My First Lecture of the 2017 PPW Conference Part 5: The Problems For Postmillennialism – The Parable of the Wheat and Tares and the Resurrection (Mt. 13:39-43/Dan. 12:2-3)

Introduction:

Having examined the problems with Postmillennialism in regards to the eschatological wedding feast and resurrection, I want to now turn our attention to the problems for Postmillennialism in the parable of the wheat and tares and the resurrection in Matthew 13:36-43/Daniel 12:2-3.

Matthew 13:36-43

 36 Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples came to him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” 37 He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. 40 Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, 42 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father [Dan. 12:3]. He who has ears, let him hear.”

Daniel 12:1-4, 7:

“At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book. 2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky above;[a] and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever. 4 But you, Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book, until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.” (Daniel asks and is told by the angel when all this would be fulfilled in v. 7) 7…that it would be for a time, times, and half a time, and that when the shattering of the power of the holy people comes to an end all these things would be finished.

The History of Postmillennialism on These Crucial Texts

Prior to these writings we were challenging Postmillennialists that exegetically and according to Daniel 12:7 the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 was fulfilled in AD 70 along with the judgment, tribulation and 3 ½ years period since the angel tells Daniel that “all these things” (not some of them) would be fulfilled together when the power of the holy people was to be completely shatted in AD 70.  And according to Jesus this would be fulfilled at the end of the OC age gathering (not world history) per Matthew 13 and Matthew 24.

Yet they continued to affirm that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 was ONE resurrection event forming the resurrection of John 5:28-28; Acts 24:15; 1 Cor. 15 which would end the millennium of Rev. 20.  Hence the ONE resurrection event of Daniel 12 would be fulfilled at the end of the age (or world history) as described for us in the parable of the wheat and tares in Matthew 13.  Therefore, the gavel was struck when in 2001 Gary North informed us and his Postmillennial colleagues that,

“Anyone who equates the fulfillment of [the parable of the wheat and tares] with AD 70 has broken with the historical faith of the church.”

It didn’t matter what Daniel 12:7 said on the timing of this resurrection, North saw the implications of what would happen if the “end of the age” was the OC age and the ONE resurrection of Daniel 12 was fulfilled in AD 70.  This would mean the “ONE” resurrection was fulfilled in AD 70 and that the millennium was roughly a forty-year period just like the Full Preterism had been teaching.

But North’s threats wouldn’t hold for long.  As Full Preterists and other eschatological systems continued to press Postmillennialism on their inconsistency concerning these texts, they began making very important AD 70 concessions that continue to lead their readers into Full Preterim.

2004

In 2004 concerning the parable of the wheat and tares Postmillennialist Peter Leithart writes,

“Jesus has now come with His winnowing fork, and before the end of the age, the wheat and tares will be separated.  The end of the age thus refers not to the final judgment but to the close of  “this generation[i.e AD 70].” (p. 95)

Strengths

Leithart is bold enough to defy North and identify the fulfillment of the parable of the wheat and tares with the end of the OC age in Jesus’ contemporary generation and not at the end of world history.

Weaknesses

There is no real historical or exegetical treatment on what the “end of the age” is, let alone how it should be interpreted in the rest of Matthew’s gospel and then into Pauline eschatology.

There is no mention and admission that he is adopting a Full Preterist interpretation of the passage (which North identifies as unorthodox).

And there is no mention that Jesus is quoting from the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 and how this was fulfilled at the end of the OC age in AD 70.

2007

Strengths:

Excellent observation that Daniel 12:2-3 is the “last spiritual” resurrection for Israel and fulfilled in AD 70 (cf. pp. 618-619).

The passage teaches that Israel was progressively being raised from the dead between AD 26 – AD 70.  This was produced through the gospel and receiving eternal life (cf. 618-619; 621).

Jordan teaches “Revelation takes up where Daniel leaves off” and deals mostly with “the death and resurrection of the Church” during the “Apostolic age.”  In AD 70 Daniel’s soul was raised out of Abraham’s bosom according to Revelation 20 to rule with all of God’s saints and inherit eternal life and the kingdom (pp. 621; 628).

Summary:  The resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 is descriptive of Israel’s “last” resurrection which emerges in the glorification of the Church in AD 70.  It was spiritual, covenantal, corporate, progressive, and culminates in souls being raised out of Abraham’s Bosom or Hades at Christ’s parousia in AD 70.

Weakness:

He is not mentioning that he debated a Full Preterist (Don Preston) and has stolen and adopted the Full Preterist view of the resurrection in his treatment of Daniel 12:2-3.  This is not honest, scholarly or professional.

He avoids Jesus quoting and referencing Daniel 12:2-3 in Matthew 13:43!  He is clearly afraid of identifying the “end of the age” as the OC age and the implications it may have on such texts as Matthew 24:3 and Matthew 28:18-20.

He connects the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 with the tribulation of Matthew 24, but avoids that the resurrection takes place at the eschatological “gathering” at the “end of the age” per Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 13:39-43 and Matthew 24:30-31 (this is where Jesus, classic Amillennialism, Premillennialism and Full Preterism place the resurrection of Daniel 12 in the OD).

Gentry’s New View v. Old View

Gentry’s Old View on Daniel 12:2-3:

“Contrary to dispensationalism and historic premillennialism, there is but one resurrection and onejudgment, which occur simultaneously at the end of history:  Daniel 12:2; Matthew 25:31-32; John 5:28-29…Acts 24:15).” (The GREATNESS OF THE BREAT COMMISSION, 142).

Speaking of the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 Gentry writes,

“The resurrection is a general resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous (Dan. 12:2; John 5:28-29; Acts 24:15), which will occur on the “last day”…”

Strengths

Gentry is accurate to teach that Jesus and the NT authors develop the Daniel 12:2-3 as only “one” judgment and resurrection event to take place at the end of the age.

Weaknesses

The resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 takes place when the other events do – “when the power of the holy people is completely shattered” in AD 70.  Gentry is cherry-picking vss. 2-3 because of his creedal bias.

Gentry’s 2009 New and Ever Evolving View on Daniel 12:2:

In the third addition of his book on He Shall Have Dominion, Gentry seems to finally be conceding that the resurrection of Daniel 12 was not a biological resurrection but a spiritual resurrection fulfilled in AD 70 at the same time as the tribulation period:

“In Daniel 12:1-2 we find a passage that clearly speaks of the great tribulation in AD 70.” “…But it also seems to speak of the resurrection occurring at that time…”

“Daniel appears to be presenting Israel as a grave site under God’s curse:  Israel as a corporate body is in the “dust” (Da 12:2; cp. Ge 3:14, 19).  In this he follows Ezekiel’s pattern in his vision of the dry bones, which represent Israel’s “death” in the Babylonian dispersion (Eze 37).  In Daniel’s prophecy many will awaken, as it were, during the great tribulation to suffer the full fury of the divine wrath, while others will enjoy God’s grace in receiving everlasting life.”

On Facebook I asked him a question on the resurrection of Daniel 12 (not realizing what he wrote on it in his third edition) and he answered, “Dan 12 is not dealing with bodily resurrection but national resurrection (as does Eze 37). Dan 12 sees the “resurrection” of Israel in the birth of the Christian Church, which is the New Israel. Thus, it bears similarities with Eze 37 and the resurrection of the dry bones of Israel.”

But in the Q & A session at the Criswell conference on the Millennium that Don spoke at, I challenged Gentry that if he took the judgment and resurrection of Daniel 12 to be fulfilled in AD 70, then he would have to admit that the end of the millennium judgment and resurrection of Revelation 20:5-15 was also fulfilled spiritually in AD 70 and was therefore not dealing with a “bodily” or biological resurrection (as he admitted to me on FB).  His answer which I was not suspecting (because of his comments in his book and his FB response to me) was that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 can have a “double fulfillment.”  There was a spiritual fulfillment in AD 70 and there allegedly will be a second or physical fulfillment of the passage at the end of world history which he arbitrarily sees in Matthew 13:39-43; Revelation 20; and John 5:28-29.

As I challenge Gentry in the second edition of our book,

“Gentry gives Daniel 12:2 two fulfillments but won’t allow dispensationalists or any other futurist system to do the same thing with the Great Tribulation, the three and a half years, or the Abomination of Desolation in Daniel 12 or Daniel 9:27.” (HD, 94).

In commenting on the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 Gentry mentions the spiritual and corporate nature of the resurrection for Israel of coming out of her “graves” in Ezekiel 37 to support his corporate view of Israel being raised into the new covenant Israel by AD 70.  Well, since there was a spiritual and corporate resurrection of the dead coming out of their “graves” in Ezekiel 37 and there is a spiritual fulfillment for the dead rising within the immediate context of John 5:24-26, there is no exegetical reason why the new covenant anti-type coming resurrection “hour” out of “graves” in John 5:28-29 is not also a corporate and spiritual resurrection.  And if James Jordan is claiming that Daniel’s soul was raised out of Abraham’s Bosom or Hades into God’s presence to inherit eternal life in AD 70, why isn’t this the same kind of resurrection Jesus is describing in John 5:28-29?

Strengths:

Gentry finally admits after 30 years that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 takes place at the SAME TIME the tribulation, judgment, three and half years, and shattering of Jerusalem in AD 70 was fulfilled (“all these things” v. 7).

Weaknesses:

He does not humbly admit his change and admission that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70 is due to pressure coming from the Full Preterist and Futurist communities calling for consistency — in his very inconsistent use of the Preterist hermeneutic.

Gentry does not discuss his evolving interpretation of this passage.  He addresses my FB question and tells me that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 “is not dealing with bodily resurrection but national resurrection…,” and then in answering my question at the Criswell Conference on the Millennium tells me the passage has a “double” fulfillment (one spiritual and national in AD 70 and another “bodily” one at the end of world history).

Gentry does not discuss why it is wrong for Premillennial Dispensationalism to hold to TWO resurrections and why he now can.

Gentry does not discuss why he can now “double fulfill” the AD 70 resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3, but the tribulation, time of the end and three and a half year’s period cannot be double fulfilled!  If Gentry can begin double fulfilling AD 70 events, then so can other Futurist views – and if that is the case, that’s the END of Gentry’s Postmillennialism – PERIOD.

Gentry does not tell us based upon what hermeneutical principle the judgment and resurrection of Matthew 13:39-43; Acts 24:15YLT; John 5:28-29; 1 Corinthians 15 and Revelation 20:5-15 is not the AD 70 spiritual resurrection he gives and allows for in Daniel 12:2-3 (since these passages are the same resurrection event as Dan. 12:2-3)!  Not only that, but he doesn’t tell us why they couldn’t have a “double fulfillment” – one spiritual in AD 70 and then a physical one at the end of world history.  Make no mistake about it folks, Gentry has surrendered to Full Preterism and has unraveled his Postmillennialism and he is hoping no one has noticed or will take apart his STILL very inconsistent hermeneutic of Daniel 12:1-7 and how this OT passage is developed by Jesus and the NT authors.

While Jordan attempts to deal with exactly how Daniel was raised (Dan. 12:13), Gentry does not discuss the subject.  Was Daniel’s soul raised out of Abraham’s Bosom to inherit eternal life in God’s presence to rule and reign or not Mr. Gentry?  Gentry is constantly telling us there was a judgment of the living and dead that took place in AD 70 (cf. 1 Pet. 4:5-7, 17; Rev. 11), yet never informs us how the dead were judged without a resurrection for the dead taking place at the same time (and exactly what kind of resurrection it was)!

2011

Strengths:

McDurmon correctly teaches the Full Preterist view here that the parable of the wheat and tares was fulfilled at the end of the OC age in AD 70.  And when Jesus and Paul use the phrase “this age” it is the OC age and the “age to come” is the NC age — with the change being complete in AD 70 (pp. 43-49).

 Weaknesses:

Again like the others, there is no admission this is a Full Preterist view.

Since Joel is Gary North’s Son-in-law, we would expect some kind of interaction with North’s comments that to give the parable the fulfillment at the end of the OC age in AD 70 (as Full Preterism does) is to break from the orthodox church.  And again why would North say this?  It’s because this would mean that Jesus is referencing the “ONE” resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 to be fulfilled at the end of the OC age in AD 70 and not at the end of world history (the “orthodox” view).  And he knows the millennial period would have ended in AD 70 as well.  McDurmon is a coward on virtually every level here.

McDurmon gives no exegetical attempt to address the OT citation of the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 in Matthew 13:39-43 (this is just basic hermeneutics he decides to avoid).  Nor is there an attempt to harmonize the spiritual resurrection view that Jordan gives Daniel 12:2-3 as fulfilled in AD 70.  Remember Joel works for American Vision (AV) which published Jordan’s commentary on Daniel!  One expects Joel to interact with North’s statements and the books he is involved in publishing — but nothing but silence coming from Joel (and thus Gary DeMar behind the scenes for OBVIOUS reasons).

Putting it All Together “Bridging the Gap” 2009/2014

 Since A (Daniel 12) is = to B (Matthew 13) 

 And B (Matthew 13) is = to C (Matthew 24-25)

 Then A (Daniel 12) is = to C (Matthew 24-25) 

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.

 Premise #1 – Since it is true that the resurrection of Dan. 12:2-3 is a progressive spiritual raising of Israel and the Church from death roughly between AD 30 – AD 70 and it involved souls being raised from the realm of the dead to inherit eternal life in AD 70 per Rev. 20 (Jordan).

Premise #2 – And since it is also true that the eschatological “not yet” of the resurrection of Dan. 12:2-3 is the “ONE” resurrection event (therefore it can’t be “double fulfilled”) of 1 Cor. 15; John 5:28-29; Acts 24:15 and is fulfilled at the “end of the age” when Christ’s Second Advent takes place per Mt. 13:36-43 and Mt. 24:3; 25:30-32 (Gentry’s postion #1).  And since it the growth of the wheat and tares is the millennial period of Rev. 20 with the millennium ending at “the end of the age” when Christ comes (Gentry & most agree).

 Premise #3 – And since it is also true that the parable of the wheat and tares and the “end of the age” was fulfilled at the end of the OC age (McDurmon), in Jesus’ “this generation” (Leithart), at Christ’s spiritual coming in AD 70 fulfilling Mt. 25:30-32 (DeMar).

 Conclusion – Then the “ONE” “spiritual” resurrection of Israel and the Church being raised from the dead according to Daniel 12:1-4; Mt. 13:36-43; 1 Cor. 15; John 5:25-29 and Rev. 20 was between AD 30 – AD 70 and fulfilled at Christ’s spiritual Second Advent in judgment to close the OC age and millennial period per Mt. 13:36-43/Mt. 25:30-32ff./Rev. 20:1-15.

Conclusion

Reformed eschatology (primarily Postmillennial Partial Preterism & Amillennialism) has formed Full Preterism on both the timing and spiritual nature of the ONE eschatological wedding and resurrection event of Isa. 25:6-9 and Daniel 12:2-3.  This was when Jesus’ “cast out” OC Israel from her kingdom—burned her city and gave the kingdom to the new and transformed “nation” or NC Israel of God–in her spiritual, transformed and mature state in AD 70 (Mt. 21:43-45).  This is when the ONE eschatological “gathering” took place at the ONE “end of the [OC] age” in AD 70.

In the next lecture, we will continue to examine the errors of Postmillennial Partial Preterism in the Olivet Discourse (OD) while at the same time see how their views and the views of Reformed eschatology in general continue leading us to Full Preterism.

To Listen or View This Series:  

My First Lecture of the PPW 2017 Conference Part 1: The Problems For Postmillennialism – My Approach and Methodology http://fullpreterism.com/my-lecture-on-the-problems-of-postmillennialism-at-the-2017-ppw-conference-the-wedding-and-resurrection-motif/

My First Lecture of the 2017 PPW Conference Part 2:  The Problems For Postmillennialism – God’s Divorce, Re-marriage and NC Betrothal http://fullpreterism.com/my-lectures-given-at-the-2017-ppw-on-the-problems-with-postmillennialism-wedding-resurrection-part-2-gods-ot-marriage-divorce-betrothal-and-remarriage-promises/

My First Lecture of the 2017 PPW Conference Part 3:  The Problems For Postmillennialism -Wedding and Resurrection (Jn. 4-5) http://fullpreterism.com/my-2017-ppw-lecture-on-the-problems-with-postmillennialism-wedding-resurrection-part-3-john-3-5-and-nt-betrothal-and-marriage/

My First Lecture of the 2017 PPW Conference Part 4:  The Problems For Postmillennialism – Wedding and Resurrection (Mt. 8:10-12/Mt. 22:1-14/Mt. 25:1-13) http://fullpreterism.com/my-2017-ppw-lecture-on-the-problems-with-postmillennialism-wedding-and-resurrection-part-4-mt-810-12-221-14-251-13isa-256-9/

My First Lecture of the 2017 PPW Conference Part 5:  The Problems For Postmillennialism – The Parable of the Wheat and Tares and the Resurrection (Mt. 13:39-43/Dan. 12:2-3) http://fullpreterism.com/my-2017-ppw-lecture-on-the-problems-with-postmillennialism-in-the-parable-of-the-wheat-and-tares-the-end-of-the-age-and-the-resurrection-mt-1339-43dan-122-3/

My Second Lecture of the 2017 PPW Conference Part 1:  The Problems For Postmillennialism – The Olivet Discourse (Mt. 23-24; Mt. 24:3, 14/Acts 1:8-11) http://fullpreterism.com/lecture-2-at-the-2017-ppw-problems-for-postmillennialism-in-the-olivet-discourse-house-divided-the-break-up-of-postmillennialism-and-the-formation-of-full-preterism-taking-its-place/