt. 21:38-45).
In that work of divine vengeance and salvation, God established the promised kingdom in Christ’s blood, in which the sheep of His flock no longer worship Him through types and shadows in the earthly Jerusalem of death and condemnation (2 Cor. 3:7-9).  Now we worship the triune God in His Presence, in the glory of resurrection-life through faith in His blood, in face-to-face union, in peace with God and man through Christ, forever and ever (Jn. 4:21, 24; 1 Cor. 13:12; 2 Cor. 3:7-18; Rev. 22:4).
Neither pray I for these [the twelve apostles] alone, but for them also which shall believe on Me through their word; that they all may be one; as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be one in Us: that the world may believe that You have sent Me.  And the glory which You gave me I have given them; that they may be one, even as We are one.  I in them, and You in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them, as You have loved Me.  Father, I will that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am; that they may behold My glory, which You have given Me: for You loved me before the foundation of the world” (Jn. 17:20-24).

David Green Responds to Talbot-Jason on the WCF Q&A 85

Talbot-Jason has posted a superb example of the “full preterist presuppositions” that have increasingly emerged from within the church in history.
The Westminster Confession of Faith:
Q. 85. Death being the wages of sin, why are not the righteous delivered from death, seeing all their sins are forgiven in Christ?
A. The righteous shall be delivered from death itself at the last day, and even in death are delivered from the sting and curse of it; so that, although they die, yet it is out of God’s love, to free them perfectly from sin and misery, and to make them capable of further communion with Christ in glory, which they then enter upon.

My response:            

Note on the one hand:  We must wait for the end of human history (which the Confession calls “the last day”) before we can be “delivered from death.”
Yet on the other hand:  When saints die today, they are delivered from “the sting” and “curse” of death, and are perfectly freed from sin and misery in glory.
There are at least two problems here:           🙂
ONE:  If after believers die they are immediately delivered from the sting and curse of death, and are perfectly freed from sin and misery, then how are they in need of “deliverance” from death?  Hello.    🙂   “And the saints around the throne prayed, Lord please save us from this sting-less, curse-less,perfect freedom from sin and misery in glory’” (Revelation 23:13, The ‘Consistent’ Futurist Version).
TWO:  1 Corinthians 15:54-55 makes it crystal clear that “the sting of death” is NOT removed UNTIL the Resurrection of the Dead:  “So WHEN this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, THEN shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.  O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
Versus the WCF:
“The righteous . . in death [today] are delivered from the sting [of death].”

As one can see, there is a flat contradiction between the Westminster Confession’s full preterist presuppositions and its futurist exegesis.  The flawed eschatological exegesis of the post-apostolic church has said that the Resurrection of the Dead is yet future, while the church’s Spirit-presupposition has always, and increasingly, taught that the Resurrection of the Dead stands wholly consummated in the body of Christ today and forever.
Talbot-Jason:
Oh, we’ll receive a nasty blow alright, but Death will not hold us down for the count.
Jesus:
Whosoever liveth and believeth in Me shall never die. Believest thou this?” (Jn. 11:26)
Talbotism’s unspoken answer:
“No.”
Talbot-Jason:
our enemy’s name is Hades
My response:
God crushed the enemy of the saints beneath the feet of the church about 2,000 years ago (Rom. 16:20; Rev. 3:9), the cardboard of Talbotism notwithstanding.
Talbot-Jason:
. . . i used to float around Florida and Tennessee with my big ole swollen head, . . . with my superior reasoning skills
My response:
Under Dr. Talbot’s tutelage, Talbot-Jason has indeed undergone a startling transformation:  He has gone from one who was puffed up wearing the badge of Full Preterism, to one who is puffed up wearing the badge of Historic Orthodoxy.
In the Talbotian error, only Jesus has attained to the fulness of the promise made to the fathers, while Jesus’ disciples in heaven (or in Hades, according to Talbot-Jason) remain in the diabolical grip of Corruption and Death, and will remain in that state of “groaning” until AD 1,000,000 (or whenever).  And yet at the same time, Jesus’ disciples in heaven have been “delivered from the sting and curse of death” and are “in perfect freedom from sin and misery” (WCF, quoted approvingly by Talbot-Jason).            🙂
And, while the saints are in heaven today, their spirits are not really separated from their physical bodies.  It only appears that way to the church.  Fortunately the church has Dr. Talbot to remove the veil of Illusion from the face of Death.  If it wasn’t for his insight, we would all think the saints in heaven today are living with Christ separate from their physical bodies.        :^)
Yes, it is hard to believe that Talbotism prides itself on its superior use of logic, and its avoidance of all theological paradox.       🙂        :^o        :^O
I would agree though that Talbotism is free of paradox.  It’s fraught with full on, universe-shattering Contradiction.

In What Sense Did Jesus Leave, Stay and Then Return In AD 70 – Brief Study of Acts 1:6-11–3:17-23 and The Anaology of Scripture

By David Green / Michael Bennett / Michael Sullivan
Talbotism or Partial Preterism would ask:
. . . Jesus left. And unless you ignore his promise to be with them until the end of the age, you would have to agree that there is a sense in which he didn’t leave. Well, it seems awfully obvious to me now that the sense in which he left was in regards to his human nature; which includes a body. He physically left them. Acts 1 clearly demonstrates that.  And there is nothing illogical about that answer.  If that isn’t the sense, then what is? . . . In what sense did he leave and in what sense did he stay. . . ?
David Green’s Comments:

My response:
The answer to Talbotism’s question is found in the answer to these seven questions:
1. “…until Christ is formed in you.” (Gal. 4:19)
The church was looking forward to when Christ would be formed in it.  But Christ was already in the church.  “In what sense” then was He later “formed” in the church?
2. “in whom the whole building, being fitted together is growing into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit” (Eph. 2:21,22).

The church was looking forward to when it would become God’s “holy temple” / dwelling.”  But the church was already God’s temple/dwelling.  “In what sense” then did the church later become God’s temple/dwelling.
3. “So that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith….”
(Eph. 3:17)

Paul’s desire was that God would strengthen believers with might by Christ’s Spirit in the inner man “so that Christ would dwell in [their] hearts through faith.”  But Christ was already dwelling in believers’ hearts through faith.  “In what sense” then did Christ later dwell in believers’ hearts through faith?
4. “to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Col. 1:27).

The church’s glorious hope (her expectation) was “Christ in you.”  But Christ was already in the church.  “In what sense” then did Christ later dwell in the church?
5. “And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the Morning Star arises
in your hearts
.” (II Peter 1:19)

Believers were looking forward to “the day” when “the Morning Star” would arise in their hearts.  But the Morning Star (Jesus) was already dwelling in their hearts.  “In what sense” then did Jesus later arise in believers’ hearts?
6. “Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him, and will dine with him, and he with Me” (Rev. 3:20;  This promise was written to believers.).

Jesus told believers that if any one of them opened the door, He would “come in to him, and will dine with him.”  But Jesus was already dwelling in believers and dining with them.  “In what sense” then did Jesus later dwell in believers and dine with them?
7. “…If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him.” (Jn. 14:23)

Only spirit-indwelt believers love Jesus.  Yet Jesus said that a time would come when the Father and the Son would make their abode in Spirit-indwelt believers.  Yet the Son was already dwelling in Spirit-indwelt believers.  “In what sense” then did Jesus and the Father later make Their abode in Spirit-indwelt believers?
The rhetorical question of the two men in white apparel: “Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven?
Their question implied that it was pointless for the disciples to stand there gazing up into the sky as Jesus went up.
But, why/how was it pointless for Jesus’ disciples to stand there gazing up into the sky as He went up?

Was it because Jesus wasn’t going to come back for many years?  Was it because the disciples had a lot of work to do and didn’t have time to stand around?
Neither of these reasons were the explanation the two men gave for their rhetorical question.  They did not say, “Why stand ye gazing up into heaven?  Jesus isn’t going to come back for a long, long time.”  Nor did they say, Why stand ye gazing up into heaven?  You have a lot of work to do and limited time in which to do it.”
No, according to the two men, it was pointless to stand there gazing into the sky as Jesus went up, because Jesus was going to “come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11).
In the futurist framework, that argument, of course, makes no sense.  There was no point in looking into the sky as Jesus went up because He was going to come back physically?  That’s a non sequitur.
In the preterist framework though, the words of the two men do make sense.
There was no point in looking for Jesus to come back down out of the sky, because He was to come in the manner in which they had “seen” him going into the sky:
Hidden from ordinary sight, in divine glory (Acts. 1:9; 1 Tim. 3:16).
Michael Bennett comments:
Milton Terry (1898)
“Acts i, 11, is often cited to show that Christ’s coming must needs be spectacular, in like manner as ye beheld him going into the heaven.” But (1) in the only other three places where, what manner, occurs, it points to a general concept rather than the particular form of its actuality. Thus, in Acts vii, 28, it is not sonic particular manner in which Moses killed the Egyptian that is notable, but rather the certain fact of it. In 2 Tim. iii, 8, it is likewise the fact of strenuous opposition rather than the special manner in which Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses. And in Matt. xxiii, 37, and Luke xiii, 34, it is the general thought of protection rather than the visible manner of a mother bird that is intended. Again (2), if Jesus did not come in that generation, and immediately after the great tribulation that attended the fall of Jerusalem, his words in Matt. xvi, 27, 28, xxiv, 29, and parallel passages are in the highest degree misleading. (3) To make the one statement of the angel in Acts i, 11, override all the sayings of Jesus on the same subject and control their meaning is a very one-sided method of biblical interpretation. But all the angel’s words necessarily mean is that as Jesus has ascended into heaven so he will come from heaven And this main thought agrees with the language of Jesus and the prophets.”
“Whatever the real nature of the parousia, as contemplated in this prophetic discourse, our Lord unmistakably associates it with the destruction of the temple and city, which he represents as the signal termination of the pre-Messianic age. The coming on clouds, the darkening of the heavens, the collapse of elements, are, as we have shown above, familiar forms of apocalyptic language, appropriated from the Hebrew prophets.
“To make the one statement of the angel in Acts 1:11, override all the sayings of Jesus on the same subject and control their meaning is a very one-sided method of biblical interpretation. But all the angel’s words necessarily mean is that as Jesus has ascended into heaven so he will come from heaven. And this main thought agrees with the language of Jesus and the prophets.”[1]
If “in like manner” means “in exactly the same way” then:
• How does Jesus come from heaven riding on a white horse (Rev. 19:11)?
• How does He come “with ten thousand of His saints” (Jude 14)?
• How does He come “as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west” (Matt. 24:27)?
• How does He come “with a loud command [shout] . . . and with the trumpet call of God” (1 Thess. 4:16)?
• How does He come “in blazing fire with his powerful angels” (2 Thess. 1:7)?
We have seen various legitimate reasons / arguments and statements why Acts 1 is not about a future coming it is in regards to the AD70 coming of Christ a “2nd” time (Heb. 9:26-28).  Here is another more point – consider the CONTEXT regarding the kingdom. and the dates that the Father sets that no one knows. Where have we seen that and are there time texts etc. attached to those. After all that is the context of Acts 1. That is the question that is being answered by the “two men dressed in white.”
Immediate Context of Acts 1:9-11
“3After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. 6So when they met together, they asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” 10They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11″Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”
The context of Acts 1 is:

  • The coming of the kingdom.
  • You (disciple’s – contemporary audience) do not know the time or dates.
  • The disciple’s preaching the gospel to all the world.

Needless to say – the kingdom was “near” and that is a time text and Matthew 24 cannot be divided into 2 comings because Luke 17 mixes the event so not knowing the day / hour (Matt. 24:36) or times / dates (Acts 1:6ff.; 1 Thess. 5:1ff.) etc. was a reference to AD 70.   Also note that both are about the gospel reaching the world etc.
(Matthew 10:7) “As you go, preach this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven is near.
(Matthew 24:14, 34, 36)  “And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. 34I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 36″No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Michael Sullivan’s Comments:
1)  How Christ went and would return
In our book House Divided, pages 101-102 I wrote:
“Mathison errs when he says that Jesus was going to come back in the same way that He “departed.” The Scriptures say that Jesus would come in the same way He had entered the sky. He entered the sky hidden from literal eye sight in the cloud of God’s glory.
Here is the order of events:
1. As they looked, He was taken up (Acts 1:9).
2. A cloud received Him from their eyes (Acts 1:9).
These first two events could very well have happened simultaneously.  As Mathison himself admits, the verse could be translated, “He was lifted up; that is, a cloud received Him out of their sight.”
It is a very real possibility that Jesus was instantly hidden in the cloud at the moment His feet left the earth.
3. Then the disciples saw Him going into the sky. That is, they looked intently into the sky as He was ascending in the cloud (Acts 1:10-11).
. . . The question of the two men was rhetorical, and it meant, “There is no use in standing here longing for Jesus to return to you and to be as He was in the days of His flesh (Heb. 5:7). He will come, but He will come in the manner you saw Him enter heaven —hidden from physical eyes in the cloud of the Father’s glory.”
2)  Christ’s return will follow the completion of the Great Commission
On pages 98-104 I noted how Keith Mathison in one of his books claims:
Acts 1:9-11 has – “…no reference to time connected with the prediction of the return of Christ.” (WSTTB?, 185, emphasis mine)
But in another book he writes,
The time frame is hinted at in the preceding context.  The disciples are given a commission to be Christ’s witneses “in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth” (Acts 1:8).  The implication is that Christ’s visible return will follow the completion of the mission to the remotest part of the earth.” (Postmillennialism, 117, bold emphasis mine).
God saved 3,000 believers (new exodus motif. 3,000 died at giving of law 3,000 live from NC life in the Spirit – the law produces death the Spirit life etc…) from “every nation under heaven” in (Acts 2:5, 41) and sent them back out into their “every nation under heaven” and or “world” (Greek ge) to proclaim the gospel.  By AD 70 “every nation under heaven” and this “world” (Greek ge) Jesus is referring to had been preached to (Rom. 1:18, Cols. 5-6, 23).  Therefore, the “implication” of Partial Preterism and that of Mathison, is that Christ returned in AD 70 when the “time frame” of “the disciples commission” was fulfilled.  Selah.
3)  The “restoration of the kingdom” (Acts 1:6) .
is also inseparably connected to the coming of the Lord in (v. 11).  And yet, the “restoration” of the kingdom Jesus identified with John the Baptist/Elijah — preaching repentance because of an imminent wrath and judgment associated with the  the great and dreadful day of the Lord (Matt. 3:7-12; Matt. 11:10-14; Matt. 17:10-13; Isaiah 11; Mal. 3-4).  Oddly another coming of the Lord Partial Preterism claims took place in AD 70.  ecause Peter was preaching to his contemporary audience telling them to act (per Gentry)!
4)  The “Great and dreadful day of the Lord” in (Acts 2:20ff.)
Partial Preterism also teaches that the contemporary repentance preached to Peter’s generation in Acts 2 along with the “great and dreadful day of the Lord” was fulfilled by AD 70 (Acts 2:20–40).   One of Gentry’s reasons being that Peter was preaching to his contemporary audience telling them to act! Let’s now pick back up the “restoration of the kingdom” or the “restoration of all things” — contemporary exhortation to act in repentance in connection with the Lord’s return in Acts 3 and Hebrews 9:24–10:37.
5)  Picking back up the “restoration of the kingdom” or “until the time comes for God to restore everything” “times of refreshing” (Acts 3:17-23) etc…
These NT terms reached there fullness and mature state when the Second Coming of Lord took place in AD 70 (Luke 21:27-32/Acts 3:17-23/Heb. 9:24–26-28–10:1YLT, 25, 37).  So far according Partial Preterism the coming of the Lord in Acts 1:11 and Acts 2:20-21 took place in AD 70.
But what about in chapter 3 — is there anything in this chapter that would indicate a different coming of the Lord spread out over thousands or millions of years?  Per the logic and reasoning of Gentry in Acts 2, the same Jewish contemporary audience is being exhorted to repent  and if they didn’t  this coming of the Lord would result either in their sins being forgiven (those that would repent), and for  those who refused to repent – they would be “completely cut off from among his people” (Acts 3:17-23). These are those who would not listen to the greater prophet than Moses (Christ) predicted by Moses in Deuteronomy 18:15-19.  And what was the message of “this prophet” (Jesus)?  Was it not that His return in their generation would mark the fulfillment of all that has been written in the OT – time of redemption for those that trusted and repented and the time of punishment for those who would not (Luke 21:22-32)?!? 
Luke 21:20-32 & Acts 3:17-23

  • Same coming of the Lord.
  • Same salvation/redemption for believers and punishment for unbelievers – Jews “his people.”
  • Same fulfillment of all the OT prophets and scriptures.

Since the OT prophets predicted the “restoration of the kingdom” or “the restoration of all things,” when Christ would come from heaven (Acts 1:6-11/3:17-23) and Partial Preterist’s admit that the OC “heaven and earth” of (Matt. 5:17-18) passed away in AD 70 — therefore, the coming of Christ and the restoration of all things pertaining to God’s kingdom found in the law and prophets were fulfilled and reached there mature state by D 70.
And verse 24 wraps up the sermon informing us that all which has gone before (all the OT’s Prophets testimony) “foretold these days” – that is the “last days” and coming of the Lord in salvation or judgment that was preached in the previous chapter in ( Acts 2:17-21, 38-40; see also 1 Peter 1:4-12).  Many Partial Preterists believe the “last days” were from AD 30 – AD 70.  This being the case, the Lord comes from heaven at the end of “the last days” of the OC age at which time He came from heaven to save the remnant and “judge His people (Israel).”  And these same Partial Preterists we are addressing in this article would affirm that the salvation of Israel in Romans 11 was also fulfilled by AD 70.  Since it is grammatically impossible to separate the time given for Christ to come from heaven to reward with forgiveness of sins and or judge these first century Jews “his people” in (Acts 3:19-23) in their “last days” or “these days,” we must ask these Partial Preterists if there is going to be another Old Covenant “Israel” “his people” in the future when Christ returns but yet again?
The bottom line exegetical facts are from Acts 1:6–3:23 we have the:

  • Same contemporary exhortation/audience directed at the Jews to repent for killing their Messiah.
  • Same coming of the Lord in salvation or judgment that we saw in chapter 2.
  • Same “restoration” motif and coming of the Lord we saw in Acts 1:6-11!
  • Same “last days” or “these days” time period (AD 30 – AD 70) for these OT predictions to take place.

Hebrews 9:24-28–10:37 “Time of reformation” “Appear a second time apart from sin.”
Partial Preterist Mathison cites (Heb. 9:28) as an “indefinite reference” of the second coming since the verse allegedly does not contain a time text (WSTTB?, p. 202). But R.C. Sproul in refuting Kistemaker says that this passage includes both His first and second coming occurring by AD. 70 and that a “considerable time” is very much an issue with this text,
This passage refers to both the first and second appearances of Christ. The context for his first appearance is “the end of the ages.” Yet his followers are still waiting for him to appear a second time.” “…If Christ’s first coming at “the end of the ages” has already occurred and if considerable time has elapsed since that coming, then it is impossible to identify “the end of the ages” with the end of time. If the second appearing of Christ here refers to his judgment on Jerusalem, it would still fit in the framework of “the end of the ages” that is not the end of all time.[2]
But probably the best and most straightforward statement comes once again from Partial Preterist Milton S. Terry,
The ‘end of the age’ means the close of the epoch or age—that is, the Jewish age or dispensation which was drawing nigh, as our Lord frequently intimated. All those passages that speak of ‘the end,’ ‘the end of the age,’ or ‘the ends of the ages,’ refer to the same consummation, and always as nigh at hand.” “…the writer regarded the incarnation of Christ as taking place near the end of the aeon, or dispensational period. To suppose that he meant that it was close upon the end of the world, or the destruction of the material globe, would be to make him write false history as well as bad grammar. It would not be true in fact; for the world has already lasted longer since the incarnation than the whole duration of the Mosaic economy, from the exodus to the destruction of the temple. It is futile, therefore, to say that the ‘end of the age’ may mean a lengthened period, extending from the incarnation to our times, and even far beyond them. That would be an aeon, and not the close of an aeon. The aeon of which our Lord was speaking was about to close in a great catastrophe; and a catastrophe is not a protracted process, but a definitive and culminating act.[3]
This text is where we get the term “the Second coming” of Jesus , and we have partial preterists such as Sproul and Terry conceding to a common sense Full Preterist interpretation of the passage as possibly or being fulfilled at the end of the OC age in AD 70.  Mathison just avoids the issues but in another work does say of Hebrews 9:1-28,
“In 9:1-10, the author continues his argument by explaining the temporary nature of the Old Testament tabernacle and its ceremonies. The tabernacle and its sacrifices were never intended by God to be permanent. They were to continue until the “time of reformation” (v.10).12 Hebrews 9:11-28 describes what happened when this time of reformation arrived.” (Postmillennialism, ibid., p.132).
He then goes on to quote Philip E. Hughes whom agrees with us that the imagery here is that of the High Priest going into the Most Holy Place tabernacle/temple on the Day of Atonement to make sacrifice and intercede for the covenant people before coming back out “a second time” in declaring that the sacrifice had been accepted and applying or sprinkling the blood etc… The problem for Mathison, is that the time texts within the broader and immediate context of this chapter demand “the time of reformation” process or the eschatological “not yet,” to arrive in its fullness within an imminent AD 70 time frame and not millennia. In his debate with Full Preterism, he does not want to draw attention to this fact let alone allow the imminent contextual flow surrounding the passage to be an exegetical factor (8:13, 9:6-10, 10:1, 13/17, 25, 37) which Sproul says is an exegetical issue that needs addressing. We couldn’t agree more! Once again we find Mathison’s response more than “shallow,” it is nonexistent!
Just in passing, on Hebrews 9:8, — I would agree with commentators who would identify the “first” compartment being the Holy Place (not the entire tabernacle) – symbolizing the Old Covenant age still having a “legal standing,” “have status” or “functioning” and the Most Holy Place being representative of the New Covenant age in-breaking upon the old.  Full and complete face to face access (of the age changing process between AD 30 -AD 70) is given behind the veil within the Most Holy Place at the blowing of the last trumpet when the Second Coming of Christ takes place in AD 70 (Rev. 11:15-19; 21:16–22:3-4, 6-7, 10-12, 20; 1 Cor. 13:12/2 Cor. 3:7–5:10/6:16).
The context of Hebrews 9-10 is the same in which we see developed in Acts 1:6–2:20ff.–3:17-23:

  • A exhortation given to a contemporary audience regarding an imminent judgment/salvation (forgiveness of sin).
  • Concerning the “time of reformation” connected to…
  • The coming of the Lord – a second time.

Partial Preterism (in this case as seen in the hateful Talbot cult obsessed with bearing false witness against Full Preterism – almost on a daily basis as documented on David Greens pretcosmos yahoo list) continues in its hardness in fighting against the analogy of Scripture when trying to reconciling all of the component parts of Acts 1-3 with passages they say were fulfilled by AD 70.  The vast majority of Christianity and creedal statements understands the coming of Christ in Acts 1:11 as the same event as depicted in Matthew 24-25/1 Thess. 4-5/Rev. 1:7 etc… They also correctly identify the Great Commission in Acts 1:8 with that of Matthew 24:14; Mark 16:15-18/Matthew 28:18-20.  If the church is still in the “last days” (depending on which Mathison or Partial Preterist book you read now days) and the commission of the disciples has not been reached throughout the “world” / “every nation under heaven” or to “all nations,” then Mathison and reformed Partial Preterists should be open to speaking in tongues and reworking their theology on the charismata (Acts 1-2; Mark 13:10; 16:15-18).  Selah.
Conclusion:
When we compare Acts 1:6-11 with the rest of the NT addressing its various motifs —

  • How Christ went (hidden in the glory cloud) was being formed in the Church and returned “in like manner” (hidden in glory and “in” or “within” the Church).
  • When the “restoration of the kingdom” would come connected to its day/hour and times and seasons…
  • The Great Commission being preached throughout the “world” (Greek ge) being when…
  • Christ would appear a “second time” at the end of the Old Covenant age (even quoting Partial Preterist theologians themselves on Acts 1:9-11/Heb. 9:26-28/Matt. 24-25/Rev. 1:7) we can readily see…
  • That the Second Coming of Christ was fulfilled by AD 70.

Partial Preterists have to continue to kick against the goads seeking the “validation of men” in order to please their creedal supporters and hide from these “simple” truths of Scripture.  We affirm that the creeds are correct in that Acts 1:6-11/Acts 3:20-21/Matt. 24:30-31; 25:31ff. are one event and describe the judgment and resurrection of the “quick and the dead.”  But according to Luke in the book of Acts and Jesus, these were event’s that were “about to” take place in Jesus’ and Luke’s first century “this generation” (Acts 17:31YLT/WEY; Acts 24:15YLT/WEY; Matt. 24:30-34).  And yet this article/response is to Talbot-Jason and Talbot-Frost whom are now quoting reformed creeds and confessions which actually connects Acts 1:11 with Matthew 24:30; 2 Peter 3 and Revelation 22:20 (which they claim happened in AD 70) as the SAME EVENT!  Partial Preterism continues to lead their readers into Full Preterism no matter what they do – selah.  [facebook][tweet][stumble][pinterest][follow id=”Username” ]


[1] Milton Terry, Biblical Apocalyptics: A Study of the Most Notable Revelations of God and of Christ; Baker Book House; pp. 246-247 see note #34 too)
[2] R.C. Sproul, THE LAST DAYS ACCORDING TO JESUS, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), 106.
[3] Milton S. Terry, Biblical HERMENEUTICS A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments, (Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), 441-442.

 

From Babylon to Babylon: An Exposition of Daniel's Seventy Weeks

Seventy weeks have been determined for your people and your holy city, to shut up the transgression, to seal up sin, to cover over iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophet, and to anoint the Most Holy Place. (Dan. 9:24)
So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the Prince, there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and trench, even in times of distress. (Dan. 9:25)
Then after the sixty-two weeks the Anointed One will be cut off and nothing shall remain to Him [or, “but not for Himself“]. And the people of a coming prince[or, “of [the] coming Prince“] will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will be with the flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. (Dan. 9:26)
And He will confirm a covenant with the many for one week, and in the middle of the week he will cause sacrifice and offering to cease; and on a wing [or, “overspreading“] of abominations will come a desolator, even until the end. And that which was decreed shall pour out on the desolator. (Dan. 9:27)

Summary Chronology of the Seventy Weeks (dates approximate):
First Seven Weeks Begin: In 538 BC, Cyrus issued his decree to rebuild the temple and the city.
First Seven Weeks End/Sixty-Two Weeks Begin: In 445 BC, Nehemiah rebuilt Jerusalem.
Sixty-Two Weeks End/Last Week Begins: In AD 28, Messiah was anointed at His baptism. From thence, He confirmed the new covenant with His church. In AD 30, He was “cut off” (crucified).
Middle of the Last Week: In perhaps AD 66, God gave fleshly Israel up to reprobation so that there no longer remained a “sacrifice for sins” (Heb. 10:26-27). At that time, Continue reading “From Babylon to Babylon: An Exposition of Daniel's Seventy Weeks”

Preterism and Reformed Theology

My Response to Dr. Kenneth Talbot’s Interview on Covenant Radio

At the beginning of the interview William Hill asked Dr. Talbot:
“How would you respond to the objection that says, okay, we are appealing to the historical analysis of this particular doctrine that has been explained for us for the last 2,000 years, and by doing so we are denying sola Scriptura. What would be your response to that particular argument?”
MY RESPONSE:
The question was invalid. I don’t know of any preterist who would say that “appealing to” an “historical analysis” is tantamount to “denying sola Scriptura.” So far as I know, no preterist of Reformed background has any problem with “appealing to” historical interpretations of the church.
The problem is Continue reading “Preterism and Reformed Theology”

The Theological Novum of the Reformation

My Response to William Hill and Dr. J. V. Fesko

In my response to Gentry’s interview on Covenant Radio, I said that the post-apostolic church never taught “forensic justification by faith alone” until about the year 1500. Here is the quote:

“As for the argument that the church couldn’t have been wrong about eschatology for about 2,00 years (or more accurately, about 1,800 years), Gentry is yet again using a Roman Catholic argument. How could the Reformers have been correct about ‘forensic justification by faith alone’ when the post-apostolic church NEVER taught that doctrine until about the year 1500? According to Gentry’s fallacious reasoning, Reformed Theology must be an unbiblical and damnable heresy. Gentry’s argument (‘Hyper-preterism’ is new in church history. Therefore it is Continue reading “The Theological Novum of the Reformation”

Kenneth Gentry: Eck Redivivus

On September 16, 2009, Kenneth Gentry and Kenneth Talbot were interviewed by William Hill on Covenant Radio. This is my response to Gentry’s part in the interview.
In the beginning, Mr. Hill asked Gentry to give “a basic definition” of “hyper-preterism.”
Gentry began his response by saying that the definition of “hyper-preterism” is a difficult question to answer, and that the question becomes more difficult day by day. This is because “the hyper-preterism movement,” said Gentry, is made up of divided, warring factions. It’s a fragmented and continually fragmenting movement that is continuing to “mutate.” It’s like “mercury” in that it “beads up in different directions.”
But then, oddly enough, Gentry immediately gave a basic definition of “hyper-preterism.” He said that “basically” hyper-preterism can be defined as the belief that all biblical prophecy (specifically, the Second Coming, the Resurrection, and the Final Judgment) was fulfilled by AD 70 and that history and sin on Earth will continue forever. Gentry added that this “basic,” “systematized” belief is “held across the board in all phases” of “the hyper-preterist movement.”
To sum up: Gentry was asked Continue reading “Kenneth Gentry: Eck Redivivus”

House Divided…part 3

House Divided part 1 & part 2
My Response #3 to Jon: Found here.
Jon wrote: As Wright point outs there are two basic meanings for resurrection in the Second Temple period. “In each case the referent is concrete: restoratin of Israel (’resurrection’ as metaphorical, denoting socio-political events and investing them with the significance that this will be an act of new creation, of covenant restoration); of human bodies (’resurrection’ as literal, denoting actual re-embodiment). Nothing in the entire Jewish context warrants the suggestion that…that the Jewish literature of the period ’speaks both of a resurrection of the body and a resurrection of the spirit without the body’.” End of discussion.
My response: You’re assuming that the saints who were in Hades did not take part with the living in the “restoration of Israel,” the “act of new creation, of covenant restoration.” There is no basis for that assumption. Beginning at Pentecost, the living –both Pagans and saints– were saved (or “spiritually resurrected”) through faith in the recently shed, age-changing blood of Christ (Acts 10:1-2; 11:14; Eph. 2:6; Rev. 20:4, 6). Did not the dead old covenant saints have the same need as the living old covenant saints? Did they not also have to hear and believe the newly manifested Gospel (“the voice of the Son of God“) and be saved (Jn. 5:25, 28; 1 Peter 4:6)? Did not the saints in Hades have the same need as the living old covenant saints: to be baptized into the universal Body of Christ through faith in His shed blood? Did the dead old covenant saints not participate with the living old covenant saints in regeneration/rebirth? Yes, they did (Isa. 26:19; Matt. 19:28; Rom. 8:29; Col. 1:15, 18; Rev. 1:5). Therefore, the dead were resurrected in the same non-biological way (“new creation”) that the living were resurrected. “Behold, I make all thingsnew” (Rev. 21:5).
Jon wrote: Paul claimed to be a Pharisee. To not really be a Pharisee, yet claim to be and then use the language in the way he did is duplicitous.
My response: Paul was not really a Pharisee? I’m not sure where that came from.
I’m sorry you’re not continuing our “back and forth.” But we can leave it at this:
1. My position is “unexegetical.”
2. I make words mean anything I want.
3. I’m comparable to New Agers and Barack Obama.
4. I deny the divinity of Christ.
And I might add, I kill babies in their cribs and I push old ladies down stairwells.
Thank you, Jon.
David Green

House Divided…part 2

Read “House Divided…part1”
My Response #2 to Jon
http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=3139
Jon wrote: Dave wants to claim that Paul stands shoulder to shoulder with Hymie and Philetus on the nature of the resurrection.
My response: I didn’t claim that “Paul stands shoulder to shoulder with Hymie and Philetus on the nature of the resurrection.” I said that “for all we know from the context,” that could be the case. All we can derive from the text is that Paul considered Hymenaeus’ teaching on the timing of the resurrection to be a faith-overthrowing heresy. In order to maintain that Hymenaeus’ heresy concerned the nature of the resurrection, the best a futurist can do is assume that to be the case, based on nothing but the assumption of futurism. That’s where the question begging comes in when futurists anathematize preterists based solely on 2 Timothy 2:16-18.
Jon wrote: If you are with two groups of people – “pro-lifer” & “pro-choice” – and declare yourself a member of Operation Rescue and it is with respect to the sanctity of life that you are on trial, then everyone knows what you mean by that language. To respond, I wasn’t getting into the nature of life or when life begins, but merely that I support life is duplicitous. Paul declared himself a Pharisee, which meant a certain perspective on the resurrection of the dead, and he aligned himself with them.
My response: If we may, let’s change to an apples-to-apples analogy. Let’s say the Pharisees believed that angels were material beings and that Paul believed that angels were non-material beings, while the Sadducees denied the very existence of angels. Perhaps we can agree in this scenario that even though Paul and the Pharisees would be “worlds apart” on the “nature” of angels (material versus non-material), Paul could still say he was on the side of his fellow Pharisees against the Sadducees, because he believed in the existence of angels. I see no reason to assume that the Pharisees would have said, “Paul is being duplicitous! He doesn’t REALLY believe in angels. He thinks they’re non-material beings!”
It’s the same thing with the resurrection of the dead. Paul believed that there was going to be a resurrection of the dead. So did the Pharisees.That’s the only point of agreement (the “certain perspective”) that Paul needed in order to divide and conquer his enemies.
Jon wrote: The Pharisees would not “acknowledge” a non-physical resurrection from the dead.
My response: Is there historical evidence that tells us that one would be disqualified from being a Pharisee if he believed in a non-biological resurrection of the dead? Is there evidence that there was no room for disagreement within the Pharisee party on the literal, biological nature of the resurrection?
David Green

House Divided…

A Futurist Review at Last!

House Divided: Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology has been selling now for about two months. In that time, the responses from futurist critics have been less than substantive. There were complaints that the title is a “rip off” of Bahnsen’s and Gentry’s book, House Divided: The Break-Up of Dispensational Theology (1989). There were complaints that the back cover contains an unattributed five-star “review.” (“A Must Read!”) One critic noted that we use the word “hyper-preterism” on the back cover, and then proceeded to declare that we “self-apply” the word and therefore accept it as an accurate description of our belief. He failed to notice the significance of the fact that we put the word in quotation marks. We were referring to so-called “hyper-preterism.”
Many other critics see no need for a further criticism against the book beyond, “Your book disagrees with 2,000 years of church history!” Ah, the joys of hyper-traditionalism. These critics still have not read our response to Charles Hill (chapter two), which deals specifically and directly with this “argument.”
The most stinging of the negative criticisms have come, ironically, from those who have not read the book. One such critic advised everyone to let their pets defecate on it. Another proposed having a public “book burning” in his back yard and posting the event on YouTube. There have been three or four inflammatory, one-star reviews on Amazon. Most, if not all of them, were obviously written by people who had not read the book. All but one of those reviews (so far) were deleted by Amazon.
So much for the first two months of critiques. It was a fun and glorious time. But it ended a week ago on September 4th. That’s the day that a futurist actually began posting a series of critical reviews wherein the arguments of the book are actually addressed. (We understand that there are one or two other such reviews in the works by other futurists.) It’s a fascinating development. The reviewer’s name is Continue reading “House Divided…”

If Futurism Is True, Are Preterists Anathema?

But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some (2 Timothy 2:16-18).

In the above scripture, Paul said the following about those who say “the resurrection is past”:

1. Their words are to be shunned.
2. Their words increase to more ungodliness.
3. Their words are “profane and vain babblings.”
4. Their words eat like a “canker” (gangrene).
5. They have erred (missed the mark) concerning the truth.
6. They “overthrow the faith of some.”
If preterists today are wrong when they say “the resurrection” of 2 Timothy 2:16-18 is past, are preterists under the condemnation of Hymenaeus and Philetus?
Absolutely.
A: IF “the resurrection” of 2 Timothy 2:18 is not past, and
B: IF preterists say that it is past,
C: THEN preterists are to be shunned. Our words advance ungodliness. Our words are profane and vain babblings. Our words eat like gangrene. We have missed the mark concerning the truth. We are faith-overthrowers.
IF A and B are true, then it irresistibly follows that C is true, according to 2 Timothy 2:16-18.
There are only two ways a futurist can avoid viewing preterists as “Hymenaeans”:
1. A futurist can hold that it is possible that “the resurrection” in 2 Timothy 2:18 does not refer to the yet-future resurrection of the dead, but that it refers to a resurrection-event that occurred in AD 70. (Keith Mathison allows for this possibility. Kenneth Gentry and James Jordan both teach that there was a resurrection in AD 70.)
2. The futurist can hold that it is theoretically possible that futurism could be wrong. This admission would allow the futurist to (at least tentatively) embrace preterists as brothers in Christ.
Short of these two options, there is no way for a futurist to avoid condemning preterists and remain obedient to Scripture (2 Timothy 2:16-18) as it is interpreted within the futurist framework.
This, however, is not the end of the story. Under the futurist assumption, we preterists are teaching a false gospel only because of 2 Timothy 2:16-18. If those three verses did not exist, futurists would have no compelling, biblical basis (under the futurist assumption) for saying that preterists are teaching a damnable heresy. Under the futurist assumption, preterism is an error of course; but there is no systematic, theological basis for anathematizing preterists. There is only 2 Timothy 2:16-18 suspended in midair in an exegetical vacuum.
This clues us in to the fact that the preterist-anathematizing, futurist approach to 2 Timothy 2:16-18 is not on solid biblical ground. The anathema is based on one proof text. We cannot authoritatively base a doctrine on one proof text. How much less can we base an anathema against professing Christians on one proof text?
Futurists must ignore this exegetical and ethical problem and simply smuggle the assumption of futurism into 2 Timothy 2:16-18 in order to maintain their anathema based on those three verses. Their anathematizing use of 2 Timothy 2:16-18 is based on the fallacy of “question begging” and on their a priori (extra-biblical) assumption of our doctrinal guilt. In essence, those verses condemn us only because futurists assume (based on their framework) that those verses condemns us. Without that extra-biblical assumption, the anathema cannot be long maintained.
So yes, within the futurist framework there is a theologically baseless justification for anathematizing preterists, based solely on 2 Timothy 2:16-18 as it is interpreted under the futurist assumption. It is only within the context of proof-texting, logical fallacy, and assumption of guilt that futurists are “justified” in anathematizing preterists.
David Green