A FULL PRETERIST RESPONSE TO GARY DEMAR'S ARTICLE "ANTI-POSTMILLENNIALIST MAKES WEAK CASE" – ARE POSTMILLENNIALISTS WINNING THE DEBATE ON ESCHATOLOGY WHEN THEY STEAL OUR AD 30 – AD 70 JUDGMENT AND RESURRECTION OF THE LIVING AND DEAD VIEW?!?

I have been a full preterist now for well over 20 years and have been following Gary DeMar and American Vision’s (AV) writings the entire time. And there is nothing more upsetting to me than to watch DeMar and AV make these kind of claims:

DeMar and his postmillennial partial preterist colleagues are allegedly winning the debate on eschatology.
Full preterism is “heretical” but won’t accept that according to the bible and reformed theology their theonomic postmillennialism should be considered “heretical” and a “Jewish dream.”
No one (including amillennialists or full preterists) apparently do any exegetical work except what Gary or AV is producing on bible prophecy (and or their postmillennial partial preterist affiliates), paralleling Matthew 24-25 with other NT eschatological texts.
Gary continues to deny that his teachings and that of AV are leading people to full preterism.

In this article I want to challenge these claims while also interacting with DeMar’s recent response to amillennialist David Engelsma, Anti-Postmillennialist Makes Weak Case.[1] Unfortunately I’m not sure either Engelsma nor DeMar are prepared to accept that full preterism is the organic development of both of their views or is the “x factor” so to speak which bridges the gap between their conflict, but I can at least throw it out there for them and the public to weigh in on. But since full preterism bridges the gap between Engelsma’s amillennialism and Gary’s postmillennial partial preterism, full preterism is the view which is winning the debate over eschatology and will continue to do so. Now let’s counter Gary’s claims and provide the evidence that we are winning the historical and exegetical debate.
Is Gary DeMar and American Vision “winning the prophecy debate”?!? Do their views lead to full preterism?
Gary writes,
“Over the weekend I spoke at a conference on postmillennialism in Torrance, California, on the topic, “Evidence that Postmillennialists are Winning the Prophecy Debate.”[2]
Let’s review a little bit on full preterism being present in this debate. In 1998 partial preterist R.C. Sproul produced the following chart trying to make a definite distinction between partial and full preterism:[3]

Full Preterists			Partial Preterists
	A.D. 70	At the end of history	A.D. 70	At the end of history
Coming (parousia) of Christ	Yes	No	Yes	yes
Resurrection and rapture	Yes	No	No	yes
Day of the Lord	Yes	No	Yes	yes
Judgment	Yes	No	Yes	yes

The problem with Sproul’s chart is that it demonstrates a lack of knowledge on what some partial preterists have taught (past and present) and is very outdated not showing all of the ground that men like Gary DeMar have given to full preterism. As I document in chapter four of House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to When Shall These Things Be? — is that 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[4]	yes & no
“This age” = old covenant age “age to come” = new covenant age transformed in AD 70	Yes	No	yes[5]	yes & no
United Matt. 24-25 one parousia in AD 70	Yes	No	yes[6]	yes & no
Resurrection and judgment of living and dead between AD 30 – AD 70	Yes	No	yes[7]	yes
Glorification in Rom. 8:18-23 YLT “about to be revealed”	Yes	No	yes[8]	yes & no
2 Peter 3 fulfilled	Yes	No	yes[9]	yes & no
“All Israel” in Rom. 11:26 saved	Yes	No	yes[10]	yes & no
Acts 1:11	Yes	No	yes[11]	yes & no
Hebrews 9:26-28 Second Appearing of Christ at end of the age	Yes	No	yes[12]	yes & no
1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 “rapture”	Yes	No	yes[13]	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.[14]
Now I have charged that Gary and AV have “stolen” full preterist views without giving credit where credit is due. So let me continue applying the measure in which Gary has judged others eschatology and writings with that of his and AV.  In HOUSE DIVIDED THE BREAK-UP OF DISPENSATIONAL THEOLOGY pages 367-370, DeMar makes Hal Lindsey look stupid and charges him as being “fraudulent” with his “sloppy scholarship” charging that he stole what he wrote from others and didn’t do his own research (pp.367-370).

Well since Gary North (AV) has written this: “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” and DeMar publishes McDurmon and has a co-author (Peter Leithart) who has also gone into print taking a preterist view of this passage ——-WHERE DID THEY COME UP WITH IT, IF IT CANNOT BE FOUND WITHIN “…THE HISTORIC FAITH OF THE CHURCH?!?” Did they not get it from full preterism and were they afraid to cite their references and or research because it would once again demonstrate how DeMar and AV writings lead their readers to full preterism (something they continue to blindly deny)?

DeMar also publishes James Jordan’s commentary on Daniel. Will Gary please provide one early church father, creed, or confession which takes the judgment and resurrection of Daniel 12:1-4, 13/Revelation 20 as fulfilled in AD 70 – in any way? Where can the view which states Daniel’s soul was raised out of Hades or Abraham’s Bosom at Christ’s parousia in AD 70 be found within church history — if not within full preterism???

* Now isn’t it amazing how I have been after Gary DeMar for over 20 years (as others have) on Daniel 12:2-3/Matthew 13:39-43 asking questions which he couldn’t and wouldn’t answer —– and yet now our views are showing up in books HE PUBLISHES. Wow the pure arrogance.  And he wants to charge others as being “fraudulent,” and not citing where they get their research and views from?!?
So I think any objective reader can see how DeMar (and partial preterism in general) is not only losing the debate with full preterists, they are in fact needing to steal some of our views to try and work out the consistent implications of what the NT teaches on imminence. Giving so much ground and crucial eschatological texts to us doesn’t sound like they are “winning” to me – does it to you?
The other issue here is that it is impossible for either of these futuristic views of Englesma (amillennialism) or DeMar (postmillennial partial preterism) to claim they are winning the battle over bible prophecy when in fact they actually form full preterism! As I wrote in the second edition of HD:
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; 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.”[15]
We will examine more of these “contradictions” between Englesma’s amillennialism and DeMar’s postmillennial partial preterism below.
DeMar Complains about Romanist arguments being used against him:
DeMar goes on,
“Englesma spends more time on the creeds and confessions than he does on Scripture. Instead of offering a detailed counter exegesis to a preterist interpretation of Matthew 24, he assumes, like dispensationalists, that it is a prophetic description of end-time events: “This interpretation of Matthew 24 is basic to the postmillennial denial of apostasy, Antichrist, and great tribulation for the church in the future,” he writes. “For in the light of this explanation of Matthew 24, the postmillennialist goes through the entire New Testament rigorously applying all prediction of such things to the destruction of Jerusalem.” When a prophetic passage is about a soon coming judgment, then yes, the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem is in view, and Prof. Engelsma doesn’t give any exegetical evidence to the contrary.
While I am impressed with creeds and confessions of the church, they are not equal to Scripture. The Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 31 says as much:
III. All synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.”[16]
And again,
“Prof. Engelsma is fond of quoting confessional statements while giving little regard to biblical exegesis in his article “Jewish Dreams” that appeared in the January 15, 1995 issue of The Standard Bearer. Have we become Romanists?”[17]
Here is what the best and brightest of DeMar’s postmillennial partial preterism and Engelsma’s amillennialism brought against us in WSTTB and so let’s analyze what consumed the bulk of its content:

“Recap of When Shall These Things Be?

For those who are familiar with how our critics usually respond to “hyper-preterism,” it should come as no surprise that a full 42% of the Mathison book was an appeal to the authority of the creeds, the authority of the church fathers, and the authority of historic, Mother Church (Gentry, Hill, and Wilson respectively).
The historicity of futurism is indeed an important and legitimate issue to discuss, but the prominence and place this issue is given by anti-preterists reveals the exegetical weakness of futurism. When it comes to refuting preterism, futurists usually find it convenient to rid themselves of the nemesis of exegesis (cf. WSTTB, 118). When they do employ exegesis, it is tendentious and often padded with rhetoric. Doug Wilson is altogether mistaken when he says in his chapter that preterism is effectively refuted “simply on exegetical grounds” by one or more of his co-authors (258).
About 19% of WSTTB (less than half the space given to creedal issues) was dedicated to a broad, quasi-exegetical defense of the Resurrection of the Flesh (Strimple).
About 16% was dedicated to establishing the following two concepts:

Ascertaining the true interpretation of the time texts of the New Testament has been a difficult and perplexing problem for centuries and the true interpretation remains an open question for debate. There are many possible interpretations of the various time texts. (Mathison)
A study of the time texts absolutely, positively, and finally disproves hyper-preterism once and for all. (Mathison)

About 11% of WSTTB was dedicated to the late date of the book of Revelation and to an idealist, soon-means-two-thousand-years-or-more interpretation (Kistemaker).
About 9% was dedicated to the unfortunate proposition that God Himself predicted, on three separate occasions, thousands of years ago, that the promised eschatological blessings would take place soon; but God’s predictions failed, and the eschatological blessings remain indefinitely delayed until further notice (Pratt).”[18]
Because partial preterist admissions are so devastating in any debate with full preterists, Kenneth Gentry (one of the guest speakers DeMar mentions in this article) was put in charge of regurgitating Roman Catholic “arguments” against us in WSTTB! And AV associates and colleagues of DeMar such as Gentry and North are very active in trying to get full preterists put under church disciple for being in violation of the creeds etc… So it’s a little difficult for me to find a tear to cry for DeMar here.
But I do think one has a legitimate right to look at my chart above and the research I documented in HD, and ask how can all of these partial preterist doctrinal admissions and NT texts be fulfilled in AD 70 and yet at the same time these same texts and eschatological doctrines are applied in the reformed confessions and creeds as having a future fulfillment at the end of history or end of the Christian age? It’s time for Gentry and DeMar’s Romanism to be legitimately applied to their partial preterist system – perhaps the measure of judgment they have been giving us should now be applied to them? And why not? These men can’t even get this right in their own house – Gary North (a contributor and speaker for AV) must condemn his own son-in-law Joel McDurmon for taking the parable of the wheat and tares as fulfilled in AD 70:
“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.”[19]
DeMar wrote,
“When a prophetic passage is about a soon coming judgment, then yes, the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem is in view…”
But what DeMar is hiding here is that the imminence in the NT, the “end of [the old covenant] age,” and or the “destruction of Jerusalem” in AD 70, is connected to the judgment and resurrection of the dead in such passages as Matthew 13:39-43; Matthew 16:27; Matthew 24-25; Acts 17:31 YLT; Acts 24:15 YLT; Romans 8:18-23 YLT; Revelation 11, 7, 14, 20. The fall of Jerusalem is not the only thing that is said to take place “shortly” — Satan’s final destruction is also stated to take place “shortly” (Romans 16:20/Genesis 3:15). Interestingly enough, most of these passages that Gary says were fulfilled in AD 70 he also says cannot have multiple fulfillments – unless it deals with Satan or the judgment and resurrection of the living and dead apparently (ie. anything that violates the creeds of course).
Again, there is some irony on this issue of imminence and multiple fulfillments because in most places Gary won’t allow for it (such as in Matthew 24 and most of Revelation) and yet he sends Joel McDurmon from American Vision to debate Don Preston and all Joel did was have to admit that such judgment and resurrection passages such as John 5:28-29; 1 Corinthians 15; Revelation 20 “could” have been fulfilled in AD 70 but they point to a greater fulfillment at the end of time. And yet Gary claims he and AV are winning the battle on eschatology and their views don’t lead to it?!? If you are buying that I have a bridge to sell you. Amazing. If you are growing tired of the inconsistencies and hypocrisy of DeMar and American Vision when it comes to them trying to accept the imminence in the NT while at the same time pacify their creedal supporters and creedal critics – then you are not alone!
DeMar complains about his Postmillennial Theonomic “Jewish dreams” being exposed
For the record it is true that the early church creeds and confessions were primarily amillennial and did renounce premillennialism and thus similar hyper-literal postmillennial manifestations/fulfillments of the kingdom on earth to be “heretical” and on par with “Jewish dreams.” That’s just a historical fact. I would like Mr. DeMar to comment on if he thinks these Theonomic Postmillennial progressive type “Paradise Restored” “dreams” will come true in the future before Christ’s (third) coming takes place:

Will lion’s biology and anatomy change and eat straw instead of meat before the “final” eschatological manifestation/fulfillment to end world history?
Will the gospel manifest itself in scientific advances in genetics and cause men to live to be 900 years old again like they did in the early chapters of Genesis (AV Sam Frost)?
As all the nations of the world allegedly get Christianized, will unbelievers (and “heretics” not conforming to theonomic postmillennial covenant standards) be given three opportunities to repent before being stoned or shot – per the teachings of North or Talbot (also AV affiliates and supporters)? If North and Talbot’s Postmillennial “Jewish dream” were manifest today, would AV North and Talbot give AV Joel McDurmon three opportunities to repent (because he does not believe the OT Sabbath is applicable today) before stoning and shooting this “heretic” being in violation of the covenant?

(AV affiliate) Ken Talbot from his speech, “The History of Creation, Part 5” (26:20 – 28:35):
“WHEN we are in charge [i.e., when people who agree with Ken Talbot are in charge], WHEN the law of God is there, folks it’s either obey, or get hung. Take your choice. Well, you can throw stones if you want to, but I think there’s better ways of doing it than throwing stones. Just quick executions. You know, God’s ‘three strike’ rule. You know –You know that right? You guys have been watching ‘The Right Wing Reverend.’ I explained that to you. God has a ‘three strike’ rule. The first time you have to pay for what you’ve done. The second time you have to double or triple pay for it. And the third time you just get executed, because God says you’re incorrigible. And you’re a blight on society, and you are a road bump that we don’t want to deal with in our kingdom. And you’re gone.”
Jason Bradfield (disciple of Ken “mass executions” Talbot):
“Don Preston is a goat, who is also a chicken.”
Sam Frost (disciple of Ken “mass executions” Talbot) and author for AV:
“Damn you Mike Sullivan. You are filth.” And Sam has also texted me using the, “f*** you” slur.
Many of these individuals are also just very immature and extremely hateful. I was moderated from AV’s comments section under their articles because I was asking exegetical questions Gary and McDurmon could not answer and some postmillennialist responded to me calling me a “heretic” and that Christ was going to cut off my head when He returned and of course no moderation of those kind of comments came from Gary, Joel and AV. They claimed there were other reasons they moderated me but I have the documented evidence that proves those reasons were false and unjustifiable.
Who’s eschatology is closer to dispensationalisms?
Gary writes,
“Engelsma uses almost no Scripture. His eschatology is closer to dispensationalism.”
Wow this is also an amazing statement! I think everyone should see the truth in that its DeMar’s eschatology that is “closer to dispensationalism”:

Both use a hyper-literal hermeneutic on OT passages to support how they imagine the kingdom will be manifested on earth – views which were condemned by the early church.
Both suffer from a double vision type hermeneutic which artificially claims the NT has two comings of Christ one for Israel and the other for the Church.
Both eschatologies seem to end with mass executions – the church is supposed to pay for and support the gathering of Jews back into the land of Israel only so they can be executed in an alleged future tribulation period (per dispensational Zionism), or the church is supposed to stone or shoot in the head unbelievers and even Christian “heretics” (ex. Baptists who will not baptize their babies or those who’s conviction it is not to obey the Sabbath) who will not submit to the covenant (per postmillennial theonomy/reconstructionism).

DeMar complains of Engelsma’s appeal to imminence being applied for us today:
“Prof. Engelsma claims that the solemn duty of the Protestant Reformed Churches “from the soon-coming Christ [is] to expose the hopes of postmillennialism as ‘Jewish dreams,’” language taken from the amillennial Helvetic Confession of Faith. The “soon-coming Christ”? Prof. Engelsma sounds more like Hal Lindsey, Dave Hunt, and Tim LaHaye than a Reformed Christian when he concludes his article with these words.”
I had to laugh at this. DeMar really doesn’t have much ground to stand on when it comes to criticizing Engelsma here. Let me explain.
First, although it is unfortunate, this is a WCF kind of statement to make beyond AD 70. Amillenialists such as Engelsma and the confession are correct in that the coming of Christ described throughout the book of Revelation is the actual Second Coming event, and partial preterists such as DeMar are accurate to point out it was to be fulfilled “shortly” in AD 70. These two common sense views together once again form full preterism.
Secondly, if the doctrine of a soon coming judgment and resurrection of the dead can have multiple fulfillments (one in AD 70 and another in the future) per Gary’s AV writers and affiliates, then what is to stop anyone from applying an AD 70 coming of Christ to a future to us coming of Christ (if they think it’s “soon” or not)?
Thirdly and ironically, I criticized one of Gary’s own writers for this same thing! In a deplorable article written by Sam Frost on Matthew 16:27-28 (a passage DeMar applies to a soon coming in AD 70) he ended the article with an appeal for us to be prepared for the Lord’s return:
“Always be ready, keep your wicks trimmed, and oil in your lamps – lest He come and remove your candle.”[20]
I warned Gary for publishing confused and unstable Frost, but he did anyway because DeMar himself can’t refute us or is too lazy to try an attempt. But the point being, is that one of AV’s writers is using two passages Gary applies to a “soon” or “this generation” AD 70 coming (Matthew 16:27-28 and Matthew 24:34, 25:1-13) and wants us to “always be” prepared for it?!? There is no imminent coming of Christ in our day per theonomic partial preterist postmillennialism. The nations of the world have not been converted to Christ with a minority of unbelievers and heretics being stoned or shot by the church etc… I don’t see lions eating straw or men living to be 900 years old. Anyone see these events coming in our lifetimes? AV writers have no business exhorting Christians or unbelievers to “always be ready” for a coming of Christ in our lifetimes selah. But men like Gary are exhorted to “always be ready” to give a defense of his partial preterism against full preterism but he is always just “too busy” to do so — Selah.
DeMar talks about Matthew 24/the book of Revelation and the need to get back to “exegetical issues”:
“Revelation 1:1 states that the events depicted therein “must shortly take place.” The time is said to be “near” (1:3) for those who first read the book. We are told in the last chapter of Revelation that the described events “must shortly take place” (22:6). Jesus said that He was coming “quickly” (22:7). And to confirm what was said in the first chapter, “the time is near” (22:10). Revelation was written nearly two-thousand years ago. If words mean anything, then the events of Revelation are now history.
Prof. Engelsma can follow the dispensationalists and claim that these time indicators are fluid and do not necessarily mean what they seem to mean, or he can deal with them honestly and get back to doing exegetical work and quit relying on the confessions to do his thinking for him. Until Prof. Engelsma deals with exegetical issues, the only ones who will listen to him will be those who already agree with him, a number that is steadily declining in his tiny denomination.”
DeMar mentions all the exegetical work that he has done in giving Matthew 24-25 and the book of Revelation fulfillments in AD 70. However, there are many “exegetical” problems with DeMar giving AD 70 fulfillments to Revelation chapters 1-19, 21-22, and yet wanting to arbitrarily and creedally believe that the judgment and resurrection of the dead and millennium of Revelation 20 are still future events for us.
First, he believes the coming of Christ in both Matthew 24-25 took place in AD 70 and “John’s version of Matthew 24-25 is found in the book of Revelation.” Apart of DeMar’s “exegetical” work that he says he does is to compare and parallel Matthew 24 with the rest of the NT and find AD 70 fulfillments where amillennialists and dispensationalists don’t. However, DeMar’s hermeneutic and exegetical method is more than arbitrary and inconsistent. For example here is one that DeMar neglects:

MATTHEW 24-25	REVELATION 20:5-15
Resurrection and judgment Matt. 24:30-31 (cf. Matt. 13:39-43/Dan. 12:2-3) Matt. 25:31-46 (cf. Matt. 16:27-28)	Resurrection and judgment Rev. 20:5-15
De-creation heaven and earth pass/flee Matt. 24:29, 35 (cf. Matt. 5:17-18)	De-creation heaven and earth pass/flee Rev. 20:11 (cf. Rev. 6:14; 16:20; 21:1)
Christ on throne to judge Matt. 25:31	God on throne to judge Rev. 20:11
Wicked along with Devil eternally punished Matt. 25:41-46	Wicked along with Devil eternally punished Rev. 20:10, 14-15

DeMar publishes James Jordan whom claims Daniel himself was raised out of Hades or Abraham’s Bosom in AD 70 according to Daniel 12:2, 13 and Revelation 20. The partial preterists are also on record for saying things such as, “The Apostle John in the book of Revelation picks up where Daniel leaves off.” So here is something that DeMar needs to address as well:

DANIEL 12:1-2	REVELATION 20:5-15
Only those whose names are written in the book would be delivered/saved from eternal condemnation Dan. 12:1-2	Only those whose names are written in the book would be delivered/saved from the lake of fire Rev. 20:12-15
This is the time for the resurrection and judgment of the dead Dan. 12:1-2	This is the time for the resurrection and judgment of the dead Rev. 20:5-15

And yet DeMar wants to exhort Engelsma for letting the creeds do all of his thinking for him and he allegedly wants to get the discussion back to “exegesis?” Sounds good to us – we just wish DeMar would take his own advice when we have been asking him to do the same thing for many years now.
Postmillennial partial preterism did not win the eschatological debate for Luther, Calvin and the WCF which have taught the coming of Christ in Matthew 24-25 is indeed the Second Coming (as full preterism teaches). And what about today? Mathison and DeMar didn’t win the battle over Matthew 24-25 in the Reformation Study Bible, which is in perfect harmony with full preterism in interpreting the parallel’s in Matthew 24:30-31 as being the same eschatological event with the following passages:
“But the language of [Matthew 24:31] is parallel to passages like 13:41; 16:27; 25:31, as well as to passages such as 1 Cor. 15:52 and 1 Thess. 4:14–17. The passage most naturally refers to the Second Coming.” (see HD, 112).
Here are some of those exegetical “parallels” that full preterists and classic amillennialists agree upon:
Matthew 24-25/Luke 21 & Matthew 13 Parallels
Evangelism in the world takes place (Mt. 24:14/Mt. 13:38).
There is persecution, tribulation, apostasy, & faithfulness (Mt. 24:9-13/Mt. 13:19-30).
The subject is the growth and reception of the kingdom at which time the judgment at the “end of the age” takes place (Lk. 21:31-32/Mt. 13:43; Mt. 24:3/Mt. 13:40).
The Son of Man comes with His angels to gather the sheep/wheat into His barn/kingdom and the wicked goats/tares are gathered and thrown into the fire and burned (Mt. 24:30-31, 25:31-41/Mt. 13:39-42).
Matthew 24-25/Luke 21 & 1 Corinthians 15 Parallels
Christ’s coming/parousia and trumpet call (Mt. 24:27, 31/1 Cor. 15:23, 52).
This is the time of “the end” (Mt. 24:3, 14/1 Cor. 15:24).
At this time God judges His enemies (Mt. 21:43; 22:41-44; 24-25/1 Cor. 15:24-28).
This is the time for inheriting the kingdom (Lk. 21:31-32/1 Cor. 15:24).
Matthew 24 & 1 Thessalonians 4-5 Parallels
Christ returns 1 Thess. 4:16=Matt. 24:30
From heaven 1 Thess. 4:16=Matt. 24:30
Accompanied by angels 1 Thess. 4:16=Matt. 24:31
With a trumpet of God 1 Thess. 4:16=Matt. 24:31
Believers gathered to Christ 1 Thess. 4:17=2 Matt. 4:31, 40-41
In clouds 1 Thess. 4:17=Matt. 24:30
Time unknown 1 Thess. 5:1-2=Matt. 24:36
Coming like a thief 1 Thess. 5:2=Matt. 24:43
Unbelievers unaware of impending judgment 1 Thess. 5:3=Matt. 24:8
Judgment comes as pain upon an expectant mother 1 Thess. 5:3=Matt. 24:8
Believers not deceived 1 Thess. 5:4-5=Matt. 24:43
Believers to be watchful 1 Thess. 5:6=Matt. 24:37-39
Warning against drunkenness 1 Thess. 5:7=Matt. 24:49
As I pointed out in HD, it is more than arbitrary for men like Gary DeMar and Keith Mathison to make AD 70 parallels and fulfillments in Matthew 24=1 Thessalonians 5 or Matthew 24=2 Thessalonians 1-2, but avoid where most of the parallels are in Matthew 24=1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 because the resurrection is in view (see HD, 112-115). It is amazingly arrogant for DeMar and AV to claim they are performing “exegesis” when comparing Matthew 24 with the eschatology of the NT in order to develop AD 70 fulfillments, but if we do AV wants to refer to us as “heretical.” We are making the same “parallel’s” and appealing to the same “analogy of scripture” argument that the amillennialists are.

Passage	Full Peterist	Gary DeMar Partial Preterist	Kenneth Gentry Partial Preterist	Traditional Amillennialist
1 Thess. 1-3	A.D. 70	A.D. 70	Future	Future
1 Thess. 4	A.D. 70	Future	Future	Future
1 Thess. 5	A.D. 70	A.D. 70	Future	Future
2 Thess. 1	A.D. 70	A.D. 70	Future	Future
2 Thess. 2	A.D. 70	A.D. 70	A.D. 70	Future

Some partial preterists such as author Mike Bull (a disciple of James Jordan) actually agree with full preterists that the parallels between Matthew 24=1 Thessalonains 4 are just too strong and therefore there was some kind of fulfillment for a resurrection in AD 70. DeMar is now backed into a corner. Since he and AV are now publishing that there was a spiritual, corporate, covenantal judgment and resurrection for the living and dead from AD 30 – AD 70 which resulted in Daniel’s soul being raised out of Hades or Abraham’s Bosom in AD 70, then Gary needs to prove that Matthew 24:30-31 (cf. Matthew 13:39-43/Daniel 12:2-3) isn’t Paul’s source in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 and thus this isn’t that AD 70 resurrection. Or if Gary wants to make the kind of statements that Joel McDurmon has and that perhaps this passage along with other NT resurrection texts “could” have been fulfilled in AD 70 — then Gary needs to prove or explain why this could have two or multiple fulfillments. Apparently Gary is unavailable for comment.
Gary DeMar in his article referenced John Murray as a postmillennialist who most assuredly couldn’t be referred to as “heretical” and indeed performed exegesis. Well, again like full preterists, Murray saw the coming of Christ and “redemption” in (Luke 21:27-28) to be the Second Advent and “redemption of the body” in (Romans 8:23):
“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 anal-ogy would again point to the eschatological complex of events.” (see HD, 119).
And of course Murray understood Matthew 24:30-31 as most naturally referring to the Second Coming and resurrection as we do:
“…Verse 30, for several reasons to be adduced later, surely refers to the advent in glory, and the sign of the Son of man to the sign of the coming of Christ and the consummation of the age in the disciples question (vs. 3). (John Murray, COLLECTED WRITINGS OF JOHN MURRAY 2 Systematic Theology, Carlisle, PA: THE BANNER OF TRUTH TRUST, 1977, 389)
“The terms of verse 30, that all the tribes of the earth ‘will see the Son of man coming upon the clouds of heaven with great power and glory’ (or ‘with power and great glory’) are terms that are quite definitely those of the second advent in the terminology of the New Testament (cf. Matt. 16:27; Mark 8:38; Matt. 25:31; Acts 1:9-11; 1 Thess. 4:17; 2 Thess. 1:7; Rev. 1:7.” (Murray, Ibid., 390).
“There is ample allusion to the sound of the trumpet and to the ministry of angels elsewhere in the New Testament, in connection with Christ’s advent (cf. 1 Cor. 15:52; 1 Thess. 4:16). Hence verse 31 can most readily be taken to refer to the gathering of the elect at the resurrection.” (Murray, Ibid., 391).
Murray also does a great job demonstrating that Matthew 24-25 is written with a “recapitulation” structure (Ibid., 388) and therefore we once again reach “the end”/“end of the age” with the disciples question associating the end of the age with His coming in Matthew 24:3, 30-31. Matthew 24:30-31 is the Second Coming and resurrection/gathering event which takes place at the end of the [old covenant] age (cf. Matthew 13:39-43/Daniel 12:2-3) and is therefore, not some kind of second Great Commission “gathering” post AD 70 – per DeMar.
As I reference in HD DeMar takes the glory that was “about to be revealed” in Romans 8:18 YLT as a fulfillment in AD 70 (HD, 120-121) and McDurmon claims Jesus’ use of “this age” is the old covenant age and the “age to come” is the new covenant age arriving in AD 70 (HD, 91, n.28). Yet Murray writes of these passages,
“The present time is “this age” or the “present age” in contrast with the “age to come” (cf. “…Luke 20:34….”). “…The age to come is the age of the resurrection and of the glory to be revealed.” “…And the glory to be revealed is so bound up with the resurrection (vs. 23)…” (John Murray, EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, 1 vol. edition, Eerdmans Publishing, 1968, 300-301).
After conceding that “this age” is the old covenant age and the “age to come” here is the arrival of the new in AD 70, McDurmon’s attempts to posit the resurrection of Luke 20:34 as biological at the end of time and beyond AD 70 in his debate with Preston was painful to watch and an embarrassment for AV in general.
For over a decade now I have also been asking DeMar to comment on another of his favorite partial preterists (John Lightfoot) who took the creation groaning from the bondage and decay in Romans 8 to have nothing to do with the planet earth (not even poetically) but is rather referring to men’s condition under sin in the mind and heart (HD, 116-117). In essence this is a full preterist interpretation of the “creation” here.
So then according to John Murray, John Lightfoot, AV Gary DeMar/Joel McDurmon — the glory that was “about to be revealed” was the Second Coming and resurrection/redemption of the body that would take place when “this [old covenant] age” gave way to “the [new covenant] age to come” in Jesus’ “this generation” ie. AD 70 (Luke 21:27-28=Romans 8:18-23=Luke 20:34-35). This consummation/resurrection/restoration of creation event involved the hearts and minds of men and therefore does not necessarily involve a literal de-creation/literal re-creation and or literal resurrection of the dead to take place at the end of history. We surely agree with the “exegesis” and logical conclusion of these men!
The following “parallel” chart confirms that the “redemption” of Christ’s disciples in the first century in Luke 21:28 was the redemption of “the body” “about to be revealed” 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)
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 “this generation”(Matt. 24:34)

Gary can run and Gary can hide, but the fact of the matter is — our parallel/analogy of scripture hermeneutic comparing Matthew 24-25 with the eschatology of the NT, is not only more consistent than DeMar’s, it is more creedal and confessional – Selah.
DeMar’s desire for a public hearing:
Gary is frustrated with Engelsma so he makes the following challenge:
“Why not open the campus of the seminary of the Protestant Reformed Church to a debate on the topics of “the last days” and “postmillennialism”? I would be willing to pay my own way to participate in such a debate. How about it Prof. Engelsma?”
When HD first came out I suggested that AV offer both WSTTB? and HD so that the reformed community could read the debate and form objective conclusions. He declined. Here are reasons I think Gary and AV should offer these two books along with the Preston/McDurmon debate:

1) AV sells Gentry’s books and this is one of them (although Gentry is a Romanist in his chapter/debate it is one of his books nonetheless).

2) DeMar and AV have published Sam Frost’s little pamphlet seeking to refute full preterism. In the appendix section of our second edition we refute that AV publication exegetically and logically.

3) DeMar and AV promotes John L. Bray’s book (whom many consider a full preterist) on Matthew 24 Fulfilled and yet Bray has written this of our book, “I’ve not seen another book as strong as this defending the preterist position.”
4) Our book is the only Calvinist full preterist book written to date. Why does AV endorse a full preterist book (that they also say is “heretical”) like Bray’s (who is also an Arminian and Annihilationalist – more WCF “heretical” views), and not support the book Bray says is the best defense of preterism to date and is also a Calvinist work? Very confusing indeed.
5) 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???

If you think these are reasonable and Gary should either respond to our book or sell both of these books (WSTTB? vs. HD) so that the reformed community can objectively read the debate over preterism – I encourage you to message and email him. If you haven’t read both of these books I encourage you to do so. You can get this second edition of our book by going to Pay Pal and for 18.00 (that includes shipping and handling) I will send you our book. You will need my email for Pay Pal and it is: healinglvs@aol.com .
As a full preterist I can understand the frustration of not getting a hearing and letting reformed students listen to all of the exegetical and historical facts in this debate. When our book first came out I wrote a couple of Reformed seminaries requesting that I and any of the authors of WSTTB meet for public lectures and or a formal debate. None accepted. I recently challenged Keith Mathison to meet me at Ligonier Academy in an open and public letter[21] to do the very thing that DeMar wants Engelsma to do with him. Unfortunately this was his response:
“I haven’t read DeMar (or anybody else) on the subject of preterism in years, so I’m not up to speed on what he has said or is saying. I know I can’t explain it to you in a way that you’ll understand, but from my perspective, all the years I spent reading and writing and talking and emailing about preterism were completely wasted time, and I just don’t feel like spending any more time on it.”
If Mathison is too spiritual and discussing preterism is a “wasted of time” for him (BTW I didn’t know that studying the climax of redemptive history whereby the Triune God dwells with man and overcomes the curse of “the death” should be considered as “wasted time”), perhaps I can come and present a mediating view between DeMar and Engelsma for the faculty and student body to consider? I won’t charge anything either. Let the students read WSTTB, our book House Divided Briding the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to When Shall These Things Be?, Gary’s Last Days Madness, an amillennial book of Engelsma’s choosing, and let’s discuss these “exegetical” issues and if the creeds need to be revised and who is not orthodox (straight) and why? Any theological institution afraid of open discussion and or debate on these matters isn’t worth attending in my opinion.
My thoughts on possible subject material for a discussion and or debate before students and faculty:

How important is Matthew 24-25 to the development of NT eschatology?
Is Jesus teaching on His actual Second Coming in Matthew 24-25?
What NT passages and doctrines can and should be paralleled with Matthew 24-25?
Can Matthew 24-25 have multiple fulfillments?
Does partial preterism lead to full preterism?
What parts of the creeds can and should be revised to reflect a better understanding of Matthew 24-25 and other NT eschatological texts?
If it is possible that the creeds have made errors in eschatology – what are they and how can they be changed?

I will be willing to go for “free” to Gary! Will Engelsma or DeMar take me up on this challenge? Most likely not. Why? Because both sides want to continue promoting the myth that students have to choose either classic amillennialism or postmillennial partial preterism. Neither wants their students seeing that both of their views (reformed eschatology as a whole) actually form full preterism. It’s bad business for both sides. But it would be refreshing to have an open and honest discussion of these matters.
Conclusion
Call me crazy, but I have a problem with this approach:
1. For years deny that the Bible or the Church Fathers/”Mother Church” teach that there was a spiritual, corporate, progressive, resurrection for Israel between AD 30 – AD 70 that resulted with the souls of saints being raised out of Hades or Abraham’s Bosom at Christ’s parousia in AD 70 to inherit the kingdom and eternal life (Dan. 12:2, 13/Rev. 20).

2. Call us “heretics” for believing such a view.

3. Then decide you are going to change your view to that view w/out giving credit to where you got it from.

4. Claim the NT doesn’t give double or multiple fulfillments to AD 70 events/fulfillments. But because you need to be creedal you are going to claim the resurrection and judgment of the living and dead could have happened in Dan. 12/Rev. 20; John 5; 1 Cor. 15; but there awaits another fulfillment — BECAUSE you need to be creedal and or pacify creedal supporters and or critics.

5. And in order to pacify those creedal critics you are going to go back to calling full preterism “heretical.”

6. After all of this, you are also going to still deny that your views lead to full preterism.

7. After all of this, you are also going to still claim you are winning the debate on eschatology.

Men like Gary DeMar, Ken Gentry, James Jordan, Joel McDurmon, and Gary North, all live in a different reality apparently. I don’t find this to be honest scholarship, “exegetical,” (multiple fulfillments for these texts) or anything resembling reality. But I guess if these men surround themselves with each other enough and get an actor to come and speak at one of their conferences, in their minds they are winning the debate on eschatology – lol, wow.
Should full preterists support Gary DeMar and American Vision more so than they would a dispensationalist Zionist ministry? Here are some reasons I believe the two should be considered essentially the same error and thus NOT supported:

DeMar seeks to refute and take the speck out of dispensationalism’s eye with their NT two comings theory – a coming/eschaton for the church and one for Israel, and yet DeMar won’t take the plank out of his own eye and repent and turn from his two comings/eschatons – one for Israel and another for the church.
DeMar enjoys mocking dispensational Zionists whose eschatology forces them to want Jews to be gathered back into Israel only so two thirds of them can be destroyed in the tribulation period. Yet, what are we to think of DeMar/AV/theonomic postmillennial affiliates who believe it is our job to kill unbelievers and EVEN believers (ex. “heretic” Baptists who won’t baptize their babies or believe the Sabbath is not for us today in the new covenant) if they do not repent and conform to their theonomic “covenant” system?????
Both eschatologies place their carnal kingdom fulfillment hopes on things which can be seen (a visible second coming, resurrection, re-creation) and not on what cannot be seen.
Both of their carnal kingdom “hopes” are a “hope deferred” and make the church “sick” (Prov. 13:12).
Both eschatologies call full preterists “heretics.”

I can understand how some full preterists are sympathetic with DeMar and AV in that it was through his writings that they became a full preterist (although DeMar continues denying this reality and testimony after testimony). Or some might reason, “Yeah, but they do a good job on the time texts 90% of the time.” But this misses WHY they have hardened their hearts to the remaining 10% – in that it is because they only want to USE the preterist hermeneutic to get the tribulation and great apostasy in the past so that they can promote their theonomic postmillennial agenda or carnal kingdom “Jewish dreams” of killing unbelievers and believers can come true – PERIOD. You might also reason, “Yeah, but dispensationalism is teaching that the church is like a sinking ship, and at least Gary and AV are a little more optimistic.” Well, look yourself in the mirror and ponder if you want to get on board of and or think the church is supposed to be a theonomic postmillennial ship wading through the seas killing unbelievers and believers (“heretics” who will not baptize babies and obey the Sabbath) if they don’t repent and accept their covenant views. Is that the NT church/ship you are called to board and support? I think not.
I think it would be hypocritical and not factually or scripturally based for anyone (full preterist or otherwise) to want to support Gary DeMar and AV and yet not want to support any dispensationalist or Zionist group. After some 25 years of confronting DeMar on his errors, I have to conclude at this point that if he continues to say his views don’t lead to full preterism (even when he steals ours), or that he is somehow winning the debate on eschatology, that at best he is delusional or at worst just willfully deceptive. Perhaps there is some middle ground in there somewhere (only the Lord knows the heart fully), but either way the Lord needs to open his eyes up to the truth and reality – that much is for certain. “Is there no one else?!?” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAFnbkEwqjI

[1] Gary DeMar, Anti-Postmillennialist Makes Weak Case, http://americanvision.org/10080/anti-postmillennialist-makes-weak-case/#sthash.viAtbr8a.dpbs

[2] Ibid.

[3] R.C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), 157.

[4] Michael Sullivan, David Green, Edward Hassertt, House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to When Shall These Things Be? (Ramona, CA: Vision Publishing 2014, Second Edition), 80-84.

[5] Ibid., 91.

[6] Ibid., 97

[7] Ibid., 87-95. See also Michael Sullivan, A Full Preterist Response to Kenneth Gentry’s Articles: DANIEL 12, TRIBULATION, AND RESURRECTION and ACTS 24:15 AND THE ALLEGED NEARNESS OF THE RESURRECTION https://fullpreterism.com/a-full-preterist-response-to-kenneth-gentrys-articles-daniel-12-tribulation-and-resurrection-and-acts-2415-and-the-alleged-nearness-of-the-resurrection/

[8] Michael Sullivan, House Divided, 116-123. This begs the question that DeMar has not answered in that if the “glory” was “about to be revealed” in Romans 8:18 YLT, then contextually so was the liberation of creation from its bondage, the full adoption of the sons of God, and the redemption of the body. I also quote one of DeMar and Gentry’s favorite partial preterists (John Lightfoot) where he admits that the “creation” groaning in this passage has nothing to do with the planet earth (not even poetically) but rather men under sin (which is the full preterist view of the creation here). I have been asking Gary to comment on this for many years now, but he is always “too busy” to comment.

[9] Ibid., 122-123.

[10] Ibid., 126-128.

[11] Ibid., 102-109.

[12] 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.

[13] Sullivan, House Divided, Ibid., 112, footnote 45.

[14] Ibid., 89-95, 178. See also Michael Sullivan, A Full Preterist Response to Kenneth Gentry’s Articles: DANIEL 12, TRIBULATION, AND RESURRECTION and ACTS 24:15 AND THE ALLEGED NEARNESS OF THE RESURRECTION https://fullpreterism.com/a-full-preterist-response-to-kenneth-gentrys-articles-daniel-12-tribulation-and-resurrection-and-acts-2415-and-the-alleged-nearness-of-the-resurrection/

[15] Ibid., 139-140.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid.

[18] 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), 80-84.

[19] Ibid., 91 n. 27-28.

[20] Michael Sullivan, Exposing Sam Frost’s Sloppy “Exegesis” of Matthew 16:27-28 Part 1 – The Use of Similar Identical or Parallel Language Within Matthew and the NT, http://www.treeoflifeministries.info/index.php?view=article&catid=35%3Apreterist-eschatology-all-prophecy-fulfilled-by-ad-70&id=214%3Aexposing-sam-frosts-sloppy-exegesis-of-matthew-1627-28-part-1-the-use-of-similar-identical-or-parallel-language-within-matthew-and-the-nt-&option=com_content&Itemid=77

[21] Michael Sullivan, An Open and Public Letter to Keith A. Mathison, https://fullpreterism.com/open-and-public-letter-to-keith-a-mathison/

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:

“not even Christ has been raised” (1 Cor. 15:13-17)
the apostles are liars (1 Cor. 15:14-15)
“those also who have fallen asleep in Christ perished” (1 Cor. 15:18)
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:

Christ had been raised from the dead.
The apostles were faithful and true witnesses of God.
Christians who had “fallen asleep” had not “perished” (i.e., had not died in their sins).
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 different “spiritual 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 bodily “planted,” 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 body–states 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.

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:

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]}

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:

The necessity of the death of the pre-resurrection body (1 Cor. 15:36)
The differentness of the pre- and post-resurrection bodies (1 Cor. 15:37)
The necessity of the change of the pre-resurrection body (1 Cor. 15:38a)
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 other “body 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:

God did not raise Christ from the dead.
The eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ were liars.
The preaching of the apostles was vain.
The faith of Christians was vain.
Christians were still in their sins.
Christians who had fallen asleep had died in their sins (perished).
The persecuted apostles were to be pitied more than all men.
Christians who were being martyred for the dead were doing so for nothing.
Christians were battling the enemies of the gospel by merely human power.
Christians should have forsaken their sufferings and lived mundane lives.
Christians would not be able to inherit the kingdom of God.
Christians would remain under the curse of Sin, Death, and the Law.
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 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 Four The NT Time Texts Partial Preterist Keith A. Mathison Vs. Full Preterist Michael J. Sullivan Conclusion

House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

Chapter Four
The Eschatological Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be?
Conclusion
Michael J. Sullivan
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 Michael J. Sullivan), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.
Conclusion
Mathison says that interpreting New Testament eschatological timetexts is a “difficult problem” that has “perplexed commentators forcenturies,” and that it is therefore a subject upon which he and his coauthors do not agree (155, 178, 204). Consequently, Mathison’s treatment of the time texts is ambiguous and he casts a fog over the whole matter. Here are some examples of Mathison’s pervasive uncertainty as he wrestles against God’s eschatological time-statements.
• “You shall not finish going through the cities of Israel, until the Son of Man comes.”
Commentators have interpreted [Matthew 10:23] in a number of different ways. (175–176) Mathison presents five competing futurist and partial preterist interpretations.
He eventually lands on an interpretation but he does not express unequivocal confidence in it.
• “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standinghere who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”
. . . [W]hat does it mean for Jesus [in Matthew 16:27–28] to suggest that [the coming of the Son of Man] will happen within the lifetime of his hearers? (176)
But of course, Jesus did more than merely “suggest” that His coming would happen within the lifetime of His hearers, as Mathison weakens the words of the Lord.
• The Coming of the Son of Man
Each of the texts we have looked at (Matt. 10:23; Matt. 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.
This has perplexed commentators for centuries. (178)
Mathison then makes reference to “all of the difficulties surrounding these [time] texts” and adds that “several” interpretations have been “suggested” (178–179).
But as preterists know, these texts are unequivocal and non perplexing. Note that Mathison admits that all of the biblical texts he cited in Matthew (including the prophecy of the sheep and goats) “seem” to say what preterists say they say. When Mathison says that the texts are surrounded by “difficulties” and that they have “perplexed commentators,” the reason is—obviously—because the texts, if left to interpret themselves, teach “hyper-preterism.” Yet five pages later Mathison says, “There is nothing in any of these texts that demands or even strongly suggests a hyper-preterist interpretation” (183).
• “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.”
. . . [S]everal possible interpretations [of Matthew 24:34] have been offered.
Mathison presents nine competing futurist and partial preterist interpretations (179–181). All of the “possible interpretations” of the word “generation” proposed by Mathison are puzzling though, since he tells readers in his book, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope, while refuting Dispensationalism, that they can “know” the preterist interpretation of “this generation” in Matthew 24:34 is the true interpretation:
We know that the phrase “this generation” refers to the generation of Jews to whom Jesus was speaking for these reasons. . . .[1]
Treading water in a great sea of uncertainty and contradiction, Mathison flounders among the “many possible interpretations” of these and other passages, and then miraculously arrives at the shore and concludes with curious confidence: “Just as there is nothing in the Gospels that even remotely suggests hyper-preterism, so there is also nothing in the book of Acts or in the New Testament epistles that suggests hyper-preterism” (205, emphases added). “The New Testament . . . does not even suggest hyper-preterism” (213, emphases added).
Let’s see now. Mathison admits that Jesus said (or suggested or seemed to teach) many times and in many places that His coming would happen within the lifetime of His hearers. Mathison admits that this fact has perplexed futurist commentators for centuries (176–179). Mathison admits that Paul and other New Testament writers seemed to teach that Christ was coming soon and that the end of the age was near (201–202). Then Mathison says that there is nothing in the New Testament “that even remotely suggests hyper-preterism” (205, 213). Our question to Mathison is not when, but how can these things be?
Mathison undertakes to evaluate and dismiss the preterist position while he himself is uncertain as to how to interpret the verses that “seem” to support preterism (but at the same time do not even “remotely suggest” preterism). Mathison’s particular beliefs are a matter of opinion and debate, because according to Mathison, who can know with any certainty what such terms as “near” and “soon” and “this generation” and “some of you standing here” really mean? There are many possible interpretations.
Mathison should consider that his eschatological particulars (the time texts) are vague and uncertain because his eschatological universals (the physical and yet-future second coming, resurrection, and judgment) are askew. If we all were to agree and stand “shoulder to shoulder” (155) on the universal that eschatology is all about the fall of the Soviet Union, the result would be that our interpretation of a myriad of verses would become a “difficult problem” (Mathison’s term). Mathison’s quandary vividly illustrates the centuries-old problem with futurism. Two or three flawed universals have made a vast multitude of particulars unfathomable.
. . . [O]rthodox Christianity was characterized by two eschatological doctrines: the future return of Christ to judge mankind and the future bodily resurrection of all men for judgment. . . . [A]part from these two doctrines, there was nothing approaching consensus for the first four centuries [of church history].[2]
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 these authors can portray their historical positions as unified on these points when between their two systems (partial preterism and amillennialism) two contradictory propositions emerge when you examine the particulars – that is the passages that are used to arrive at a futurist position for these three events:
1)      Partial Preterism – Imminence and fulfillment is 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 in such passages as these: Daniel 12:1-4; Matthew 5:17-18, 13:39-43, 24-25; Acts 1:11; Romans 8:18, 13:11-12; 1 Peter 4:5-7; 2 Peter 3; Revelation 1-22; Hebrews 8:13, 9:26-28,[3] 10:37.
And yet we are also told that this proposition is true –
2)      Classic Amillennialism – The NT only teaches one 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? Obviously both of these propositions cannot be true at the same time unless full preterism is true and accepted. Allow me to use two particular passages in connection with my testimony on how I became a full preterist which illustrates the problem the authors of WSTTB have with their so called “shoulder to shoulder” unity. One day I was reading Reformed amillennial and partial preterist books while also studying Matthew 24-25 and comparing it with 1 Thessalonians 4-5 in my dorm room at the Master’s College. I concluded that the partial preterist was accurate in teaching that the coming of Christ in Matthew 24-25 was fulfilled in AD 70 spiritually using apocalyptic language and that the amillennialist was also accurate in that Paul was drawing from Jesus’ teaching in the Olivet Discourse and that there is only one “the parousia” of Christ in the NT. Therefore “orthodoxy” was teaching me that 1 Thessalonians 4-5 was the same coming of Christ described by Jesus in Matthew 24-25. But since the futurist errs on the nature of the resurrection assuming it is biological and at the end of time, the readers of WSTTB are forced into a contradictory “either or” situation on passages such as these when the truth is a “both and.” I think one can see the problem the authors of WSTTB are trying to sweep under the rug when it comes to how they can “unify” in teaching that the Second Coming is still future when the particulars of what they are each saying on the given texts and how they relate to each other teach otherwise.
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 accept the organic development of full preterism which unites them in seeing that these events were fulfilled in AD 70 when Christ came (once a “second time”) invisibly to close the old covenant age dissolving the elements of that world while establishing the new.
It is ironic that the title of Mathison’s book is When Shall These Things Be? Not only is there no consensus among the authors as to the answer to that very question, but Mathison himself (the only author who attempts to answer the question) fails to arrive at an unequivocal and decisive answer. Within a span of six pages (177–182), Mathison tacitly admits that the question is a problem for futurism, and offers seven or eight possible “solutions.”[4]
If we were to apply Mathison’s method in eschatological matters to all other areas of life, we would be certain of nothing; we would all be postmodernists. The truth would become unknowable. Mathison himself, in his book The Shape of Sola Scriptura, teaches that “clear” and “firm scriptural proof for every article of faith” is a “necessity.”[5]
Yet in WSTTB, Mathison demonstrates with his plethora of “possible interpretations” that he lacks “clear” and “firm” scriptural proof either for futurism or against preterism. Nevertheless, he feels at liberty to anathematize us for our preterist challenge to futurism (213).
Mathison claims that Christ died to leave the church, for 2,000 years and counting, in an “evil age.” As my editor has said, “Joy to the world!” Postmillennialists such as Marcellus Kik and Keith Mathison have produced not so much an Eschatology of Victory or An Eschatology of Hope, as a “sick” eschatology, because, “Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but when the desire comes, it is a tree of life” (Prov. 13:12). Preterism will stand the test of time; and as godly men embrace it and teach it, it will bring healing to the “eschatological schizophrenia” of Mathison et al, and to the eschatological division within the church as a whole.
Interestingly, Gentry and Mathison in their books pit old school dispensationalism against modern day progressives as a “House Divided” that “cannot stand” unless they move more toward covenant theology. And yet we have documented their “House Divided” approach which equally “cannot stand” unless full Preterism is embraced to “bridge the gap.” And since they also exhort progressives such as Pastor John MacArthur in his/their changes which are moving closer and closer to covenant theology, we too applaud Gentry and Mathison for coming closer and closer to full Preterism in what they have written since WSTTB. If a five point Calvinist and progressive dispensationalist such as MacArthur can be seen as “inconsistent,” holding to a “compromised” position, or being content in being a stepping stone for others to come into covenant theology, then full preterists can view Gentry and Mathison’s writings as such in their moves towards full preterism.
If not why not? As a Reformed believer, dear reader, you know that there is no middle ground between Arminianism and Calvinism. You may have tried at one time to say that you were neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian. Or you may have acknowledged that the Bible teaches Calvinism, but you rejected the teaching because you were troubled by its implications. Or you may have even been a closet Calvinist for years. Though the road was perhaps difficult, you eventually embraced the doctrines of grace, and now you know there is no compromise position between the two doctrines.
Many Reformed believers today are having the same experience
with the doctrine of preterism. They are learning that it is also a hard
pill to swallow and that it is nevertheless the doctrine of Scripture. They
are learning that it represents “the whole counsel of God” in the area of
eschatology. After we are confronted with biblical preterism, we may
try to straddle the fence, but there is truly no middle ground. Just as
R.C. Sproul (Sr.) would consider a four-point Calvinist to be in reality a
“confused Arminian,” more and more futurists, on their way to biblical
preterism, are beginning to see that partial preterism is just “confused
futurism.” There is no biblical basis for “partial preterism” even as there
is no biblical basis for “partial Calvinism.” This is why partial preterism
invariably leads to full preterism. This is why Keith Mathison and Ken
Gentry have both come closer to “hyper-preterism” since they wrote
WSTTB. Mathison now believes that the prophecy of the sheep and
the goats in Matthew 25 was fulfilled in AD 70 and Gentry now believes
that the resurrection in Daniel 12:2-3 was fulfilled in AD 70.

[1] Mathison, Postmillennialism, 111 (emphasis added)
[2] Postmillennialism, 33
[3] Milton Terry wrote of Hebrews 9:26-28, “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 [to the Hebrews] 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, 441-442.
[4] Ken Gentry, in another book, gave a decisive interpretation of Jesus’ answer to the disciples’ question: “Christ’s teaching here is extremely important to redemptive history. He is responding to the question of His disciples regarding when the end of the age (Gk., aion) will occur (24:3). In essence, His full answer is: when the Romans lay waste the temple (vv. 6 and 15 anticipate this) and pick apart Jerusalem (v. 28).” Thomans Ice, Kenneth Gentry, The Great Tribulation Past or Future? Two Evangelicals Debate the Question (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1999), 58.
[5] Keith Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2001), 32

House Divided Chapter Four The NT Time Texts Partial Preterist Keith A. Mathison Vs. Full Preterist Michael J. Sullivan Part 13 What About Hymenaeus and Philetus 2 Timothy 2:17-18?

House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

Chapter Four
The Eschatological Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be?
Part 13 – What About Hymenaeus and Philetus 2 Timothy 2:17-18?

Michael J. Sullivan

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 Michael J. Sullivan), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.

2 Timothy 2:17–18

I recently received an email and phone call from an elder in a church who was secretly placed under church discipline and then excommunicated for studying the preterist view of Bible prophecy. He and his family were told that their salvation was in question unless they repented of studying (let alone holding to) this position. The source material that was used against them was When Shall These Things Be?, and the Bible text that was used to anathematize them was 2 Timothy 2:17–18. Apparently the eldership of the church did not see the irony. The editor of When Shall These Things Be? concedes that 2 Timothy 2:18 “cannot” be used even to “criticize” preterists, much less anathematize them, because according to Mathison, it may very well be that “the resurrection” of 2 Timothy 2:18 truly did take place in AD 70:

. . . [2 Timothy 2:1–18] cannot be used to criticize hyper-preterism until . . . [it can be] demonstrated from other texts that nothing of the sort occurred in A.D. 70. (194)

This is quite an admission from a man who says that hyper-preterism is “a much different religion” than Christianity (213). What Bible verses can Mathison use, other than 2 Timothy 2:17–18, to brand preterism as a different religion? Answer: There are no other verses. Without 2 Timothy 2:17–18, Mathison doesn’t have a biblical leg to stand on in his condemnation of preterists. All he has are the baseless words of those, like himself, who have set themselves up to condemn us based solely on the assumption that our rejection of futurism is a damnable error.

We agree with Mathison that 2 Timothy 2:17–18 cannot be used to criticize us. But we must go further than this. Far from being an anti-preterist passage, 2 Timothy 2:17–18 is actually a condemnation of the implications of futurism. Allow me to explain. First of all, Hymenaeus and Philetus were Judaizers. They were of a class of deceivers who taught Jewish “myths” and “genealogies” (1 Tim. 1:4; Titus 1:4), and were self-appointed “teachers of the Law” (1 Tim. 1:7). They taught believers to abstain from foods (1 Tim. 4:3), no doubt using the Levitical dietary laws as a basis of their teaching.

It is because Hymenaeus and Philetus were Judaizers that Paul compared them to “Jannes and Jambres” (2 Tim. 3:8). According to ancient historians, Jannes and Jambres were Egyptian magicians who challenged Moses’ authority in Egypt. Like Jannes and Jambres, Hymenaeus and Philetus were teaching the strange doctrines of “Egypt” (Rev. 11:8), and were challenging Paul’s gospel-authority, attempting to deceive Christians into believing that God’s new wine (the new covenant land of promise) could be contained within the old, “Egyptian” wineskins of the old covenant world.

Likewise in 2 Timothy 2:19, Paul connects Hymenaeus and Philetus to the rebellion of Korah in Numbers 16:5, 26.[1] Korah had led hundreds of the sons of Israel to challenge Moses’ authority. As God had destroyed Korah and his followers in the wilderness, so God was “about to judge” (2 Timothy 4:1) and destroy the Judaizers Hymenaeus and Philetus and others like them (cf. Heb. 3:16–19).

According to the teaching of Hymenaeus and Philetus, because Jerusalem and the temple still stood (in about AD 67) after the resurrection had allegedly already taken place, it irresistibly followed that “the sons according to the flesh” were now the heirs of the eternal kingdom and that Paul’s Jew-Gentile gospel of grace was a lie. The blasphemous error of Hymenaeus and Philetus was that the world of the Mosaic covenant would remain forever established after the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets had taken place and the new heavens and new earth (“the resurrection”) had arrived.

This “Hymenaean” heresy is the diametric opposite of preterism. According to preterism, the old covenant came to an eternal and irrevocable termination in “the resurrection,” when all things were fulfilled in AD 70. There is absolutely no theological connection between preterism and Hymenaeus’ blasphemous lie of an everlasting “ministration of death.”

However, there is a clear connection between the heresy of Hymenaeus and the implications of futurism: If “the Law and the Prophets” are not fulfilled today, and “heaven and earth” have not passed away, and the jots and tittles of the Law have not passed away, and all things are not yet fulfilled, as futurism says, then logically and scripturally, the Law of Moses remains unfulfilled and “imposed” to this day (Matt. 5:17–19; Heb. 8:13; 9:10). This implication of futurism is exactly what the Judaizers, Hymenaeus and Philetus, taught when they said the resurrection was already past in AD 67.

As we have seen on virtually every page of WSTTB, Mathison and his co-authors are in conflict over a multitude of eschatological passages. It comes as no surprise that they are in conflict even in regard to how or even if the Bible anathematizes preterists. And it is more than ironic that the one passage in all of Scripture that can conceivably be perceived as decisively anathematizing preterists is in reality applicable to the implications of futurism.[2] Selah.

Partial Preterist Mr. Gary North, has said that if one side of the debate ceases to respond to the others arguments then the one who has responded last (thus silencing the other) in essence has won the debate (my paraphrase). He has also written of dispensational scholars and their inability to keep up with postmillennial works and critiques, “Like a former athlete who dies of a heart attack at age 52 from obesity and lack of exercise, so did dispensational theology depart from this earthly veil of tears. Dispensational theologians got out of shape, and were totally unprepared for the killer marathon of 1988.” (Greg L. Bahnsen, Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., HOUSE DIVIDED THE BREAK-UPOF DISPENSATIONAL THEOLOGY (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), Publishers Foreword, xx.). In the same book DeMar claims that “Any theological position divided against itself is laid waste” and “shall not stand” and is guilty of “Theological Schizophrenia” (Ibid. 349-350). Apparently Mr. Mathison was not prepared for the killer marathon of 2009 and since that time has been too busy engorging himself from the profits P&R provided him and is simply too scared and out of shape to open our book let alone read and respond to my critique and response to him? And we document the “House Divided” “Theological Schizophrenia” and contradictory approach Reformed eschatology has sought to use against us let alone the contradictions (and yet at the same time progressive views moving towards Full Preterism) that are within Mathison’s writings alone.

Therefore, I have decided to post my chapter response to his online (in small parts) in hopes that both the Futurist and the Full Preterist communities will contact him for an official response. If no response continues to come, then I will allow him to be judged by the same standard that his own postmillennial partial preterist colleagues have set up, and accept that he is unable to respond and has lost our debate.

[1] William Hendriksen; Simon J. Kistemaker: New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1953–2001), 268.

[2] For more on 2 Timothy 2:17–18, see David Green’s response to “Strimple Argument #1” in chapter seven of this book.

House Divided Chapter Four NT Time Texts Partial Preterist Keith A. Mathison Vs. Full Preterist Michael J. Sullivan – The Millennium Revelation 20

House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

Chapter Four
The Eschatological Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be?

The Millennium Revelation 20
Michael J. Sullivan
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 Michael J. Sullivan), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.
Millennium
Mathison writes: “ . . . [T]he hyper-preterist interpretations of the millennium fail to take seriously the long-term time text involved. . . . When the word thousand is used in Scripture, it refers either to a literal thousand or to an indefinite, but very large, number” (209).
Response:
Psalm 50:10 is often cited, usually by postmillennialists, to teach that “a thousand” symbolizes literally “many thousands or millions.” For every beast of the forest is Mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. (Ps. 50:10)
Postmillennialists reason that God owns the cattle on every hill; therefore “a thousand hills” symbolizes or represents “many thousands or millions of hills.” Thus, they reason, we are led by Scripture to interpret the “thousand years” in Revelation 20 to mean “many thousands or millions of years.”
That reasoning sounds solid at first glance. However, the context of Psalm 50:10 does not lead us to a principle that a symbolic “thousand” always signifies “many thousands.” It leads us to the principle that a symbolic “thousand” signifies “fullness.” The “thousand” of Psalm 50:10 is interpreted for us two verses later:
The world is Mine, and the fullness thereof. (Ps. 50:12b)
In Psalm 90:4, a “thousand years” is as “yesterday” and as “a watch in the night.” In 2 Peter 3:8, a “thousand years” is as one “day.” In those verses, a “thousand” (and “yesterday” and “a watch” and a “day”) is used to teach us that to God, a small piece of time is no different than a fullness of time. (Compare Job 7:7; Ps. 39:5; 90:2; 144:4; Heb. 13:8; Jms. 4:14.) Thus in Psalm 105:8, a “thousand” corresponds with “forever”: He has remembered His covenant forever, the word that he commanded to a thousand generations. (Ps. 105:8)
In scriptural usage, a symbolic “thousand” can be likened to “one” (day / yesterday / a watch in the night), or used in reference to millions of hills, or to eternity (“forever”). A “thousand” can be likened unto or used to represent a number lesser or greater than a literal thousand. Only its context can determine its literal numerical meaning, but the basic idea that is communicated by the number is “fullness.” As G. K. Beale wrote, “The primary point of the thousand years is probably not a figurative reference to a long time . . .”^{^[1]}
How one interprets the thousand years in Revelation 20 depends on one’s eschatological framework. The passage does not interpret itself, but must be interpreted by the overall eschatology of Scripture. Within the preterist interpretive framework, the biblical-eschatological context of Revelation 20 should lead us to interpret the “thousand years” to signify the time of the Christological filling up of all things (Eph. 1:10; 4:10). That time was from the Cross of Christ to the Parousia of Christ in AD 70. That was the time during which “the [spiritual] death” which came through Adam and was magnified through “the law” was in process of being destroyed. The literal timeframe of the “thousand years” was roughly forty years.
Mathison admits that he does not know if there were any rabbis who used the number 1,000 to symbolize forty years (210). Reformed theologian G. K. Beale tells us that some Jews considered the length of the intermediate messianic reign to be forty years. He also states that one Jewish tradition made an anti-type connection between Adam’s lifespan (almost 1,000 years) and a reign of Messiah for a (possibly symbolic) thousand years.^{^[2]} Many Christians have attempted to make this connection and have also paralleled the thousand years of 2 Peter 3:8 with John’s thousand years in Revelation 20:2–6.
Adam falling short of the 1,000-year lifespan by 70 years (Gen. 5:5) may represent his being created a mortal being and perishing in sin outside of God’s presence. If this is the case, then it is more than reasonable that the number 1,000 took on the symbolism and representation of Christ’s and the church’s victory over Death in contrast to Adamic man’s vain existence apart from God’s salvation (Eccl. 6:6).
Some Evangelicals and Reformed theologians along with some preterists such as Milton Terry do not understand the long lifespans in the early chapters of Genesis to be literal.^{^[3]} They believe that the lifespans were symbolic and contained numerological elements. But even if Adam’s lifespan was a literal 930 years, this does not exclude an anti-typical, symbolic 1,000 years in Revelation 20.
When Messiah came as “the last Adam,” His reign in and through the church for a symbolic thousand years brought the church not to the dust of the earth separated from God’s presence, but to the Tree of Life and into the very presence of God (Rev. 20–22:12). Through faith in and union with Christ as the Last Adam (the Tree of Life and New Creation), Christians have achieved what Adam could not. The church was clothed with “immortality”; it attained unto the “fullness” of life in AD 70; and it will never die for the aeons of the aeons (2 Cor. 1:20; 1 Cor. 15:45–53; Rev. 21–22; Jn. 11:26–27).
All of the authors of WSTTB understand that the Second Coming is the event that brings the millennium to its consummation. However, the only future coming of Jesus discussed in the book of Revelation is the one that would take place shortly (Rev. 3:11; 22:6–7, 10–12, 20). Both Mathison and Gentry concede that this imminent coming of Christ took place in AD 70. But then they err in assuming that the imminent coming of Jesus in Revelation was not His “actual second coming” (182).
To conclude my section on the millennium of Revelation 20, please consider the following exegetical, orthodox, and historical points:

Kenneth Gentry informs us that the book of Revelation is about things which were past, present, and “about to be” fulfilled in John’s day (Rev. 1:19, YLT). There is no exegetical evidence that Revelation 20 does not fall within these inspired parameters.
As G.K. Beale has said, the symbol of the thousand years does not have to be taken as describing a long period of time (i.e., thousands of years).
It has also been acknowledged by Reformed theologians that many Rabbis believed that the period of Messiah was to be a transitionary stage between “this age/world and the age/ world to come.” These Rabbis (such as R. Adiba), understood this transition period to be forty years, based upon how long the Israelites were in the wilderness before inheriting the land. This type/anti-type understanding is developed for us in the book of Hebrews (cf. Heb. 3-4; 10:25, 37; 11—13:14, YLT). And as we have noted from Reformed partial preterists such as Joel McDurmon and Gary DeMar, it is within the realm of Reformed orthodoxy to believe that Jesus’ and Paul’s “this age/world” was the old covenant age, and that “the last days” were the days of transition between the old covenant age and the new covenant age (AD 30 – 70).
Reformed partial preterists such as Keith Mathison, Kenneth Gentry, and James Jordan teach that the content of Revelation 1-19 and 21-22 was fulfilled by AD 70, at which time there was a judgment and resurrection of the dead and arrival of the new creation. And amillennialists such as Simon Kistemaker teach that Revelation 20:5–15 recapitulates the same judgment and consummation scenes that are depicted in chapters 1–19 and 21–22. Full preterists hold to both of these Reformed and “orthodox” positions in interpreting the bookof Revelation.
In criticizing the premillennial view, which often seeks to isolate Revelation 20 from the rest of the New Testament, amillennialists and many postmillennialists hold that Revelation 20 falls within the “already and not yet” of the “last days” period in the New Testament, and that this transition period is depicted in the parable of the wheat and tares, or in Matthew 24–25. But as we have seen, it is “orthodox” to believe the “last days” ended with the old covenant age in AD 70, and that the harvest/gathering and coming of Christ in Matthew 13 and 24–25 was fulfilled by AD 70.
If it is true that a) the coming of Christ in Matthew 24 and 25 is referring to the AD 70 judgment, as Mathison and other partial preterists are now proposing, and if it is true that b) John’s version of Matthew 24-25 is found in the book of Revelation, and if it is true that c) Matthew 24:27-31 — 25:31ff. is descriptive of the one end-of-the-age Second Coming, judgment, and resurrection event (the creedal position), then d) the authors of WSTTB have some explaining to do, because these orthodox doctrines form the “this-generation” fortyyear millennial view of full preterism.

MATTHEW 24-25	REVELATION 20:5-15
Resurrection and judgment Matt. 24:30-31 (cf. Matt. 13:39-43/Dan. 12:2-3) Matt. 25:31-46 (cf. Matt. 16:27-28)	Resurrection and judgment Rev. 20:5-15
De-creation heaven and earth pass/flee Matt. 24:29, 35 (cf. Matt. 5:17-18)	De-creation heaven and earth pass/flee Rev. 20:11 (cf. Rev. 6:14; 16:20; 21:1)
Christ on throne to judge Matt. 25:31	God on throne to judge Rev. 20:11
Wicked along with Devil eternally punished Matt. 25:41-46	Wicked along with Devil eternally punished Rev. 20:10, 14-15

7. If it is true that a) the judgment and resurrection of the dead in Daniel 12:1-4, 13 were fulfilled by AD 70 (per Gentry), and if it is true that b) Daniel 12:1-4, 13 is parallel to Revelation 20:5-15 (classic amillennial view), then c) once again the authors of WSTTB have some explaining to do, in that these orthodox views form the “this-generation” forty-year millennial view of full preterism.

DANIEL 12:1-2	REVELATION 20:5-15
Only those whose names are written in the book would be delivered/saved from eternal condemnation Dan. 12:1-2	Only those whose names are written in the book would be delivered/saved from the lake of fire Rev. 20:12-15
This is the time for the resurrection and judgment of the dead Dan. 12:1-2	This is the time for the resurrection and judgment of the dead Rev. 20:5-15

Conclusion:

Therefore, the reader should be able to discern that the full preterist view of the millennium is: 1) consistent with the teaching of Revelation, 2) falls within the “orthodox” views the Reformed church, 3) is in harmony with the analogy of Scripture, and 4) has historical support from Rabbis who saw a forty-year transition period between the two ages. Our view on the millennium is exegetically sound and orthodox. It is not as “difficult” as Mathison attempts to portray it.
[1] . G. K. Beale, The New International Greek Testament Commentary: The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999), 1018.
[2] . Ibid., 1018–1019.
[3] . Carol A. Hill, Making Sense of the Numbers of Genesis (http://www. asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12–03Hill pdf); Milton S. Terry, Biblical Apocalyptics: A Study of the Most Notable Revelations of God and of Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988), 62.

House Divided Chapter Four The NT Time Texts Partial Preterist Keith A. Mathison Vs. Full Preterist Michael J. Sullivan – All Israel Will Be Saved Romans 11:26

House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

Chapter Four: The Eschatological Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be?
All Israel Will be Saved Romans 11:26
Michael J. Sullivan
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 Michael J. Sullivan), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.
All Israel will be Saved
Mathison argues: In Romans 11:25–26, Paul seems to be saying that ethnic Israel as a people will be saved. This has not happened yet (199–200).
Response:
There is a great debate between Amillennialists and Postmillennialists on the salvation of “all Israel” in Romans 11:25–26, as can be seen in the opposing views of Gentry and Strimple.^{^[1]} Postmillennialists such as Gentry and Mathison argue that “all Israel” being saved refers to a mass conversion of ethnic Jews before Christ comes in our future. Amillennialists understand “all Israel” being saved to refer to the salvation of the church as the new Israel of God.
As for the view that “all Israel” refers to ethnic Jews in our future, we can immediately know that this view is incorrect. With the passing of the old covenant in AD 70, there is no covenantal Israel other than the united Jew-Gentile church. The things of the old order passed away. So the covenant promises in Romans 11 cannot refer to the modern nation of Israel or to the modern Jewish race or community. The only “Israel” in the New Testament that was to be cleansed from sin is the Jew-Gentile church, the body of Israel’s Messiah. This is the “Israel” (“all” of it) that entered into the Holiest of Holies in AD 70 (Heb. 9:8). Let us briefly summarize Paul’s argument in Romans 11.
Even though God’s old covenant people in their last generation were being hardened and excluded from the coming inheritance, that did not mean that God had rejected old covenant Israel (Rom. 11:1– 2). Although it may have looked like Israel was being utterly cut off in her last generation, the truth was that old covenant Israel was being saved in her last days. God was actually saving “all Israel”—fulfilling His promises to “the fathers”—partly by means of the hardening of its last generation. Here’s how:

By means of old covenant Israel’s transgression/failure and rejection in her last days, riches and reconciliation (through the gospel) were coming to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46; 18:6; 28:18). As Paul said, “They are enemies for your sakes.” (Rom. 11:28)
The salvation of the Gentiles was making last days Israel “jealous,” so that a remnant was becoming zealous for righteousness and being saved. (Rom. 11:2–10,11,13,14)
The hardening, or reprobation, of old covenant Israel in her last generation was to continue until the fullness of the Gentiles came in, i.e., came into Israel. (Rom. 11:25)
In this manner, or by this process, all of the saints of historic, old covenant Israel were going to be saved (resurrected) along with the last days remnant, and with the believing Gentiles who had been grafted into historic Israel. The consummation of this process took place in the Parousia of Christ in AD 70, according to the promises made to the fathers. (Rom. 11:26) That is when Israel died, and was raised up a new, transformed Israel. That is when all of the elect (the Old Testament saints, the last days Jewish remnant, and the believing Gentiles) were consummately united in Christ and became the fulfilled “Israel of God.” It was thus that all Israel was saved.

Mathison neglects to interact with other partial preterists such as DeMar and Jordan who teach that “all Israel” was saved by AD 70 and that covenantally, there no longer remain “ethnic” Jews after AD 70.^{^[2]} Why was not the view of DeMar and Jordan one of the many “possible interpretations” within Mathison’s eschatology of uncertainty?
It has now been 4 years since I have responded to Keith A. Mathison’s chapter “The Eschatological Time Texts in the NT” in our book House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to When Shall These Things Be? For me Mathison’s excuse for not responding (“I have been too busy”) has expired.
Partial Preterist Mr. Gary North, has said that if one side of the debate ceases to respond to the others arguments then the one who has responded last (thus silencing the other) in essence has won the debate (my paraphrase). He has also written of dispensational scholars and their inability to keep up with postmillennial works and critiques, “Like a former athlete who dies of a heart attack at age 52 from obesity and lack of exercise, so did dispensational theology depart from this earthly veil of tears. Dispensational theologians got out of shape, and were totally unprepared for the killer marathon of 1988.” (Greg L. Bahnsen, Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., HOUSE DIVIDED THE BREAK-UPOF DISPENSATIONAL THEOLOGY (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), Publishers Foreword, xx.). In the same book DeMar claims that “Any theological position divided against itself is laid waste” and “shall not stand” and is guilty of “Theological Schizophrenia” (Ibid. 349-350). Apparently Mr. Mathison was not prepared for the killer marathon of 2009 and since that time has been too busy engorging himself from the profits P&R provided him and is simply too scared and out of shape to open our book let alone read and respond to my critique and response to him? And we document the “House Divided” “Theological Schizophrenia” and contradictory approach Reformed eschatology has sought to use against us let alone the contradictions (and yet at the same time progressive views moving towards Full Preterism) that are within Mathison’s writings alone.
Therefore, I have decided to post my chapter response to his online (in small parts) in hopes that both the Futurist and the Full Preterist communities will contact him for an official response. If no response continues to come, then I will allow him to be judged by the same standard that his own postmillennial partial preterist colleagues have set up, and accept that he is unable to respond and has lost our debate.
[1] . Kenneth Gentry, Robert Strimple, Ed. Craig Blaising, Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1999), 112–118, 133–142.
[2] . Gary DeMar, All Israel will be saved: Notes on Romans 11:26, American Vision http://americanvision.org/1234/all-israel-will-be-saved-notes-onromans/#.UG3auVGJr3A. James B. Jordan, The Future of Israel Re-examined, July 1991. Biblical Horizons, No. 27 July, 1991

House Divided Chapter Four The NT Time Texts Partial Preterist Keith A. Mathison Vs. Full Preterist Michael J. Sullivan The Imminent Liberation of Creation Romans 8:18-23

House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

Chapter Four
The Eschatological Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be?
The Imminent Liberation of Creation Romans 8:18-23

Michael J. Sullivan
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 Michael J. Sullivan), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.

The Creation Groaning

On pages 196–197, Mathison makes the following argument: The epistles of the New Testament speak of the restoration of creation both as something that has already begun and as something that will be completed only in the future. Paul, for example, explains that “the form of this world is passing away” (1 Cor. 7:31; cf. 1 Jn. 2:17). Yet, according to Paul, the creation awaits its full deliverance from the effects of sin. . . (Rom. 8:19–25). The full restoration of creation is still future (see Heb. 2:8; 2 Pet. 3:7–13). . . . [R]edemption has to do with more than the spiritual side of creation. God will fully redeem the physical creation as well. Response:

For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. (Rom. 8:19–22)

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: the manifestation and production of which sons, the whole Gentile world doth now wait for, as it were, with an out stretched neck.^{^[1]}

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. But in the sense which we have pitched upon, the very literal construction may be admitted.^{^[2]}

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.

John Lightfoot not only interpreted the “creation” of Romans 8 to be the creation of men and NOT the physical planet, but he understood the “redemption of the body” to not be a resurrection of physical bodies, but rather, the “mystical body” of the Church. In his sermon on “Many Mansions” Lightfoot states,

“And of the same body, is his meaning in that obscure and much-mistaken place (Rom. viii.23; “And not only they,” i.e. ‘the whole creation,’ or πασα κτισις, ‘every creature,’ which means no other thing, thatn ‘the Gentile or heathen world;’ “not only they groan to come into the evangelical liberty of the children of God,–but we, also, of the Jewish nation, who have the first-fruits of the Spirit, groan within ourselves, waiting for the redemption,–to wit, the adoption of our body:” we wait for the redeeming and adopting of the Gentiles, to make up our mystical body.” (cf. https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/lightfoot/vol06.pdf… pp. 322-323).

Clearly Lightfoot understood the “creation” to mean the creation of men and not the planet earth and “redemption of the body” to be the mystical body of the Jew/Gentile Church and not an individual physical body.

“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)
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 “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 mello in 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

These interpretations are, individually considered, “orthodox.” Yet when preterists consolidate the most defensible elements of Reformed eschatology, anti-preterists such as the authors of WSTTB unite in opposition to even some of their own stated views.

*** It has now been 4 years since I have responded to Keith A. Mathison’s chapter “The Eschatological Time Texts in the NT” in our book House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to When Shall These Things Be? For me Mathison’s excuse for not responding (“I have been too busy”) has expired.

[1] John Lightfoot, Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, Volume 4 (Hendrickson publications), 157. Lightfoot, Hammond, and Gill understand the “creation” to be referring to Gentiles. “ . . . Crellius (Comm., Para.) explains it as a reference to regenerate Christians and Le Clerc (Supp., NT) refers it particularly to Gentile Christians.” John Locke, The Clarendon Edition of the Works of John Locke: A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St Paul, Volume 2 (Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1987), 789.

[2] Ibid., 158–159 (emphases added).

[3] Tom Holland, Contours In Pauline Theology (Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2004), 85–110. Holland is a Reformed theologian who sees Paul’s “body” of flesh, sin, and death not referring to our physical flesh but to the corporate body of Sin in contrast to the corporate Body of Christ—the church. He counters Gundry’s individualistic views of soma in Paul’s writings. He also argues for “consistency” in Paul’s use of corporate terms. I recommend

this book to any serious student of Reformed theology.

[4] John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray 2: Systematic Theology (Banner of Truth Publications, 1977), 389

[5] The Reformation Study Bible, R.C. Sproul General Editor, Keith Mathison Associate Editor (Lake Mary, FL: Ligonier Ministries, 2005), 1, 636.

[6] Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., The Beast of Revelation, (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), 23–24.

[7] Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Before Jerusalem Fell, (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), 141–142.

[8] Ibid., 141.

[9] Gary DeMar, LastDays MADNESS OBSESSION OF THE MODERN CHURCH, (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 1999), 225.

[10] 61. John Owen, The Works of John Owen, 16 vols. (London: The Banner

of Truth Trust, 1965–68), 9:134–135. John Lightfoot, Commentary on the NewTestament from the Talmud and Hebraica: Matthew – 1 Corinthians, 4 vols. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, [1859], 1989), 3:452, 454. John Brown, Discourses and Sayings of our Lord, 3 vols. (Edinburgh: The Banner

of Truth Trust, [1852] 1990), 1:170. John Locke, The Clarendon Edition of the Works of John Locke: A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St Paul Volume 2, (NY: Oxford University Press, 1987), 617–618. R.C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998). Kenneth Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion (Tyler TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1992), 363–365. Kenneth Gentry (contributing author), Four Views on the Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1998), 89. Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church (Powder Springs: GA, 1999), 68–74, 141–154, 191–192. James B. Jordan, Through New Eyes Developing a Biblical View of the World (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, 1998), 269–279. Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis (contributing author) Eschatology in Bible & Theology (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 1997), 145–169. Peter J. Leithart, The Promise of His Appearing: An Exposition of Second Peter (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2004). Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1999), 114, 157–158. N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996), 345–346. N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003), 645, n.42. Hank Hanegraaff, The Apocalypse Code (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2007), 84–86. C. Jonathin Seraiah, The End of All Things: A Defense of the Future (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2002).

House Divided Chapter Four The NT Time Texts Partial Preterist Keith A. Mathison Vs. Full Preterist Michael J. Sullivan Part 8 The Rapture 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17

House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

Chapter Four
The Eschatological Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be?
Part 8 – The Rapture 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17
Michael J. Sullivan
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 Michael J. Sullivan), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical
articles or reviews.

The Rapture

Mathison argues: Some have said that since Paul used the word “we” in
1 Thessalonians 4:15 and 17, Paul expected the events of 1 Thessalonians
4 to occur within his own lifetime. “The problem with this interpretation
is that in several other epistles Paul talks as though he could die soon.”
Therefore “Paul [was] simply using the pronoun ‘we’ in a general way to
mean ‘we Christians.’ As far as Paul knew, Christ could have returned in
his lifetime, but there was nothing that demanded He do so” (194).

Response:

To my knowledge, no preterist thinks that Paul assumed that he himself
would be included in the group of believers who would remain
alive to the coming of the Lord. If I were to say, “We who live long
enough to see the year 2030,” there is no reason to think that I would
be assuming that I myself would be among the living in 2030. My only
assumption would be that some of us today would be alive in 2030.
In the same way, Paul’s words imply only that he knew that some of
his contemporaries would still be alive when Christ returned, as Christ
Himself promised would be the case in Matthew 16:27–28; 24:34.
According to Mathison, all of Paul’s “we,” “you,” and “our” statements
in 1 and 2 Thessalonians refer to Paul’s own first-century audience and
address Christ’s coming in AD 70—except for the statements in 1 Thessalonians
4 (“the rapture”).[1] Mathison decides that “we” in 1 Thessalonians
4 means something other than what it means everywhere else in
1 and 2 Thessalonians. Suddenly in chapter 4, “we” includes Christians
who potentially will not be alive for a million years from today. Now let
us move on from arbitrary Mathisonian constructs to a biblical look at
“the rapture” passage, 1 Thessalonians 4:15–17.

A day was approaching when Christ would deliver believers from
their persecutions and pour out His wrath upon their persecutors (1
Thess. 1:10; cf. 2 Thess. 1:6–7). When that day came, the Lord descended
from heaven with a word of command (or “a shout”), with archangelic
voice, and with a trumpet call of God; and the dead in Christ rose.
Then the living in Christ and the dead in Christ were simultaneously
“caught up” in “clouds” to “a meeting of the Lord in the air.”

We can know that Paul’s words in 1 Thessalonians 4:14–17 are not
to be interpreted literally (a literal trumpet, etc.) because the Scriptures
tell us elsewhere not to interpret them literally. In Exodus 19 and 20,
the Lord came down in a cloud over Mount Sinai. He spoke with a loud
voice. There was the sound of a loud trumpet. And Moses met the Lord
on Mount Sinai. Then God established His covenant with His people.
The writer of Hebrews tells us that though the trumpet and the voice
of the old covenant were literal, the “trumpet” and the “voice” of the
new covenant are not literal (Heb. 12:18–19). Neither is the mountain
(Mount Zion) literal in the new covenant (Heb. 12:18, 22). Therefore,
neither is the cloud (which descended to cover the mountain) literal in
the new covenant.
Since the cloud-covered mountain is not literal, but is heavenly,
neither then is the meeting that takes place in the heavenly mountain
(i.e., in the clouds in the air) literal. Therefore the shout, voice, trumpet,
mountain, cloud, and meeting of 1 Thessalonians 4:16 are all spiritual
antitypes of the literal shout, voice, trumpet, mountain, cloud, and meeting
of Exodus 19 and 20 (Heb. 12:18–22).

What we have then in 1 Thessalonians 4:15–17 is the “rapturously”
metaphorical language of a prophet who is speaking of antitypical, spiritual
realities —the transcendent profundities of Christological glory in
and among the saints in the consummation of the ages. If this sounds
like an over-spiritualization, it shouldn’t. The Lord Jesus Himself was
opposed to a literal removal of the church out of the world:

I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them
from the evil one. (John 17:15)

The “rapture” passage is no more literal than the prophecy of
Ezekiel 37:4–14. In that passage, God caused a valley full of dry
bones to come together. He attached tendons to them and put skin
on them. Then He caused the bodies to breathe and they stood on
their feet as a vast army. The bones represented the house of Israel.
They were hopelessly cut off from the land, and were said to be in
“graves.” As God had done for the dry bones, He was going to do for
the house of Israel.

In the same way, in 1 Thessalonians 4:15–17, God raised up His
church —the first fruits of the resurrection-harvest— which was anxiously
longing for the consummation of redemption and atonement.
As a mighty warrior, the Lord issued forth his shout of command and
sounded the trumpet of God. Then His spiritual army arose by His
power. They met Him on His way to His temple to judge the enemies
in His kingdom (Mal. 3:1). That is when God afflicted the persecutors
of His church, when He gave His people relief and glorified Himself in
them (2 Thess. 1:8–10).

Being revealed with Christ in glory (Col. 3:4) and becoming like
Him and seeing Him in His Parousia (1 Jn 3:2) had nothing to do with
escaping physical death or with being literally caught up into the literal
sky or with being biologically changed. It had to do with God’s people,
living and dead, being “gathered together” to become His eternal Tabernacle,
His spiritual Body, the New Man, the heavenly Mount Zion, the
New Jerusalem in the Spirit. “This mystery is great” (Eph. 5:32), and is
therefore communicated in the accommodative “sign language” of prophetic
metaphor.

Since our Lord came “with His saints” and destroyed the earthly temple
in AD 70 (Heb. 9:8), the church of all ages lives and reigns in glory
with Him forever (Rom. 6:8; 2 Cor. 13:4; 2 Tim. 2:11–12). Now whether
we are alive or asleep, we “live together with Him” (1 Thess. 5:10). This
was not the case in the Old Testament, when to die was to be cut off from
the people of God. As Paul says in Romans 14:8–9, “ . . . whether we live or
die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again,
that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.”

1 Thessalonians 4–5 & Matthew 24

For this we say to you by the word of the Lord . . . .
(1 Thess. 4:15)

Virtually every commentator and cross reference system parallels 1
Thessalonians 4:15–16 with Matthew 24:30–31 and 1 Corinthians 15:51–
52, and agrees that Paul is using Christ’s Olivet Discourse as the foundation
for his teaching concerning Christ’s Parousia throughout the Thessalonian
epistles. For example the Reformation Study Bible, of which
Mathison is Associate Editor, states of Matthew 24:31:

But the language of [Matthew 24:31] is parallel to passages like
13:41; 16:27; 25:31, as well as to passages such as 1 Cor. 15:52 and
1 Thess. 4:14–17. The passage most naturally refers to the Second
Coming.

Ironically, the parallels between Paul and the Olivet Discourse become
the clearest in the one chapter in 1 Thessalonians that Mathison
severs from the Olivet Discourse. Mathison admits the parallels between
1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15 (193), but he avoids the obvious
parallels between 1 Thessalonians 4 and Matthew 24.

Reformed and Evangelical commentators such as G.K. Beale see
that in 1 Thessalonians 4–5, Paul is drawing from Jesus’ teaching in
Matthew 24.

That both [1 Thessalonians] 4:15–18 and 5:1–11 explain the
same events is discernible from observing that both passages
actually form one continuous depiction of the same narrative
in Matthew 24. . . . [2]

Here are some of the parallels between Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians
4–5:

• Christ returns from heaven 1 Thess. 4:16 = Matt. 24:30
• with archangelic voice 1 Thess. 4:16 = Matt. 24:31
• with God’s trumpet 1 Thess. 4:16 = Matt. 24:31
• Believers caught up to be with Christ 1 Thess. 4:17 = Matt. 24:31
• Believers meet Christ in “clouds” 1 Thess. 4:17 = Matt. 24:30
• Exact time unknown 1 Thess. 5:1–2 = Matt. 24:36
• Christ comes like a thief 1 Thess. 5:2 = Matt. 24:43
• Unbelievers caught unaware 1 Thess. 5:3 = Matt. 24:37–39
• Birth pains 1 Thess. 5:3 = Matt. 24:8
• Believers are not deceived 1 Thess. 5:4–5 = Matt. 24:43
• Believers told to be watchful 1 Thess. 5:6 = Matt. 24:42
• Exhortation against drunkenness 1 Thess. 5:7 = Matt. 24:49
• Τhe Day, sons of light, sons of the day[3] 1 Thess. 5:4–8 = Matt. 24:27,
36–38

Beale goes on to write:

Other significant parallels include: the use of the word parousia
for Christ’s coming; reference to Christ’s advent as “that day”
(Mt. 24:36) or “the day of the Lord” (1 Thess. 5:2); and a description
of someone coming to “meet” another (eis apantesin autou,
virgins coming out to “meet” the bridegroom in Mt. 25:6; eis
apantesin tou kyriou, believers “meeting” the Lord in 1 Thess.
4:17; see further Waterman 1975).[4]

In a more recent work Beale now seems to lean in the direction that
the coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 24:30 was fulfilled in AD 70
and not at the end of history:

“The clearest reference to Jesus as the Son of Man from Daniel 7:13 come
in the third category (which he identifies as “those that refer to Jesus’ future
coming in glory”), where there are quotations of Dan. 7:13 (Matt. 24:30,
Mark 13:26, Luke 21:27). However, it is likely better to see most of these
third-category references fulfilled not at the very end of history but
rather in AD 70 at the destruction of Jerusalem, in which the Son of
Man’s coming would be understood as an invisible coming in judgment,
using the Roman armies as his agent. The reference in Matt. 25:31 to
“the Son of Man” who will “come in His glory” and “sit on His glorious
throne” is not a quotation of but rather an allusion to Dan. 7:13-14, which
clearly is applied to the very end of the age at Christ’s final coming.
If this view is correct, it may be that the AD 70 coming of Christ in
judgment as portrayed by the Synoptics is a typological foreshadowing of
his final coming in judgment. However, the traditional view that the coming
of the Son of Man in the Synoptic eschatological discourse refers to Christ’s
final coming certainly is plausible. This issue is a thorny one that still
deserves much more study.”[5]

This indeed is a “thorny” problem for Mr. Beale to affirm in one work that the
coming and implied resurrection gathering at the end of the age in Matthew 24:30-31
is the same Second Coming of Christ and resurrection event as described
by Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 and now try and affirm that the coming
and resurrection gathering of Matthew 24:30-31 was fulfilled in AD 70. Why?
Because both of these are full preterist or “hyper-preterist” interpretations to
take on these texts. Beale due to creedal commitments will not accept that full
preterism has done the “more study” necessary in order to reconcile
the exegetical problems he and his “orthodox” colleagues have created.

But is Beale then saving himself from this “thorny” problem by citing
Matthew 25:31 as “clearly” the end of time or end of the age coming of
Christ? Not when you consider that partial preterists combined such as Mathison,
DeMar and McDurmon have deemed it orthodox to believe that the coming
of the Son of Man in Matthew 25:31 was not Christ’s “actual” Second Coming,
but was Christ’s going/coming in AD 30–70 and that the “end of the age” here is the
old covenant age ending in AD 70. But this then creates more thorny problems
for these men such as the marriage that follows Matthew 25:10. How many times
does Christ in His Parousia consummate His marriage with the church in
Mathison’s view?

Mathison attempts to avoid the unified parallels between Matthew 24–25 and
1 Thessalonians 4–5 by claiming that his Reformed brothers and “hyper-preterists”
merely assume that “Jesus is speaking of his second advent when he speaks of
‘the coming of the Son of Man’ in Matthew 24 and that Paul is speaking of the
same thing in 1 Thessalonians 4.”[6] The self-evident fact of the matter however
is that Mathison turns a blind eye to overwhelming evidence because
Mathison assumes that partial Preterism is right. It is more than inconsistent to
claim preterist parallels between Matthew 24 and 2 Thessalonians 2[7] and
between Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 5,[8] and then deny the obvious parallels
between Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 4. But this is what partial preterists
such as Mathison do.

Gentry, to support his argument that 2 Thessalonians 2 was fulfilled
in AD 70, says that “Most commentators agree that the Olivet Discourse
is undoubtedly a source of the Thessalonian Epistles.[9] Unfortunately
Gentry’s sources of authority end up proving too much. For example,
both D.A. Carson and G. Henry Waterman make virtually the same parallels
between Matthew 24–25 and 1 Thessalonians 4–5 that we do.

To make matters worse, Gentry also now concedes that Matthew
24–25 does not necessarily need to be divided and that all of Matthew 24
could be addressing one coming of Christ in AD 70:

“Orthodox preterists see no doctrinal problems arising if we apply all of
Matthew 24 to A.D. 70. We generally do not do so because of certain
exegetical markers in the text. But if these are not sufficient to distinguish
the latter part of Matthew 24 from the earlier part, it would not matter.”[10]

But virtually all scholars and commentators tell us that Matthew
24–25 forms the foundation to and contains parallel prophetic material to
Matthew 13; 1 Corinthians 15; 1 Thessalonians 4–5; 2 Peter 3 and Revelation
20–21. Yet Mathison claims Matthew 24–25 was fulfilled in AD 70
and Gentry doesn’t see a problem with it? How can these things be, indeed?
This is why partial preterism gains a following for a short period, and
then its students end up coming to “hyper-preterism” for a more consistent
and exegetical approach that is in harmony with the analogy of Scripture.

Another problem for Mathison and Gentry is that in their other writings
they admit that the last trumpet of Revelation 11 was fulfilled in AD
70, but they do not discuss the fact that the time of the last trumpet was
the time for “the dead” to be judged (Rev. 11:18). This is the same problem
they face in the immediate context of 1 Peter 4:7. How were the dead
judged in AD 70 without the resurrection of the dead taking place? And
how is this time for the dead being judged different from the time in which
the dead are judged in Revelation 20? And how is this trumpet judgment
in Revelation 11 different from the one in Matthew 24:30–31, 1 Thessalonians
4, and 1 Corinthians 15? The analogy of Scripture nullifies with
finality the arbitrary Scripture-dichotomizations of partial preterism.

[1] Mathison, Postmillennialism, 224–225.

[2] 45. G.K. Beale, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series 1–2 Thessalonians
(Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2003), 136. Copyright 2003 by
G.K. Beale. Used by permission of InterVarsity Press. PO Box 1400, Downers
Grove, IL 60515. www.ivpress.com. Some Partial Preterists are now agreeing
that 1 Thessalonians 4:15–17 took place in AD 70. One is admitting that
Gentry and Mathison are forced to “dodge and weave to put this passage into
our future.” Mike Bull, The Last Trumpet, http://www.bullartistry.com.au/
wp/2011/06/05/the-last-trumpet/

[3] If we translate astrape in Matthew 24:27 as the sun (instead of lightning)
coming from the east and shining to the west, then these parallels are
possible.

[4] Beale, Ibid, 136–137.

[5] G.K. Beale, A NEW TESTAMENT BIBLICAL THEOLOGY THE UNFOLDING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), 396 n. 27—397. (emphases added).

[6] Mathison, From Age to Age, 515.

[7] Mathison, Postmillenialism, 230.

[8] Ibid, 226.

[9] Kenneth Gentry, Perilous Times: A Study in Eschatological Evil (Texarkana,
AR: Covenant Media Press, 1999), 100, n. 19. Here Gentry cites D.A.
Carson, “Matthew,” in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor’s Bible Commentary,
12 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 8:489; and G. Henry
Waterman, “The Sources of Paul’s Teaching on the 2nd Coming of Christ in 1
and 2 Thessalonians,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 18:2 (June
1975); 105–113.

[10] 52. Kenneth Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion (Draper, VA: Apologetics
Group Media, 2009), 540

House Divided Chapter Four The NT Time Texts Partial Preterist Keith A. Mathison Vs. Full Preterist Michael J. Sullivan Part 7 In Like Manner Acts 1:9-11

House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

Chapter Four The Eschatological Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be? Part 7 – In Like Manner Acts 1:9-11
Michael J. Sullivan 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 Michael J. Sullivan), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.
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.

[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).

House Divided Chapter Four The NT Time Texts Partial Preterist Keith A. Mathison Vs. Full Preterist Michael J. Sullivan Part 6 The Coming of the Son of Man

House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

Chapter Four
The Eschatological Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be?
Part 6 – The Coming of the Son of Man
Michael J. Sullivan
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 Michael J. Sullivan), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical
articles or reviews.

The Coming of the Son of Man

On pages 181–182, Mathison offers this argument: Whenever Jesus referred
to “the coming of the Son of Man,” He “seems to have been alluding to
Daniel 7:13–14,” which refers not to the Second Coming but to His ascension
to the heavenly throne of God to receive His kingdom. “ . . . [T]he possibility
must be kept open that Jesus wasn’t referring to his Second Advent
at all when he used this language. He may have been referring instead to
his ascension to the throne of God, his receiving of his kingdom, and the
judgment on Jerusalem that would prove he had received the kingdom
and was who he claimed to be. . . . ” It may be that “Jesus had very little to
say about his actual second coming.”

Response:

Let us assume for the moment that the premises of Mathison’s argument
above are true. Let us grant for the sake of argument that Daniel 7:13–14
refers to the Ascension of Christ, and that Christ was somehow alluding
to Daniel’s reference to His Ascension whenever He spoke of His future
coming in AD 70. Even if these premises are true, they in no way prove
that the coming of Christ in AD 70 was not “His actual second coming.”
Whenever Jesus spoke of the future coming of “the Son of Man,”
He could have been referring, as Mathison said, “to his ascension to the
throne of God [in Daniel 7:13–14], his receiving of his kingdom, and the
judgment on Jerusalem that would prove he had received the kingdom
and was who he claimed to be”; and at the same time, it could be that
His coming in AD 70 was also “His actual second coming.”

Mathison’s interpretation does not create an either/or choice. It
does not conflict with the “hyper-preterist” framework. “Hyper-preterists”
can embrace Mathison’s interpretation, wrong though it is, and
remain “hyper-preterists.” Mathison’s argument therefore is moot.
Though there is no need to refute Mathison’s explanation of Daniel 7:13,
I will briefly offer three other possibilities:

The presentation of the Son of Man to the Ancient of Days in Daniel
7:13 is perhaps a reference to Christ in His Parousia delivering up the
kingdom (“the saints”) to the Father (“the Ancient of Days”) in AD 70.

Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom
to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all
rule and all authority and power. (1 Cor. 15:24)

Or, as David Green has suggested, perhaps “the Son of Man” in Daniel
7:13 signifies the Body of Christ (the saints, “the fullness of Christ”)
in His Parousia (Eph. 4:13). In this view, the universal church (“the New
Man,” “the Son of Man”) was presented to Christ (“the Ancient of Days”)
and united with Him in the end of the age, in His Parousia in AD 70 (2
Cor. 4:14; 11:2; Eph. 5:27; Col. 1:22, 28; Jude 1:24).

My preferred interpretation is similar to that of F.F. Bruce. According
to the Old Greek Septuagint translation of Daniel 7:13, the Son of
Man came “as the Ancient of Days” on the clouds of heaven, not “to the
Ancient of Days.” This translation is in harmony with verse 22, which
says that it was the Ancient of Days Himself who came in judgment and
gave the saints the kingdom.

Also, the New Testament does not give the slightest hint that “the coming
of the Son of Man” on the clouds of heaven would be fulfilled in the
Ascension. And as Keil and Delitzch commented regarding Daniel 7:13-14,

…it is manifest that he could only come from heaven to earth.
If the reverse is to be understood, then it ought to have been
so expressed, since the coming with the clouds of heaven in
opposition to the rising up of the beasts out of the sea very distinctly
indicates a coming down from heaven. The clouds are
the veil or the “chariot” on which God comes from heaven to
execute judgment against His enemies; cf. Ps. 18:10f., 97:2–4;
104:3, Isa. 19:1, Nah. 1:3. This passage forms the foundation
for the declaration of Christ regarding His future coming,
which is described after Dan. 7:13 as a coming of the Son of
man with, in, on the clouds of heaven; Matt. 24:30; 26:64; Mark
18:26; Rev. 1:7; 14:14.[1]

I would agree with Keil and Delitzch that the context of Dan. 7:13 and
how the NT develops it, forms the foundation for the Second Coming
event with Him coming down from heaven in judgment upon His enemies
(who are upon the earth rising in opposition to Him) and not Him
going “up” at the ascension event.

It is also important to point out that John in the book of Revelation
alludes to Dan. 7:9, 13 in his description of Christ as being both the Son
of Man who comes on the clouds to judge those whom had pierced Him
(first century Jews) and as the eternal Ancient of Days in Rev. 1:7, 13-17.
Again the context is developing Christ’s future “soon” (Rev. 1:1) Second
Coming not His ascension.

Matthew 16:27–28

For the Son of Man is about to come in the glory of His Father with
His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.
Assuredly, I say to you there are some standing here who shall not
taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.

Not surprisingly, Mathison is the only author in WSTTB who
touched upon this key prophecy, and he offered no exegesis of it. Instead,
he threw it to the wind of the various speculative, futuristic in-
terpretations. Let us now demonstrate that Matthew 16:27–28 (and its
parallels, Mark 8:38–9:1; Luke 9:26–27) cannot be divided into two different
events, according to the typical futurist approach. As we can see
from the chart below, Matthew 16:27 is united to Matthew 16:28. Both
verses speak of the same timeframe and event that Jesus spoke of in His
undivided Olivet Discourse.

Matthew 16:27-28 & Parallels	The Olivet Discourse
1. Christ comes in glory (Luke 9:26)	1. Christ comes in glory (Matt. 24:30)
2. Christ comes with angels (Matt. 16:27)	2. Christ comes with angels (Matt. 24:31)
3. Christ comes in judgment (Matt. 16:27)	3. Christ comes in judgment (Matt. 24:28-31;25:31-34)
4. Christ and the kingdom come in power (Mark 8:38)	4. Christ and the kingdom come in power (Luke 21:27-32)
5. Some of the disciples would live (Matt. 16:28)	5. Some of the disciples would live (Luke 21:16-18)
6. Some of the disciples would die (Matt. 16:28)	6. Some of the disciples would die (Luke 21:16)
7. Christ would be ashamed of some in His generation (Mark 8:38)	7. All of this would occur in His generation(Matt. 24:34)

For the Son of Man is about to Come

Young’s Literal Translation (YLT), the Darby Bible, Wuest’s Expanded
Translation of the New Testament, and Weymouth’s New Testament in
Modern Speech all translate Jesus’ return here as “about to come” or “soon to
come.” These translations reflect the consistent usage of the Greek word mello
in Matthew’s gospel, and its predominant usage in the New Testament.
Christ’s imminent coming in verse 27 is consistent with Christ’s coming in
the lifetime of “some” in the crowd who were listening to him in verse 28.
After having waited thousands of years for the coming of the Messiah and
His kingdom, the span of forty years (AD 30–70) was a relatively short time.

Verily I say unto you

Jesus uses the term “verily,” “truly,” or “most assuredly” 99 times
in the gospels. The Greek word is “amen,” and it means “absolutely,”

“really,” “may it be fulfilled.” It is never used to introduce a new subject.
Dispensational author and editor of another multi-authored book
seeking to refute preterism, Thomas Ice, says of Matthew 16:27 and 28
that these “are two separate predictions separated by the words ‘truly
I say to you.’”[2] But Mr. Ice fails to produce a single passage in which
Jesus’ phrase, “Verily I say unto you,” separates one subject from another.
To the contrary, the phrase always signals an amplification of the
previous thought.

Some standing here shall not taste of death until

Thomas Ice says of this verse: “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, 88).

In other words, according to Ice, Jesus said that “some” would survive,
but the reality is that among His twelve disciples only John survived.
Ice’s argument would possibly have some validity if Jesus had
been speaking only to His twelve apostles; but He was not. According
to Mark’s account, “ . . . He called the crowd to him along with his disciples
and said . . . ” (Mk. 8:34–9:1). So much for Ice’s arguments.

Until they see the kingdom of God already come in power

According to Mark’s account, some of the disciples would not die until
they looked back on this event, knowing that the Lord and His kingdom
had come in power. (Literally, “until they see the kingdom of God having
come in power.”) According to Jesus, some of those who were listening to
Him that day would see His Parousia, look back on the event, and afterwards
die. 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 parti-ciple here
employed.”[3]

The Greek word here for “see” is eido. As with the English word,
eido not only refers to physical sight, it can also mean “perceive.”
Through observing with the physical senses, “some” of Jesus’ contemporary
audience would be able to look back on the destruction of the old covenant
kingdom’s temple and city in AD 70 and “perceive” that Christ’s kingdom
had arrived among and within them (Lk. 17:20–37; Col. 1:27; Jn. 14:2–3, 23, 29).

[1] Keil, C. F., & Delitzsch, F., Commentary on the Old Testament.
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), (Daniel 7:13-14), bold emphasis MJS.

[2] Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice, The End Times Controversy: The Second
Coming Under Attack (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2003), 87.

[3] Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., He Shall Have Dominion (Tyler, TX: Institute
for Christian Economics, 1992), 215–216 (emphasis added).

House Divided Chapter Four The NT Time Texts Partial Preterist Keith A. Mathison Vs. Full Preterist Michael J. Sullivan Part 5 Prophetic Telescoping Two Different Comings in Matthew 24-25?

House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

Chapter Four
The Eschatological Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be?
Part 5 – Prophetic Telescoping Two Comings in Matthew 24-25?
Michael J. Sullivan
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 Michael J. Sullivan), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical
articles or reviews.

Prophetic Telescoping

On pages 167 and 180, Mathison presents the following argument:
Daniel 11:21–12:1 is one continuous prophecy. Verses 21–35 describe
the rule of Antiochus Epiphanes. The next verses, 11:36–12:1, describe
events that are unrelated to Antiochus Epiphanes. Yet there is no indication
of a subject change in the prophecy. Daniel thus prophesied events
that would be separated in time but he did not give any indication that
the two groups of events were to be so separated. It is possible that we
see similar “telescoping” in the Olivet Discourse. It could be that “Jesus
utilized the prophetic technique of telescoping two distant events into
one prophecy without much contextual indication of a change in subject.”
Matthew 24:34 could be a transitional verse. It could be that everything
before verse 35 occurred in Jesus’ generation (the great tribulation
and the destruction of Jerusalem) and that everything after verse 34
is yet to be fulfilled (the Second Coming and Last Judgment).

Response:

According to the two-section theory of interpreting the Olivet Discourse,
the coming of false christs and the revealing of the Son of Man as “in the
days of Noah” are two events that will take place at the end of world history
(in section two of the Olivet Discourse: Matt. 24:37–39). But this
causes a problem. Luke relates the events of the Olivet Discourse in a
slightly different order than Matthew, and he puts those two supposedly
end-of-world-history events in between the coming of the Son of Man “as
the lightning” (Lk. 17:24) and the fleeing of people from their housetops
and fields (Lk. 17:31). But those events are in the alleged “first section”
of the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24:17–19, 24). Luke thus has two “second section”
events (allegedly in the end of world history) sandwiched between
two “first-section” events that were fulfilled in the first century.
Luke was not aware of the theory of a “telescoped” Olivet Discourse.
We see this problem present itself again when Jesus prophesies that
one would be taken and one would be left. According to the two-section
theory, that event will take place at the end of world history (in section
two of the Olivet Discourse: Matt. 24:40–41). But Luke puts that event in
between the fleeing of people from their housetops and fields (Lk. 17:31)
and the vultures gathering at the corpse (Lk. 17:37). But those events are
in the alleged “first section” of the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24:17–18, 28)
and were fulfilled in the first century. Thus Luke again has a “second section”
event (allegedly in the end of world history) sandwiched between
two “first-section” events that were fulfilled in the first century.

According to the two-section theory, Luke 17:23–37 reads like this:

Lk. 17:23–24 (false christs; Son of Man as lightning in His day) AD 70
Lk. 17:26–30 (the days of Son of Man as the days of Noah) End of world history
Lk. 17:31–33 (people fleeing from housetops and fields) AD 70
Lk. 17:34–36 (one taken, one left) End of world history
Lk. 17:37 (vultures gathered at the corpse) AD 70

The absurdity that results in exegetically “ping-ponging” through
this text is most pronounced in the last four verses. In verses 34–36, Jesus
supposedly tells His disciples that at the end of world history, some
people will be “taken,” i.e., literally raptured into the clouds (Lk. 17:34–
36).[1] Then in verse 37, the disciples ask Him, “Where, Lord?” That
is, “Where will those people be taken?” According to the two-section
theory, Jesus answered His disciples’ question about the Rapture at the
end of world history by telling them about the corpses of Jews becoming
the food of vultures in AD 70.[2]

But, if it can be believed, the confusion deepens further still. In
his book, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope, Mathison actually
implies that Luke 17:20–37 was all fulfilled in AD 70. His argument in
that book is that we can know that Jesus was probably speaking of the
destruction of Jerusalem in Luke 18:7–8 partly because “in the preceding
chapter (Luke 17:20–37), he speaks of the coming destruction of
Jerusalem in A.D. 70.”[3]

Based on his argument in Postmillennialism, Mathison has it that
when Jesus prophesied that the judgment in the days of the Son of Man
would be as the judgment in the days of Noah, and when He prophesied
that some would be taken and others left, Jesus meant those prophecies
to refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in Luke 17 and simultaneously
meant them to refer to the end of world history in Matthew 24. Yet
Mathison says he believes that Matthew 24 and Luke 17 contain the
same subject matter (WSTTB, 176). How can these things be?

Mathison’s many contradictory exegeses result in mind-boggling
conundrums. But the word of God on this matter is clear enough.
Luke, in Luke 17:22–37, mixes the events of Matthew 24:17–28 (first
section) with the events of Matthew 24:37–41 (second section). In so
doing, Luke unifies Matthew 24:17–41, confirming it to be one prophecy
that would be fulfilled in one set of events in one generation. In
contrast, “two-section” theorists violently break the prophecy in pieces
to conform it to the futurist paradigm. There is no question that this
theory is unworkable and that Luke saw no “telescoping” in the Olivet
Discourse. Selah.

As a matter of fact, in Mathison’s latest book, From Age to Age, he
abandons his two-section view of the Olivet Discourse, finally conceding
that the prophecy was fulfilled in the first century. He is also more
consistent in that book in his preterist interpretation of “the coming
of the Son of Man.” He now sees every reference to the coming of the
Son of Man as referring to Christ’s Ascension/Coming in AD 70. This
includes Matthew 25:31—the prophecy of the sheep and goats. Not one
church father interpreted Matthew 25:31 as having been fulfilled in the
first century. But Mathison does.

Mathison disagrees with the unified testimony of the universal
church. How then can he continue to anathematize us for disagreeing
with the unified testimony of the universal church?[4] Furthermore,
Mathison is out of step with the church fathers, and with the Reformed
community, and with “hyper preterists,” all of whom “stand shoulder
to shoulder” in opposition to him on this point. We all agree with the
church fathers that the promises of the coming of the Son of Man refer
to Christ’s Second Coming, and that we cannot separate the coming of
the Son of Man from 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15.

[1] Though Mathison implies that this prophecy will be fulfilled at the
end of world history, he is silent in all of his books as to its meaning. We can
only surmise that he believes it refers to the futurist “Rapture.”

[2] “Jesus’ reference to the vultures in [Matt. 24:28] refers to Jeremiah
7:33. Again He is using Old Testament judgment imagery.” Keith A. Mathison,
Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God? (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R
Publishing, 1995), 142

[3] Postmillennialism (213)

[4] Postmillennialism, 117 (emphasis added)

House Divided Chapter Four The NT Time Texts Partial Preterist Keith A. Mathison Vs. Full Preterist Michael J. Sullivan – "All Things" Fulfilled Luke 21:20-22

House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

Chapter Four
The Eschatological Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be?
Part 4 – All Things Fulfilled Luke 21:20-22

Michael J. Sullivan

All Things Written

In Luke 18:31, Jesus says that when He and His disciples go up to Jerusalem (in about AD 30), “all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of Man will be accomplished.” Mathison argues that since the Second Coming did not occur at that time, it follows that when Jesus says in Luke 21:22 that “all things written” will be fulfilled when Jerusalem is destroyed in AD 70, He is referring only to prophetic predictions that concerned the destruction of Jerusalem and not to all eschatological prophecy in general (172).

Response:

Of course no one disagrees with Mathison’s observation that the context of Luke 18:31 limits Jesus’ phrase of “all things” to prophetic material pertaining to His passion. But Mathison assumes what he needs to prove when he assumes that the context of Christ’s coming in Matthew 24 is only dealing with the fall of Jerusalem, and not His actual Second Coming connected to all eschatological prophecy in general. Later we will see that Mathison is not in line with the creeds or the historic church when it comes to what the Olivet Discourse actually covers.

Gentry says that when Christ referred to the fulfillment of “all things written” in Luke 21:22, He was referring to Old Testament prophecies only, and that Christ therefore did not include the resurrection of all men and the Second Coming in the term “all things written.”[1] But Gentry fails to understand that the resurrection of the dead was predicted in the Old Testament. The Apostle Paul, who taught the resurrection of the dead, taught “nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place” (Acts 26:21–23). Paul stated specifically that the Old Testament predicted the resurrection of the dead (Acts 24:14–15; cf. Dan. 12:2-3; Isa. 25:8; Hosea 13:14). Therefore even if “all things written” in Luke 21:22 refers only to Old Testament prophecies, as Gentry says, it still includes the resurrection of the dead, and therefore literally “all things written.”

In the book of Revelation, it is said from beginning to the end (Rev. 1:1; 22:6–7, 10–12, 20) that the prophecies of the book would be fulfilled “shortly.” Those soon-to-be-fulfilled prophecies included the Second Coming, the resurrection of the living and the dead, the last judgment, and the new heavens and the new earth—in other words, literally “all things written.”

Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:11, tells his first-century audience, “Now all these things happened to them as examples [types], and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.” Jesus’ and Paul’s audience understood the phrase “this age” to be a reference to the old covenant age, and the “age to come” as a reference to the Messianic or new covenant age. They also understood that under the umbrella of the old covenant “age” (singular) there were various “ages” (plural), or covenants. The covenant that God made with David is an example of this. Thus when the old covenant agewas consummated, it was then that all of Israel’s “ages,” as contained in “the Law and the Prophets” (“all things written”), were consummated.

The fulfillment that has been wrought in Christ is no piecemeal fulfillment that has remained a “yes and no” fulfillment/non-fulfillment for 2,000 years, as futurists such as Mathison imagine. The Law of Moses does not remain “imposed” as it did between the Cross and the Parousia (Heb. 9:10, NASB). Rather, Christ returned and the old covenant vanished in His Presence forty years after His Cross (Heb. 8:13). If He did not return, and if the dead were not raised in Him, then the old covenant never vanished, and we are still in our sins. This is the inevitable implication of denying that literally “all things written” are fulfilled in Christ today.

A comparison of Daniel 12:1–2 with the Olivet Discourse proves that literally every eschatological prophecy in the Scriptures would be fulfilled in AD 70:
Daniel 12:1-12 Olivet Discourse

Daniel 12:1-2	Olivet Discourse
1. Tribulation and Abomination that causes Desolation (Dan. 12:1, 12)	1. Tribulation and Abomination that causes desolation (Matt. 24:15, 21; Lk. 21:20-23)
2. Judgment and Deliverance (Dan. 12:1)	2. Judgment and Deliverance (Lk. 21:18-22, 28; Matt. 24:13)
3. Resurrection (Dan. 12:2-3)	3. Resurrection (Matt. 13:40-43;24:30-31; Lk. 21:27-28)
4. The End (Dan. 12:4, 6, 8-9, 13)	4. The End (Matt. 24:13-14)
5. When would all this take place?“. . .when the power [The Law] ofthe holy people [Israel] has beencompletely shattered [the destructionof the city and the sanctuaryin AD 70], all these things[including the judgment andresurrection] shall be finished.”“But you, go your way till the end; for you shall rest, and will arise to your inheritance at the end of the days.” (Dan. 12:7, 13)	5. When would all this take place?“There shall not be left here onestone upon another, that shall notbe thrown down” [the destructionof the city and the sanctuary in AD70].” “Verily I say unto you, Thisgeneration shall not pass, till allthese things [judgment & resurrection]be fulfilled.” (Matt. 24:1, 34)

Mathison believes that the majority of scholars “rightly understand” the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 as being a future biological resurrection of all believers.[2] But he has not explained how that resurrection can be separated from the first-century great tribulation, abomination of desolation, and destruction of Jerusalem in Daniel 12:1, 7, 11. Daniel 12:7 says that when the power of the holy people would be completely shattered (in AD 70), then “all these things would be finished” –not “some” of them.

Partial Preterist James Jordan now understands the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 (and Daniel’s personal resurrection in verse 13) as be-ing a spiritual and corporate resurrection that took place from Jesus’ earthly ministry to AD 70. Jordan actually sees this past resurrection as being the resurrection of Revelation 20:

“The death of the Church in the Great Tribulation, and her resurrection after that event, were the great proof that Jesus had accomplished the work He came to do. The fact that the Church exists today, nearly 2000 years after her death in the Great Tribulation, is the ongoing vindication of Jesus work.”[3]

“Revelation takes up where Daniel leaves off, and deals mostly with the Apostolic Age and the death and resurrection of the Church.”[4]

“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.[5]

Mathison’s co-author Gentry has also finally come to the conclusion that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 was fulfilled in AD 70:

“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.”[6]

We commend Gentry for his recently developed full preterist exegesis of Daniel 12:1-3. However, it presents a problem for him. Gentry stated, in the same book, that the resurrection in the parable of the wheat and tares is not yet fulfilled.[7] Yet Jesus taught that Daniel 12:2-3 would be fulfilled at the same time as that parable.

Nevertheless, some of Gentry’s partial preterist colleagues have come to the conclusion that the parable of the wheat and tares was also fulfilled in AD 70. For example, Joel McDurmon (Gary North’s sonin-law, and Director of Research for Gary DeMar’s American Vision)[8]:

It is clear that Jesus did not have in mind the end of the world, nor did He mean the final judgment. Rather, Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43 describe the judgment that would come upon unbelieving Jerusalem. During this time, the angels would “gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity” (13:41) and these would be judged with fire. Many of them literally were burned in fire during the destruction of Jerusalem.

During this same time, however, the elect of Christ—“the children of the kingdom” (v. 38)—will be harvested. While the explanation of the parable does not tell us their final end, the parable itself has the householder instructing the harvesters to “gather the wheat into my barn.” In other words, they are protected and saved by God.

This, of course, is exactly what happened to the Christians. Not only were they saved in soul, but they mostly fled Jerusalembefore the Roman siege. This was consequent to Jesus’ advice to flee and not look back once the signs arose (Matt. 24:16-22); indeed this would correspond with the angels’ work of harvesting the elect (24:30).[9]

Curiously, McDurmon does not mention that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 is quoted by Jesus in Matthew 13:39-43. Partial preterists such as McDurmon also ignore the fact that Paul, in agreement with Daniel and Jesus, also taught that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 was imminent in the first century:
having hope toward God, which they themselves also wait for, that there is about to be a rising again of the dead, both ofrighteous and unrighteous (Acts 24:15, YLT & WEY; cf. Matt. 13:39-43).

There is only one passage found in “the law and prophets” that explicitly speaks of a resurrection of believers and unbelievers, and that is Daniel 12:2-3. This is Paul’s source in Acts 24:15, as virtually any commentary or scholarly work agrees. As G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson wrote on Acts 24:15:

The resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous is based on the prophecy of the end in Dan. 12:2-3, which indicates twogroups of people, some being raised to eternal life and others to eternal reproach and shame, and then refers to the “righteous” (Θ) or to “righteousness” (MT). Clearly this passage lies behind Paul’s statement, although the wording is different.[10]

Partial Preterists such as Gentry who admit the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 was fulfilled in AD 70 need to not only address the issue of this being Paul’s source for his resurrection doctrine in Acts 24:15, but other places in the NT. Again Beale points out in one of his most recent works, that Jesus is following the (OG) LXX of Daniel 12:1-2, 4 as His source for His teaching on “eternal life” and the coming resurrection “hour” (or “the hour of the end”) of both believers and unbelievers in (John 5:28-29).[11]

And clearly the books being opened in judgment and the resurrection of all in Daniel 12:1-2 is the judgment and resurrection of Revelation 20:5-15. Gentry at one point seeking to refute the Premillennial Dispensational theory of two resurrections cited Daniel 12:2/John 5:28-29/John 6:39-40/Acts 24:15 as evidence of “one resurrection and one judgment, which occur simultaneously at the end…”[12] We couldn’t agree more with Gentry #1 – that these texts are descriptive of “one” and the same resurrection and judgment which take place at the same time in history. And yet we also agree with Gentry #2 – Daniel 12:2 was fulfilled in AD 70. Another question or challenge for partial preterists who see the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 as being fulfilled in AD 70 is this:

How many times must Daniel be raised unto, and receive, “eternal life?”

Daniel 12	1 Corinthians 15
1. Resurrection unto “eternal life”(v. 2)	1. Resurrection unto incorruptibility or immortality (vss. 52–53)
2. Time of the end (v. 4)	2. Then cometh the end (v. 24)
3. When the power of the holy people [Mosaic OC law] is completely shattered (v. 7)	3. When victory over “the [Mosaic OC] law” comes (v. 56)

To be fair and thorough I should point out a recent development in Gentry’s understanding of how the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 is fulfilled. As we saw above, Gentry, in order to refute the two-resurrection theory of premillennial dispensationalism, claimed that the resurrection of this text is the one and same, yet-future resurrection as described by Jesus and Paul in John 5:28-29; John 6:39-40; and Acts 24:15 (and no doubt Revelation 20).Then later, Gentry changed his interpretation when responding to a full preterist (apparently realizing that he could no longer arbitrarily sever the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 from the firstcentury Great Tribulation in verse 1, and the first-century “time, times and half a time” and “shattering of the holy people” in verse 7). On Gentry’s Facebook wall, he wrote regarding Daniel 12:2 that it has nothing to do with a biological resurrection:

“Daniel 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.”

But later, following his lecture on the millennium at Criswell Bible College, Gentry gave a slightly different response. After being challenged on how the New Testament develops the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 in Matthew 13:39–43; John 5:28-28; Acts 24:15 and specifically in Revelation 20:5–15, he responded by saying that Daniel 12:2 was typologically and spiritually fulfilled in AD 70 and that it will be anti-typically and ultimately fulfilled in a literal “bodily resurrection” at the end of world history.

Besides this not being taught by Daniel or any New Testament author, my question and challenge to Gentry’s new explanation of this passage is this: If Gentry can give Daniel 12:2 two fulfillments (one in AD 70 and one in our future), then what is to stop the dispensationalist from saying something like this:
There may have been some kind of fulfillment of the Great Tribulation in an AD 66–70 (Dan. 12:1; Matt. 24:21) and in the “desolation” of Jerusalem and her temple in AD 70 (Dan. 9:27; Matt. 24:15), but those events were only typological fulfillments. The ultimate fulfillments will be in our future when Israel rebuilds her temple.

Or why should Gentry oppose the amillennialist teaching that, while the Great Tribulation may have had some aspect of fulfillment in the events leading up to AD 70, we should not consider it as one historic event but an “already but not yet” process the church goes through until the end of history?

Gentry gives Daniel 12:2 two fulfillments but won’t allow dispensationalism 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 and Daniel 9:27. Jesus in Luke 21:20-22 and Matthew 13:3943 did not say that all Old Testament prophecy or the resurrection and glorification of Daniel 12:2–3 would be fulfilled in two totally different ways spanning thousands or millions of years from AD 70 to the end of world history. He said that these things would all be fulfilled in His generation (“this generation”) at the end of the old covenant age.
The Transitive Property of Equality Principle (Since A=B & B=C, then A=C) As It Relates to Dan. 12:1-13 (A), Mat. 13:38-43 (B), and Mat. 24:3-36 & 25:31-41 (C)

Since	A (Daniel 12) =	B (Matthew 13)
Tribulation on National Israel as Never Before	Verse 1b	Verses 40-42
Time-of-the-End / End-of-‘this’-Age Separation	Verses 1c, 4a, 9b, 13b	Verses 39b-41
Saints Rise and Shine in the Eternal Kingdom	Verses 2a, 2b, 3	Verse 43
Wicked Rise to Shame in Eternal Condemnation	Verses 2a, 2c	Verses 39-42
Kingdom-Age Evangelism via God’s Shining Ones	Verse 3	Verse 43

And	B (Matthew 13) =	C (Matthew 24-25)
Pre-Kingdom Evangelism by Jesus’ Disciples	Verses 37-38	24:14
Tribulation on National Israel as Never Before	Verses 40-42	24:21-22
End-of-‘this’-Age / End-of-the-Age Separation	Verses 39b-43	24:3, 30-31; 25:31-41
The Sons of the Day / Hour Shine with the Son	Verse 43a	24:27, 30-31, 36
Inheritance of and Entrance into the Kingdom	Verse 43a	25:34

Then	A (Daniel 12) =	C (Matthew 24-25)
Tribulation and Sanctification / Great Tribulation	Verses 1b, 10	24:21-22
Time / Day / Hour of the Judgment (aka Separation)	Verses 1-2, 4 (OG/LXX)	24:36; 25:31-33
Fulfilled at the Time-of-the-End / the End-of-the-Age / the End à viz. The Shattering of National Israel’s World—Her Heaven and Earth (i.e. the Temple, etc.)	Verses 4a, 9b, 13b Verse 7	24:3b, 13-14 24:1-8, 14, 28-29, 34-35
Inheritance of and Entrance into Eternal Kingdom-Life	Verses 2b, 3a, 13b	25:34, 46
The Sons of the Day / Hour Shine with the Son	Verse 3a	24:27, 36; 25:34
Kingdom-Age Evangelism via God’s Shining Ones	Verse 3	25:29a

Two or More Things that Are Equal to Another Thing Are Also Equal to Each Other:

Daniel 12 (A)	=	Matthew 13 (B)	=	Matthew 24-25 (C)
Kingdom-Age Evangelism	=	Kingdom-Age Evangelism	=	Kingdom-Age Evangelism
Tribulation Like Never Before	=	Tribulation Meted Out	=	Great Tribulation Unlike Before
Time of the End of Daniel’s People; End of the Age of National Israel	=	Time of the End of that Age To Befall Jesus’ Generation	=	Age of National Israel to End in the Fall of Its Temple & City
The Chosen Ones to Rise & Shine; The Wicked to Rise to Shame	=	The Righteous Ones to Rise & Shine; Tares Reaped to Burn	=	Sheep to Inherit Kingdom; Goats to Inherit Punishment

[1] Dominion, 542.

[2] Keith A. Mathison, WSTTB 160–161; From Age to Age: The Unfolding of
Eschatology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2009), 281.

[3] James B. Jordan, THE HANDWRITING ON THE WALL A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2007), 620.

[4] Ibid., 621

[5] Ibid., 628

[6] Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. He Shall Have Dominion (Draper, VA: Apologetics Group Media, 2009 Third Edition), 538. On Gentry’s Facebook page he answered

my question on this text by writing, “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.” But when I challenged Gentry on how the NT develops the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3/Matt. 13:43/John 5:28-29/Acts 24:15/Rev. 20:5-15 at his Criswell lecture on the millennium, he changed his tune and is now claiming that the resurrection text of Dan. 12:2 has an AD 70 “type” fulfillment and an end of the history “bodily resurrection” fulfillment as well. I told him that if he can do this with the resurrection of Dan. 12:2, then dispensationalists can double fulfill or have multiple types and anti-types fulfillments of prophetic material that Gentry says was only fulfilled in AD 70 – tribulation, abomination of desolation of a temple in Jerusalem, apostasy, etc… Again

partial preterists like Gentry and Mathison are arbitrary and inconsistent when they want something only fulfilled in AD 70 when debating futurists, but then want something fulfilled in the future when debating full preterists.

[7] Ibid., 235 n. 70, 243.

[8] Gary North, perhaps not knowing his own son-in-law’s position at the time, wrote in 2001: “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.”
http://www.preteristcosmos.com/garynorth-dualism.html

[9] Joel McDurmon, Jesus v. Jerusalem: A Commentary on Luke 9:51 –
20:26, Jesus’ Lawsuit Against Israel (Powder Springs, GA: The American Vision,
Inc., 2011), 48-49; see entire section 43-51. One of DeMar’s co-authors
Peter Leithart, has also conceded that the parable of the wheat and tares was
fulfilled in the first century: “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.”
Peter J. Leithart, The Promise of His Appearing: An Exposition of Second
Peter (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2004), 95.

[10] Beale, G. K., & Carson, D. A., Commentary on the New Testament use
of the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, UK: Baker Academic;
Apollos, 2007), 598.

[11] 30 G.K. Beale, A NEW TESTAMENT BIBLICAL THEOLOGY THE UNFOLDING
OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Academic, 2011), 131-132. This creates a huge problem for Partial Preterists
such as Gentry who not only take the resurrection of Dan. 12:2 as fulfilled
in AD 70, but also takes the eschatological “not yet” “hour” of (John 4:21-
24) as fulfilled in AD 70 (as Full Preterists do). Why? Because according to
Mathison (WSTTB, 172-174) Jesus is using the same eschatological “already”
and “not yet” pattern of this coming “hour” in both John 4:21-24 – 5:25-29 and
thus are referring to the same period of time. Once again when we combine
what Beale, Gentry, and Mathison are saying here on these texts, they form
the Full Preterist view in that the “not yet” resurrection “hour” of Dan. 12:1-2/
John 5:28-29 was fulfilled in AD 70. For more on why John 5:28-29 is not a
description of a fleshly end of time resurrection see David Green’s response to
Dr. Strimple.

[12] Kenneth L. Gentry, THE GREATNESS OF THE GREAT COMMISSION
(Tyler TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990), 142.

House Divided Chapter Four The NT Time Texts Partial Preterist Keith A. Mathison Vs. Full Preterist Michael J. Sullivan Part 3 Double Fulfillments

House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

Chapter Four
The Eschatological Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be?
Part 3 – Double Fulfillments
Michael J. Sullivan
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 Michael J. Sullivan), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical
articles or reviews.

In this chapter, I will answer objections that Dr. Keith Mathison raised
against preterism in his chapter in WSTTB. Mathison’s chapter was
entitled, “The Eschatological Time Texts of the New Testament.” His
objections included:

• Prophetic imminence in the Old Testament
• The futurity of the last days
• Prophetic double fulfillment (Part 3)
• Prophetic “telescoping”
• Jesus’ “in-like-manner” return
• “The Rapture”
• The creation groaning
• The abolition of death, pain, mourning, and Satan
• The salvation of “all Israel” in Romans 11
• The “thousand years” of Revelation 20

Mathison raised other objections in his chapter but they are addressed
elsewhere in this book. At the conclusion of this chapter, I will
offer a critique of Mathison’s tenuous and fragmented approach to the
eschatological time texts of the New Testament.

Double Fulfillments

On page 168, Mathison observes that Daniel’s prophecy of “the abomination
of desolation” was double-fulfilled. It was first fulfilled in the desecration
of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes in 168 BC. Then Jesus
spoke of its future fulfillment two hundred years later. The prophecy of
the birth of Immanuel was also double-fulfilled. It was first fulfilled in
Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz in Isaiah’s day. Then it was “ultimately fulfilled”
in the birth of Jesus many centuries later. Mathison’s conclusion: “New
Testament prophecies may also have multiple fulfillments,” first in AD 70
and then in the end of world history.

Response:

I think everyone agrees that many prophecies in the Old Testament
were typologically fulfilled and awaited full realization in the New Testament.
This phenomenon reflected the contrast between Old Testament
types and shadows, and the New Testament Anti-Type or Body,
i.e., Christ (Col. 2:17).

But this principle in no way implies or leads to the notion that New
Testament prophecies, which are fulfilled in Christ, will be fulfilled multiple
times over potentially millions of years of time. The fact that the
Old Testament was “typical” and “shadowy” in no way suggests that the
New Testament is of the same pre-Messianic character. The Cross of
Christ will not be fulfilled multiple times until the end of human history,
and neither will Christ’s Second Coming (Heb. 9:26–28).

Mathison’s co-author Ken Gentry teaches that the time texts of the
New Testament “demand” a fulfillment in AD 70, and that the theory
of “double fulfilling” Revelation, for example, is “pure theological assertion”
that has “no exegetical warrant.”[1] Another partial preterist colleague
of Mathison, Gary DeMar, rejects openness to the double fulfillment
theory in the Olivet Discourse:

Either the Olivet Discourse applies to a generation located
in the distant future from the time the gospel writers composed
the Olivet Discourse or to the generation to whom
Jesus was speaking; it can’t be a little bit of both. As we will
see, the interpretation of the Olivet Discourse in any of the
synoptic gospels does not allow for a mixed approach, a double
fulfillment, or even a future completion. Matthew 24:34
won’t allow for it.[2]

The New Testament is the revealing of the salvation promises contained
in the Old Testament, and those promises were to be realized and
found “in Christ” and in His Body the church (2 Cor. 1:20). Mathison
would have us believe that the New Testament is a further obscuring of
the meaning of kingdom prophecies (with more shadowy and typical fulfillments),
which will only become clear at the alleged end of the very age
that Christ died to establish, the age that Mathison—incredibly— calls
“evil” (188).

Mathison, while refuting Dispensationalism, writes, “We are no
longer under the old covenant.”[3] DeMar likewise teaches that the time
of the destruction of Jerusalem was “the end of the Old Covenant” and
“the consummation of the New Covenant.”[4] But Mathison and DeMar
do not seem to realize what their teaching implies. If the old covenant
(“the Law”) is no more and the new covenant reached its consummation,
then according to Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:17–19, “the Law and
the Prophets” are fulfilled and “heaven and earth” passed away and we
now live in the new heavens and the new earth.

It irresistibly follows that if we are no longer under the old covenant,
it is because Christ’s Second Coming took place at the end of the
old covenant age and brought to consummation every “jot” and “tittle”
of its promises (cf. Matt 5:18; Heb. 8:13, 9:26–28, 10:25–37). There is
no possibility of double-fulfilling or partial-fulfilling every jot and tittle
of the Law and the prophets.

Some of the best Reformed theologians have taught that “heaven
and earth” in Matthew 5:18 refers to the old covenant age which passed
away in AD 70. Reformed theologian John Brown:

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.[5]

Evangelical theologian Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis agrees:
. . . [T]he principal 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] and Matthew 5:18 refer then to the destruction of
the temple as a passing away of an old cosmology. . . .22

Mathison’s double-fulfillment-in-the-New-Testament theory opens
Pandora’s Box to double-fulfilling everything: The earthly ministry of
Christ, His sufferings, His death, His resurrection, His Ascension, His
pouring out of the Holy Spirit, and His Second Coming; even the allegedly
future millennium could be double-fulfilled. Even the casting of
Satan into the Lake of Fire could be double-fulfilled.

Every New Testament promise in the Bible becomes ultimately
uncertain in Mathison’s theory. The “Christ” of Christianity could
potentially be a type of a future, “actual” Christ (cf. WSTTB, 182,
n39). Therefore, unless we want to end up adopting a liberal, postmodern
approach to God’s word and turn all of His promises into
“yes and no,” Mathison’s double-fulfillment theory must be firmly and
finally rejected.

[1] Kenneth Gentry, Four Views on the Book of Revelation, ed. C. Marvin
Pate (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 43–44.

[2] Gary DeMar, The Olivet Discourse: The Test of Truth, http://www.
americanvision.org/blog/?p=190

[3] Keith A. Mathison, Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of
God? (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 1995), 31.

[4] Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church
(Atlanta, GA: American Vision, 1999), 55.

[5] John Brown, Discourses and Sayings of Our Lord (Edinburg: The Banner
of Truth Trust, 1990 [1852]), 1:170.

House Divided Chapter Four The NT Time Texts Partial Preterist Keith A. Mathison Full Preterist Michael J. Sullivan Part 2 The Latter/Last Days

House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

Chapter Four
The Eschatological Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be?
Part 2 – The Latter/Last Days
Michael J. Sullivan
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 Michael J. Sullivan), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.
In this chapter, I will answer objections that Dr. Keith Mathison raised against preterism in his chapter in WSTTB. Mathison’s chapter was entitled, “The Eschatological Time Texts of the New Testament.” His objections included:
• Prophetic imminence in the Old Testament (see part 1)
• The futurity of the last days (part 2)
• Prophetic double fulfillment
• Prophetic “telescoping”
• Jesus’ “in-like-manner” return
• “The Rapture”
• The creation groaning
• The abolition of death, pain, mourning, and Satan
• The salvation of “all Israel” in Romans 11
• The “thousand years” of Revelation 20
Mathison raised other objections in his chapter but they are addressed elsewhere in this book. At the conclusion of this chapter, I will offer a critique of Mathison’s tenuous and fragmented approach to the eschatological time texts of the New Testament.
The Latter/Last Days
Isaiah 2:2–4 speaks of “the latter days.” Mathison says that this passage “seems to point to something that even now has not been completely fulfilled. There are still wars, for example, and all nations have not yet bowed the knee to the Lord” (167). Mathison adds that although it is true that “in some sense” the last days “were already present immediately after the first coming of Christ,” some New Testament texts such as 2 Timothy 3:1 and 2 Peter 3:3 imply that the last days “are still future [to us]” (189–190).
Response:
In Isaiah 2:2–4 the prophet spoke of the time when Messiah would come and establish His mountain (Mount Zion), house, and city among Jews and Gentiles. As the New Testament reveals, this prophecy speaks of the spiritual peace that comes through the gospel, wherein Jew and Gentile are united in Christ into one spiritual nation and kingdom. Jesus said that His kingdom was “not of this world,” and the New Testament writers confirmed His teaching, telling believers that the kingdom they were receiving was not physical-literal, but spiritual (2 Cor. 6:16; Gal. 4; Heb. 9:24–27; 12:18ff.; 1 Peter 1:4–13).
In Luke 23:30, Jesus quoted Isaiah 2:10, 19 as prophesying the judgment that was to befall Jerusalem in AD 70. Virtually every futurist commentator agrees with this interpretation. The Apostle John referred to the same prophecy in reference to the same event (Rev. 6:15–17). Isaiah chapter 2 is intimately connected to the last days of old covenant Israel, not to the end of the planet or an alleged “end of time.”
Many within the Reformed community understand “the last days” in the New Testament to be referring to the end of the old covenant economy in AD 70. For instance, Gary DeMar:
The last days are not way off in the distant future. The end came to an obsolete covenant in the first century. In A.D. 70 the “last days” ended with the dissolution of the temple and the sacrificial system.[1]
David Chilton, before he converted to (full) preterism:
The Biblical expression Last Days properly refers to the period from the Advent of Christ until the destruction of Jerusalem inA.D. 70, the “last days” of Israel during the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant (Heb. 1:1–2; 8:13; James 5:1–9; 1 Pet. 2:20; 1 John 2:18).[2]
And John Owen in his exposition of Hebrews 1:2:
It is the last days of the Judaical church and state, which were then drawing to their period and abolition, that are here and elsewhere called “The last days,” or “The latter days,” or “The last hour,” 2 Peter 3:3; 1 John 2:18; Jude 1:18. . . . This phrase of speech is signally used in the Old Testament to denote the last days of the Judaical church.[3]
Mathison says that 2 Timothy 3:1 and 2 Peter 3:3 imply that the last days are still future. Let us see if that interpretation holds water.
But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come (2 Tim. 3:1).
In his book, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope, Mathison writes to futurists concerning this verse and its context:
The . . . “last days” . . . and similar phrases are often used to refer to the last days of the Jewish age (e.g., Heb. 1:2; 1Pet.1:20; 1John 2:18). . . . [This passage] speaks to a pastoral situation that Timothy was dealing with in his own day. It is not a prophecyof conditions at the end of the world.[4]
But five years later, in WSTTB, when debating “hyper preterists,” Mathison says that the very same last days prophecy (2 Tim. 3:1) will be fulfilled in our future:
. . . [Some] New Testament texts . . . seem to refer to “the last days” as something yet to come. Paul, for example, warns Timothy that “In the last days perilous times will come” (2 Tim. 3:1; cf. 1 Tim. 4:1). Peter warns his readers “that scoffers will come in the last days” (2 Peter 3:3). [Paul and Peter] say . . . that “the last days” will be the time in which something that is future will happen. The coming of “perilous times” and of “scoffers” is explicitly said to be future. The future times during which these things will come is called “the last days.” The implication is that “the last days” referred to in these texts are still future.
So while we are already in the last days, there is still some sense in which the last days can be considered future.[5]
But then yet another five years later, in his new book, From Age to Age, Mathison reverts to the biblical-preterist view that the last days in 2 Timothy 3:1 refer to the first century.
According to some, these verses refer to an apostasy to occur in the time immediately preceding the second coming of Jesus. There are at least three reasons, however, to doubt this conclusion.[6]
Who do we believe? The 1999 preterist Mathison (Postmillennialism) or the 2004 futurist Mathison (WSTTB) or the 2009 preterist Mathison (From Age to Age)? Are the last days in 2 Timothy 3:1 the last days of the “Jewish age,” as Mathison implies while defending partial preterist postmillennialism against other futurists? Or are the last days in 2 Timothy 3:1 the last days of a future end of world history, as Mathison implies while attempting to refute biblical preterism?
Mathison says “the last days” are past when he is refuting other futurists because he knows that if “the last days” are still future, then the growing and increasing apostasy which characterizes those “perilous times” are still present and future for us as well; and if this is the case, then there is nothing left to his “optimistic” and “successful” postmillennial “golden age” that will gradually blossom before Jesus allegedly comes back peacefully for His Second (Third) Coming in our future.
But Mathison does not concern himself with this implication of making “the last days” future when he refutes “hyper-preterists.” His only concern when dealing with us is to counter “hyper-preterism” at any cost, even, apparently, at the cost of his own doctrinal integrity.
Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts. (2 Peter 3:3)
The majority of futurist commentators, men such as Mathison’s coauthor Simon Kistemaker, are certain (as are we) that Peter’s “last days” involves at least one or two signs that Jesus spoke of in the Olivet Discourse, namely, false prophets and the apostasy (2 Peter 1:16; 2:1ff; cf. Matt. 24:3–5, 11, 23–26; 27–34). This fact leads us to an AD 70 fulfillment, not a future-to-us fulfillment.
The “mockers” and “ungodly men” of 2 Peter 3:3–7 are the “false teachers” of 2 Peter 2:1–3, whose destruction was imminent in Peter’s day. Partial preterist Peter Leithart writes of these false teachers and mockers:
Peter says explicitly that the destruction of false teachers is coming “soon.” Their destruction is the same event as the destruction of the present heavens and earth, the “day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men” (3:7). If the destruction of false teachers was near when Peter wrote, so also was the destruction of the heavens and earth and the coming of a new heavens and earth.[7]
Peter responds to mockers who doubt the promise of Jesus’ coming because time has passed without any sign of the Parousia.
If there were no time limit on the original prophecy, then the mockers would have no grounds for their mockery and no way to attract converts to their skeptical views. Therefore, the original prophecy must have included a time limit, a terminus ad quem, and that time limit must have been the lifetime of the apostles.16
Since these mockers were already present, it is illogical for Mathison to say that the perilous times of the last days will take place in our future (190). There is not one scintilla of evidence, whether explicit or implicit, for Mathison’s contention that “the future” for Peter and his audience is still “the future” for us.
According to Isaiah, the coming of the Lord and His righteous judgment of these scoffers would be likened to the Lord’s return in judgment upon the Philistines and the Amorites at Mount Perazim and the Valley of Gibeon (Isa. 28:21). These were not global judgments that burned the face of the planet or that disintegrated the elements of the periodic table.
Isaiah repeatedly tells us that there were to be “survivors” of this “Day of the Lord” even after the “earth”/“land” is burned with fire and the new creation takes its place (Isa. 1–5; 24–25; 65–66). This precludes the notion that Isaiah was speaking of a fiery destruction of the face of planet Earth and of the stars and planets.
The Law and the Prophets never predicted a literal torching of the planet. “The last days” were the last days before the judgment of apostate, old covenant Judah/Jerusalem and the “elements” (rudiments) of her world, and cannot be applied to an alleged ending of the eternal, new covenant age/world. There can be no “last days” of an age that has “no end” (Isa. 9:7; Eph. 3:21). There is therefore no 2000+ year extension or expansion of the “last days” into our future, as Mathison and other futurists theorize.

[1] DeMar, ibid., 38 (emphasis added). See also Joel McDurmon of American
Vision on 2 Timothy 2–3; Hebrews 9:6; 1 Peter 1:20; Acts 2:16–17 and Jude
17–18, (Joel McDurmon, Jesus v. Jerusalem A Commentary on Luke 9:51–20:26,
JESUS’ LAWSUIT AGAINST ISRAEL, (Powder Springs, GA: The American
Vision, Inc., 2011), 198–200.

[2] David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of
Revelation (Ft. Worth: Dominion Press, 1987), 16, n35; 51.

[3] Owen, John, The Works of John Owen, Vol. 19, 12–13, Books For The
Ages, AGES Software Albany, OR, USA Version 1.0 © 2000.

[4] Postmillennialism, 215 (emphasis added)

[5] WSTTB, 189–190 (emphases added)

[6] Keith A. Mathison, From Age to Age: The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology
(Philipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2009), 609

[7] Peter J. Leithart, The Promise of His Appearing: An Exposition of Second
Peter, (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2004), 67–68.

My Response To Joel McDurmon/American Vision's Letter To Criswell College Re: Don Preston

My response to Joel McDurmon and American Vision’s letter about Don Preston’s presence at Criswell’s Millennial Conference (see here: American Vision’s Letter to Criswell)
1) A Partial Preterist was invited – Kenneth Gentry, and yet McDurmon complains that a Partial Preterist needed to be there?
a. Gentry claimed the “last days” in the NT was a period of time from Christ’s first to second comings which would bring an end to the age and the millennium.
b. Perhaps Joel wanted to be there alongside Gentry to tell the audience that his and Gary DeMar’s view is that the “last days” in the NT was referring to the end of the OC age in AD 70 — thus demonstrating that Partial Preterism itself proves the millennium ended in AD 70 or that it does lead to Full Preterism?
2) To further demonstrate that we really didn’t even need a Full Preterist at Criswell to prove the millennium is a past event or was fulfilled by AD 70 – consider the following:
a. Gentry (Partial Preterist) correctly claims:
– That Rev. 1-19 and the judgment scenes were fulfilled by AD 70.
– The de-creation and new creation of Rev. 21:1-3 was fulfilled by AD 70.
– That the the judgment and resurrection of Daniel 12:1-3 was fulfilled by AD 70.
– That the parousia of Christ in Matt. 24:27-30 was fulfilled by AD 70 and that it is possible that all of Matt. 24 was fulfilled by AD 70 (as McDurmon and DeMar teach).
b. Beale (Amillennialist) correctly claims:
– That Rev. 20 recapitulates/repeats/is paralleled to the SAME judgment scene depicted in chapters 1-19.
– That the de-creation and new creation of Rev. 20:11 and Rev. 21:1 are the same event and ends the millennium.
– That the judgment and resurrection of Daniel 12:1-3 is the judgment and resurrection of Revelation 20:5-12 and is thus fulfilled after the millennium.
– That the judgment [resurrection implied] and coming of the Lord in Matt. 24-25 is the SAME event and source material for Paul in 1 Thess. 4-5.
* a and b necessitates or leads to the conclusion that the end of the millennium judgment and resurrection of Rev. 20 was fulfilled by AD 70. We proved this in our book, “House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology a Preterist Response to When Shall These Things Be?” over and over and over again!

c. McDurmon’s tutor Talbot-Sam for his debate with Preston believes the millennium/thousand years in Rev. 20 was fulfilled by AD 70!. Well, at least last week – lol.
3) Joel’s own writings and poor performance in his debate with Preston was sufficient to “poison the well” for Partial Preterism! By all means AV and Joel McDurmon — please send Criswell the debate!
a. Joel of course gave the farm away in his debate with Preston and was unable to refute him.
b. No one at the conference could or even tried to refute Preston’s presentation.
4) Gary DeMar and AV loves taking and marketing Full Preterist funding so why is it wrong if Criswell was funded by a Full Preterist to have Don there — which is one of the scenarios Joel mentions. Gary DeMar SPEAKS alongside Full Preterists (and has with Don Preston) — even at Full Preterist conferences! DeMar has even said of Full Preterists, “… I’m willing to listen to what others say on an issue, especially on eschatology since it’s been a garbled mess for centuries. It’s conceivable that so-called eschatological heretics are seeing something I’m not seeing. They’re willing to take the risk. Many are not.” There is no question that Premillennialists, Postmillennialists and Amillennialists have been gridlocked and have been a “garbled mess for centuries” and that Full Preterism can unite them if they are willing to revise the creeds (which the creeds allow).
If DeMar speaks at Full Preterist conferences and is willing to hear them, explain to me how McDurmon and DeMar can object to Criswell having Don Preston present his view on the millennium?!? DeMar has even interviewed Full Preterists on his radio show and has quoted and referenced Preston’s material in his books!
5) American Vision and Joel McDurmon affiliate with Whitefield Seminary who actually had a Full Preterist instructor (Sam Frost) on staff at one time and is currently taking Full Preterist money and Full Preterist students (such as Larry Siegle) and is equipping them to become Full Preterist ministers of the gospel! The hypocrisy and lack of logic (from a man who wrote a book on it!) coming from McDurmon and American Vision is mind boggling!
What McDurmon and DeMar won’t tell Criswell, is that their hermeneutic converts more people to Full Preterism than any other! It was through reading Chilton, Gentry, DeMar, Kik, Bahnsen, etc… that I (and countless others) became Full Preterists!
As I mentioned from the start, Joel debating Preston would only serve to harden McDurmon’s heart. This will have to play itself out — with Lord willing Joel reaching the end of himself and his pride. Sin and pride make the mind and heart very illogical and well, a bit of a cry baby.
In Christ,
Mike Sullivan

A Full Preterist Response To Partial Preterist Joel McDurmon's Article “The Passing of Away of Heaven and Earth in Revelation 20:11 and 20:1” Part 2 – Joel "Fled" From Pheugo in Revelation 16:20

Since Joel McDurmon appealed to his articles on 2 Peter 3 for further study and to support his distinctions of two different de-creation events – one alleged direct and literal fulfillment in Revelation 20:11 of the planet earth, and another covenantal and spiritual of the Old Covenant (OC) system passing and yielding to the NC creation by AD 70 in Revelation 21:1 — I examined and critiqued that article for Part 1of this two part response. In Part 1 we saw how American Vision Partial Preterists are all over the map. On one hand Matthew 24:29, 35=2 Pet. 3 (with other parallels being made) and was fulfilled in AD 70. John Lightfoot (one of DeMar and Gentry’s favorite PP to quote) claimed that the elements here were “only” referring to the OC creation passing away. I quoted DeMar’s sources as informing us that Matthew 24 material should not have any other double/mutiple kinds of futuristic fulfillments. And then there was Gentry whom would claim that Matthew 24 and 2 Peter 3 can have “typological” or fuller fulfillments to come.
In “hand” one we have American Vision’s presentation given to Dispensationalists, and in second, is their presentation they give to Full Preterists. If Partial Preterists can approach Matthew 24-25/2 Peter 3/Rev. 20-22 (and other NT crucial texts such as contained in the book of Hebrews, 1 Cor. 15 and John 5:28-29) and give them double/multiple, recapitulation of patterns, manifestations of future fulfillment, then so can Dispensationalists give these same kind of meanings of futuristic fulfillments to Israel, Jerusalem, the Temple, the signs and even “this generation” etc… Since Partial Preterists are now coming to crucial NT eschatological texts and claiming their direct imminent eschatological “not yet” anti-type AD 70 fulfillments are only further types of another “fuller-fulfillment,” then their debate with Dispensationalism is over! And when reading McDurmon and Gentry when it comes to a NT writer using Gen. 1-3 material and what can or cannot be referring to AD 70 and a more literal fulfillment to come, the confusion and contradictions mount even higher.
In this article I want to primarily address Joel McDurmon’s exegetical “fleeing” from mentioning the Greek word pheugo in (Revelation 16:20) when he was trying to make a distinction between two different eschatological de-creations being under discussion due to two different Greek words being used in Revelation 20:11 “fled away” (pheugo) and 21:1 “passed away” (parechomai).
Joel McDurmon’s eisegetical distinctions between Revelation 20:11 – “fled away” (Greek pheugo) and Revelation 21:1 – “passed away” (Greek parechomai)
McDurmon writes,
“Revelation 20:11 says earth and heaven “fled away” (ESV) from the face of the enthroned One. The verb here is ephugen (from pheugo). It means “run away” in the Monty Python sense: “retreat” or “flee” in the sense of seeking safety from an imminent threat. We get our word “fugitive” from pheugo.
Pheugo is a common word used some 279 times throughout the New Testament and Old Testament LXX, but almost always has the distinct meaning of running away out of fear or self-protection. For example, Genesis 39:12, 13 and 15 (LXX) use the word to describe Joseph fleeing from Potiphar’s wife who had him by the garment. The Exodus is described with this word (Ex. 14:5). So is David fleeing Saul who wants to murder him (1 Sam. 19:18), Ahaziah fleeing Jehu (2 Ki. 9:27), God’s enemies in general (Ps. 68:1; Prov. 28:1), Jonah fleeing God’s presence (Jon. 1:3), Baby Jesus’ family fleeing Herod (Matt. 2:13), persecuted disciples leaving town (Matt. 10:23; 24:16), fearful disciples scattering after Jesus’ crucifixion (Matt. 26:56). The list is long, and the word is consistent in this meaning.
Revelation 21:1, on the other hand, says “the first heaven and the first earth had passed away.” The verb here is apelthan (an aorist of aperchomai).”[1]
As one can clearly see McDurmon didn’t go through the proper hermeneutical/exegetical steps of pointing out how pheugo was used earlier and within the book of Revelation itself when it comes to a de-creation text/event:
“And every island fled (Greek pheugo) away, and the mountains were not found.” (Rev. 16:20).
Obviously Joel McDurmon “fled” from this text as in, “Run away in the Monty Python sense: “retreat” or “flee” in the sense of seeking safety from an imminent threat [Full Preterism]” because he and other Partial Preterists take this de-creation text as the fleeing/passing of the OC creation – not the literal creation. So much for his “argument” that two different events are referred to because two different Greek words are used!
American Vision new-comer Sam Frost has been claiming that his and McDurmon’s view of fulfillment is that of such scholars as G.K. Beale and yet Beale identifies the de-creation and judgment of Revelation 6:14, 16:20, 20:11 and 21:1 as the same eschatological end time or “not yet” event/judgment,
“Almost identical language has already been used of the last judgment in 6:14 and 16:20 (see there, esp. for OT background). That this signifies the end-time cosmic destruction is apparent further from 21:1, which affirms that “a new heaven and a new earth” replaced the vanishing “first heaven and first earth,” which had fled away. “A place was not found for them” is from Dan. 2:35 Theod., where it is used of the destruction of the wicked kingdoms at the end time.”^{^[2]}
And again,
“The absolute nature of the judgment is continued by a picture of the further breakup of the cosmos: “every island fled, and the mountains were not found” (see on 6:14). Virtually identical descriptions in 6:14 and 20:11 also indicate the conclusive, universal destruction of the earth at the judgment day. That parts of the world “were not found” (οὐχ εὑρέθησαν) anticipates the same portrayal of Babylon’s final, definitive destruction repeated three times in ch. 18 (οὐ μὴ εὑρεθῇ in 18:21, 22, and similarly in 18:14).
Note the striking parallel language in 6:14; 20:11; and 16:20:

6:14		16:20
	πᾶν ὄρος καὶ νῆσος ἐκ τῶν τόπων αὐτῶν ἐκινήθησαν (“every mountain and island were moved from their places”)		πᾶσα νῆσος ἔφυγεν καὶ ὄρη οὐχ εὑρέθησαν (“every island fled, and the mountains were not found”)
	20:11
	ἔφυγεν ἡ γῆ καὶ ὁ οὐρανός καὶ τόπος οὐχ εὑρέθη αὐτοῖς (“the earth and the heaven fled, and a place was not found for them”)

Destruction of mountains was a sign of the end of the cosmos in Jewish apocalyptic (1 En.1:6; Assumption of Moses10:4; Sib. Or. 8.234–35).”^{^[3]}
McDurmon basically tried to mock Preston’s charts of parallels in his various books in the debate as too simple, and yet the FACTS are that Don isn’t coming up with anything new when it comes to these parallels! It is called the “analogy of Scripture” and the vast majority of reformed exegesis upholds these kinds of parallels and recapitulation within the book of Revelation. As usual McDurmon was just blowing smoke!
Beale is correct in that the phrase “a place was not found for them” in Revelation 12:8, 16:20 and 20:11 is taken from Daniel 2:35 but it is not discussing the inaugural defeat of Satan, but the final defeat of him as the immediate context demonstrates in 20:10 and how the rest of the NT describes his imminent defeat (Rom. 16:20/Gen. 3:15).
Sam Frost / Joel McDurmon and Hermeneutics in Revelation 20
Joel was pleased at the debate to hand out free copies of Sam Frost’s (non-exegetical) little thin book on why he is now a Partial Preterist. But Frost continues to believe that the thousand years millennium in Revelation 20 was roughly between AD 30 – AD 70 – combining what Amilennialists teach on the recapitulation structure of the book (Rev. 20 with chapters 1-19, 21-22) and what Partial Preterists teach on AD 70 fulfillments of chapters 1-19, 21-22. But Frost fails to follow this same historical/grammatical and “organic development” approach in Revelation 20:5-15! Sam has told us before that Partial Preterist exegetes harden their hearts on what the plain meaning of the text is in order to seek “the validation of men.” And that is what I believe McDurmon, DeMar and Frost have done in Revelation 20:5-15. I have been saying in for years and agree with Frost in that this arbitrary hermeneutic of Partial Preterism is just a symptom of a greater problem. And while we are on that note of arbitrary hermeneutics…
Where Is the Matthew 25:31-46 and Revelation 20:10-13 Partial Preterist Parallel Hermeneutic?!?
American Vision’s Gary DeMar is on record as teaching:

John’s version of the Olivet discourse can be found in the book of Revelation.
Matthew 25:31-46 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 and American Vision writers to avoid making these parallels here! Does not orthodox Christianity and reformed creedal theology claim that Matthew 25:31-46 is a description of the Second Coming and final judgment — connecting it to the same judgment of Revelation 20:10-13?!? As I pointed out in “Part 1” of my response to Joel’s article, these parallels should have been developed but because it would continue to lead American Vision readers into Full Preterism or upset creedal supporters, these parallels were not:
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.
Daniel 12:1-7 and Revelation 20:5-13
Beale also points out that there is no greater influence upon the book of Revelation than that of the book of Daniel. Well, again this is no small problem for Joel McDurmon and American Vision who are now in print as informing their readers that the judgment and resurrection of the dead in Daniel 12:1-7 took place in AD 70. We are told by Partial Preterists that John picks up where Daniel leaves off – and we couldn’t agree more!
Conclusion:
I don’t think it is a huge mystery as to why McDurmon “fled” from mentioning Revelation 16:20 and these other texts and issues in his article on Revelation 20:11 and 21:1. Personally, I tend to believe it was more than sloppy or non-existent exegesis, it was borderline dishonesty or as Frost once wrote “seeking the validation of men” – but I will leave it for the readers to decide. McDurmon has failed on an exegetical level to prove his case that Revelation 20:11 is a text which directly points to a literal de-creation event at the end of history while others such as Revelation 21:1 have a dual/double meaning of fulfillment– 1) AD 70 covenant de-creation and 2) an alleged literal/global de-creation referent.

[1] Joel McDurmon, The “passing” away of heaven and earth in Revelation 20:11 and 21:1 http://americanvision.org/5738/the-passing-away-of-heaven-and-earth-in-revelation-2011-and-211-4/#.UCkxAaOJr3A

^{^[2]} G.K. Beale, (1999). The book of Revelation: A commentary on the Greek text. New International Greek Testament Commentary (1032). Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle, Cumbria: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press.

^{^[3]} G. K. Beal, Ibid., (844).

Joel McDurmon, Dominionism and the Sabbath

Joel McDurmon, Dominionism and the Sabbath
Don K. Preston D. Div.
In my formal debate with Joel McDurmon of American Vision (July 19-21, 2012), in my first affirmative presentation, I took note of the critical, but mostly overlooked, importance of the Sabbath to the study of eschatology.
I proved that the Sabbath was a distinctively covenantal sign between God and Israel, a sign both of creation and of deliverance from Egyptian bondage and death. (Exodus 31; Deuteronomy 5). (DVDs and MP3s of the debate will be available from this website very shortly).
Not only was the Sabbath a covenantal sign between YHVH and Israel, it was a prophetic foreshadowing of the end of the millennium (final) salvation and resurrection.
My argument then was that Jesus said not one jot or one tittle would pass from Torah, the Law of Moses, until it was all completely accomplished, brought to reality (Matthew 5:17-18). (See my new book, From Torah To Telos, The Passing of the Law of Moses, for an extensive exegesis of Matthew 5:17-18). This means that until what the Sabbath foreshadowed came into reality, i.e. until the end of the millennium resurrection was fulfilled, not one jot or one tittle of the Law of Moses would pass away.
McDurmon initially ignored this argument, so I repeated it and pressed it. He then admitted that he believes that the Sabbath, with its ceremonial ordinances, i.e the sacrifices and observance of the seventh day, have passed away. However, of course, per Joel, the end of the millennium resurrection has not come to reality.
The reader simply must catch the power of the Sabbath issue. (In my planned series of books on the passing of the Law of Moses, I have plans to produce one volume strictly to this incredibly important issue).
Joel, and virtually all Dominionists (postmillennialists), hold to the similar view on the Sabbath. In fact, I documented in a chart how Bahnsen, Gentry, DeMar all agree that the Sabbath foreshadowed the end of the millennium resurrection. Likewise, they all affirm that the seventh day Sabbath has been annulled, along with all of its ceremonial, cultic ministrations. Yet, they all say that what the Sabbath foreshadowed– the consummation of God’s eschatological scheme– has not been fulfilled! Do you see the problem? It is huge. It is insurmountable. It is fatal to the Dominionist paradigm.
I once again took note of Jesus’ words that not one iota of Torah would pass until it was ALL– not some, not even most– but until it was ALL fulfilled, came to reality. Joel’s response was nothing less than desperate and revealing.
Joel responded by noting that the word “all” does not always mean “all.” He appealed to Joshua 21:43-45 where it says that all of God’s land promises to Israel had been fulfilled, and claiming that the Messianic promises had not yet been fulfilled. All in Joshua is limited, therefore, he implied, all in Matthew 5 must be limited, and thus proclaiming that he had nullified my argument on Matthew 5.
Of course, no one denies that context can limit the meaning of “all.” However, I produced a chart with the following quote from Greg Bahnsen (One of McDurmon’s mentors):
“A verse like Matthew 5:18, with its unparticularized panta (translated as “all” DKP) is prey for such treatment… Nothing in the context or vocabulary of Matthew 5:18 warrants the induction of speculative meaning; a phrase as colorless and abstract as panta should not be particularized, personalized, and steered into this theological preconception. …. Page 83— “In Matthew 5:18 the commencement of the law’s passing away is made dependent upon panta genetai. Panta, when used without an article or preposition indicates “all things, everything.” It is to be taken in this absolutely general sense unless the context dictates some antecedent whole of which panta constitutes the complete parts.” (Theonomy, 83, my emp). (McDurmon totally ignored the chart and the quote).
The next night, I took note of Joel’s disturbing hermeneutic. By appealing to Joshua to redefine Matthew 5 Joel was guilty of an illegitimate transfer of context. Joshua was not talking about what Matthew 5 was talking about. To impose one context on another context, when the subject matter is totally different in the two texts, is clearly wrong.
I likewise took note that Joel’s hermeneutic would destroy the meaning of all in all (pun intended) contexts! In other words, if Joshua 21 defines “all” as a limited “all” in Matthew 5, then why doesn’t the “all” in Joshua limit the definition of “all” in “all” (comprehensively speaking) texts? This is so patently untenable as to be unthinkable, and, of course, Joel would never accept it. However, he could never justify why the “all” in Joshua demanded a limited “all” in Matthew. He never gave a word of justification other than seeking to imply that Joshua limited Matthew. This kind of specious, arbitrary hermeneutic is very, very revealing.
Very clearly, there is no contextual qualifier in Matthew 5 that limits, in any way whatsoever, the definition of “all.” Thus, per Bahnsen’s excellent analysis, all in Matthew 5 must mean, well, ALL!
(In another article, we will share Joel’s disingenuous attempt to negate the force of Jesus’ use of genetai, translated as “fulfilled” in Matthew 5:18).
Here then, was, and is, my argument:
Jesus said that not one jot or one tittle would pass from the Law of Moses until it was all fully accomplished.
The Sabbath– an integral part of the Law of Moses– foreshadowed the end of the millennium resurrection.
Therefore until the end of the millennium resurrection is fulfilled, comes into reality, not one single iota of the Law of Moses– and specifically the observance of the ceremonial, cultic, sacrificial seventh day Sabbath– can or will pass away!
Joel’s futurist eschatology (in fact, all futurist eschatologies) demands the continuance of the seventh day Sabbath!
I asked the audience (and of course, Joel) at least twice, to consider what Joel was saying. By taking the position that he does, Joel turns Jesus’ teaching 180% out. Jesus said, “not one jot or one tittle will pass from the law until it is all fulfilled.” Joel, and all futurists, say that what Jesus really meant was: “Some jots and tittles of the Law, for instance the seventh day Sabbath, will pass from the law without being fulfilled at all!”
I posed the following question to Joel and the audience: Would anyone ever get Joel’s interpretation of Matthew 5:17-18 from Jesus’ words? Would they ever get from, “Not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the law until it is all fulfilled” that it actually means: “Some jots and tittles of the Law will pass without being fulfilled”? Joel never offered a single word in response to this question.
I want the reader to let that soak in.
Some years ago, (1997) David Chilton gave a speech in Oklahoma City, presenting his reasons for becoming a full preterist. He took note that Dominionists commonly appeal– as Bahnsen, Gary North and even Joel McDurmon– to Matthew 5:17-18 to prove the eternal validity of the Law of Moses. But, as Chilton noted, the very verse that they appeal to for their doctrine is in fact a total refutation of their doctrine!
Chilton demonstrated exegetically and logically, that Matthew 5:17-18 emphatically says that not one iota of Torah– which includes the sacrificial system– would pass until it was all fulfilled. Yet, all Dominionists say that lots and lots of jots and tittles of the Law of Moses have passed away, without being fulfilled! Those jots and tittles of the, “New Moons, feast days and Sabbaths” were“purged”, removed and annulled, without ever being fulfilled! (The lectureship containing Chilton’s speech is available from me. Contact me through this site).
In reality, in one very real sense, nothing else that Joel McDurmon said in the debate really matters. It is impossible, logically, to affirm the passing of the seventh day Sabbath without thereby demanding the fulfillment of the end of the millennium resurrection– the fulfillment of “final salvation”– the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant promises Joel says that the seventh day Sabbath has passed, but, that what the Sabbath foreshadowed has not come to reality. The shadow has not become reality. The shadow simply passed away. There can be no reconciliation between Dominionist theology and Jesus’ words.
There could not be a clearer rejection of the words of Jesus than the futurist eschatology of postmillennial Dominionism.

Critique of American Vision/Joel McDurmon's Affirmative – “The Hour is coming" (JOHN 4:21-24 & JOHN 5:28-29)

Critique of American Vision/Joel McDurmon’s Affirmative – “The Hour is coming” (JOHN 4:21-24 & JOHN 5:28-29)

By Michael J. Sullivan

In Joel McDurmon’s recent debate with Don Preston, he proposed a few arguments leveled at Full Preterism (FP) which I will now summarize and then address in the body of this article. First, God’s promise to Abraham was that he would inherit the entire literal real-estate of the “world” (Greek kosmos) and since this has never happened, it stands to reason that a final literal bodily resurrection of the dead has not taken place. Second, an appeal to John 5-6 was made concerning the “last day” (also John 11-12) and a definite limited number of the elect is referred to – so for Joel this is somehow evidence of an end of time and history. Oddly he takes 2 Peter 3 as fulfilled in AD 70, but the longsuffering of the “us” and “all” of 2 Peter 3:9 is evidence of a salvation for the elect at the end of time? Third, by “allusion” the end of the world and history is supposed to be seen in Ecclesiastes 3:11 and Isaiah 41:4 and 46:10. And lastly, an appeal was made to an allegedly fleshly end of time resurrection spoken of by Job in Job 19.
This article is in process and will cover all of these points, but I will begin by addressing John 5:25-29 and laying the context of John 4:19-38… I have also done this in a bit of a hurry so I will need to go back through and no doubt do a little editing.
The John 4-5 “The hour is coming and now is” and “The hour is coming” Connections
Before examining McDurmon’s points on John 5, let’s take a look at these phrases and context found in John 4 and then how Partial Preterist Kenneth Gentry addresses the “hour is coming”:
“Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming (the eschatological “not yet”) when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. “You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. “But the hour is coming, and now is (the eschatological “already and not yet”), when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. “God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” (Jn.4:21-24)
Jesus is referring to the judgment upon Jerusalem when He mentions “an hour is coming” which is the eschatological “not yet” in His discussion of a hotly debated issue concerning a mountain and temple worship with the Samaritan woman. Jesus’ answer is a AD 70 and post post AD 70 answer concerning a time when a localized place of mountain and temple worship will be meaningless – giving way to the establishment of NC Temple/Mount Zion (Jn.4:19-21; cf. Hebs.9:6-10; Heb.12).
We should take note that there are other eschatological themes such as the harvest which brings with it the Great Commission and resurrection motifs. There is only one NC “harvest” and it involves the harvesting of souls unto “eternal life” and would occur at the end of the OC “this age” Jesus and His audience were living in (Jn.4:35ff./Mt.3:10-12/Mt.13:37-43). There are not two different kinds of harvests, one evangelistic and spiritual and the other involving a literal resurrection of corpses at the end of time. John in Revelation describes the end of the same harvest at the end of the OC age as something that would “shortly” take place and was “at hand” (Rev.1:1, 3 <–Rev.14–> Rev.22:7, 10, 12, 20). Jesus also instructs us that “salvation is of the Jews” (Jn.4:22) therefore this further confirms the harvest/resurrection occurs at the end of the Jewsish first century OC. The resurrection/harvest theme is coinciding with the Bride theme that was introduced previously with John the Baptist. Samaritans were “half-breeds” that were the product of intermarriage and a “scattering” and “sowing” that occurred with the Assyrian captivity. A Samaritan woman who is ½ Jew and ½ Gentile is a fitting representation of the Bride of Christ – for He has reconciled the two into one new body. The parallels of Jacob finding his wife with Jesus finding His are striking: 1) Jacob left his home country to find a bride. Jesus left heaven to find His Bride. 2) Jacob had a dream of a ladder and anointed a stone. 3) John the Baptist finds a stone (Jesus) and anoints Him – the very ladder Jacob dreamed of (Jn.1:51). Jacob found his bride at this well at “high day.” Jesus met with the Samaritan woman at the same well at the sixth hour or noon time. 4) Jacob had 12 sons that comprised the old-covenant bride of Israel. Jesus appoints 12 disciples representing the new-covenant and transformed Israel/Bride. This woman had married 5 men was living with the 6^th — finding no rest and contentment until finding Jesus — the ultimate perfect Groom and Husband of the Church who brings rest/satisfaction/unfailing love – ie. the7^th.[2] Shiloh/Jesus is the Sabbath rest who is beginning a “gathering” that will be completed at harvest time at His return in His contemporary generation (Gen.49:1, 10; Mt. 13:39-43; Mt.24:30-31, 34; Hebs.3-4, 10:25, 37). Since DeMar and McDurmon take the parable of the 10 virgins and coming of the Lord in Matthew 25:1-13, 31 as taking place in AD 70, then we are correct to point out that this is when the eschatological marriage/feast and resurrection of the dead takes place as well:
“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. On this mountain he will destroy the shroud that enfolds all peoples, the sheet that covers all nations; HE WILL SWALLOW UP DEATH FOREVER” (Isa. 25:6-8/1 Cor. 15:54).
In Jewish weddings the banquet/feast and giving of the finest wine takes place AFTER the wedding. Clearly when the Church inherits Zion in AD 70 is when the eschatological /feast and resurrection of the dead takes place. McDurmon took issue with Preston placing Isaiah 25:6-7 with verse 8/1Cor. 15:54 as if Paul did not have verses 6-7 in mind as well?!? But Isaiah 24-28 is a very well established contextual flowing “block” “inclusio” or simply called “Isaiah’s Little Apocalypse” for the commentators! And for further support lets once turn again to our context of Jesus’ (and the Jewish) dispute with the Samaritan woman over a coming eschatological hour in which “worship” will take place on a “mountain” and “Jerusalem” — we should stay in Isaiah::
“IN THAT DAY (the last day of the Old Covenant age) the Lord will thresh from the flowing Euphrates to the Wadi of Egypt, and you, O Israelites, WILL BE GATHERED (cf. Matt. 13:39-43, 49/Matt. 24:30-31/2 Thess. 2:1) up one by one. And in THAT DAY A GREAT TRUMPET WILL SOUND (Matt. 24:30-31/1 Thess. 4:15-17/1 Cor. 15:52) those who were perishing in Assyria and those who WORSHIP THE LORD ON THE HOLY MOUNTAIN IN JERUSALEM.” (Isa. 27:13).
Of Isaiah 27:13’s connection with the NT texts I inserted above, let’s turn to G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson for support:
“The trumpet as a sign of the day of the Lord in 1 Cor. 15:52 recalls Isa. 27:13…” Of 2 Thessalonians 2:1, “The content of Paul’s appeal in this section concerns not only “the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,” but also “our gathering to him.” The immediate reference to this latter subject is the comforting picture given in the previous letter of how all believers, both those who have died and those who are still alive, will be gathered together to Jesus at his return (1 Thess. 4:16–17). The motif, however, goes back to the widespread OT hope in the gathering together of the scattered exiles to their own land on the day of the Lord (Ps. 106:47 [105:47 LXX]; Isa. 27:13; 43:4–7; 49:12; 56:8; Jer. 29:14; 30:3, 18; 31:8, 23; 33:7; Joel 3:1–2; Zech 2:6; Tob. 14:5; 2 Macc. 1:27; 2:7, 18; Pss. Sol. 17:50; T. Ash. 7:6–7; T. Naph. 8:3). This hope was taken over by Jesus and his scattered followers to refer to the final gathering of God’s people with the Messiah (Matt. 24:31 par.; cf. 23:37 par.).[1]
Now let’s continue and comapre Isaiah 27:13 with our text here in John 4 as laying the contextual foundation to John 5:28-29:
“Jesus declared, “Believe me, woman, a hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on THIS MOUNTAIN NOR IN JERUSALEM (literal Old Covenant types)…a hour is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will the Father in spirit and truth (the New Covenant anti-type Heb. 12:18–13:14 “City/Jerusalem that is about to come”) , for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.” (John 4:21-24).
Interestingly enough, Kenneth Gentry identifies the eschatological “not yet” of Jesus’ phrase, “the hour is coming” in (John 4:21) as taking place in AD 70 and following.[2] Therefore, McDurmon fails to deal with contextually how Jesus uses the classic soteriological/eschatological “already and not yet” phrase “The hour is coming, and now is…” as referring NOT to the end of time and history but the end in AD 70. This being the case, the burden of proof now lies on the PP Joel McDurmon and AV associates and colleagues to explain why Jesus is now using the very same eschatological “already and not yet” phrases to be addressing an end of time and history event. It is not uncommon for the PP view to divide the contextual flow of eschatological chapters — that the reformed church has traditionally united.[3]
“For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will.” “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. “Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live. “For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, “and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. “Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice “and come forth––those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.” (Jn. 5:21, 24-29)
Here in the next chapter Jesus is using the “already and not yet” phrases “The hour is coming and now is” or “The hour is coming” to refer to the same AD 30 – AD 70 time frame. As the “already and not yet” of John 4 was spiritually fulfilled by AD 70, so it is here in John 5:25-29. Oddly McDurmon claims that John 5:28-29 “could be applied to AD 70.” But why would Joel McDurmon say this?
Could it be that he realizes his admission that the resurrection unto everlasting life and everlasting condemnation in Daniel 12:2-3, 13 took place in AD 70 will come back to bite him? Perhaps he knows the commentators and scholars point out that the ONLY place in the OT that mentions the phrase “everlasting life” and a resurrection for two groups – believers and non-believers, is found here in Daniel 12:2?!? Perhaps in a rare moment McDurmon realizes he is stuck between a rock (Dan. 12:2 was fulfilled in AD 70) and a hard place (Dan. 12:2=John 5:28-29) in that the vast majority of Christianity connects the resurrection of the two groups in Daniel 12:2 and John 5:28-29 as the SAME EVENT — so he wants to throw it out there as a possible AD 70 fulfillment?
But instead of going with what the vast majority of Christianity teaches on these texts and what he says of an AD 70 fulfillment of Dan. 12:2/Matt. 13:39-43 (which would be but yet another text American Vision has surrendered to FP), he is reluctant to try and salvage his and American Vision’s allegiance to the creeds and their supporters, claiming he believes John 5:28-29 is referring to an end of time fleshly resurrection because the phrase “now is” is not used in verses 28-29 only in v. 25, and the “graves” are mentioned here.
Well, as mentioned the OT echo or reference on the resurrection of the two groups is found in Dan. 12:2 and the “graves” would be that of Ezekiel 37. Neither of these OT resurrection texts according to PPism is referring to a fleshly resurrection – and neither is John 5:28-29! As the Son had seen the Father raise Israel from her graves spiritually, covenantally and corporately in Ezekiel 37, so too in a similar way He would raise the dead and those of the New Israel or those “In Christ” (living and dead) in AD 70 – spiritually, covenantally and corporately.
There is but yet another exegetical, theological and historical problem for Mr. McDurmon when it comes to studying the “The Hour is coming” in John’s writings (which he avoided dealing with in his affirmative).
The John 5:25-29/1John 2:17-18 & Rev. 14:7 Connections
Towards the end of John’s “this generation” (Mt.24:34), He wrote that He and his audience knew it was the “last hour” (1Jn.2:17-18). In Gentry’s debate with futurists on the book of Revelation he accurately states,
“Similar notes of the temporal proximity of divinely governed cries abound in the New Testament (see Matt. 26:64; Acts 2:16-20; Rom. 13:11-12; 16:20; 1Cor.7:26, 29-31; Col. 3:6; 1Thess.2:16; Heb. 10:25, 37; James 5:8-9; 1Pet.4:5, 7; 1John 2:17-18). How else could the New Testament express nearness more clearly?[4]
Again, we find McDurmon out of step with most reformed scholars throughout church history whom agree with FPism — that the analogy of Scripture parallels John’s teaching on the resurrection “the hour is coming” found in (John 5:28-29), with “it is the last hour” in (1 John 2:17-18), and with “for the hour of his judgment is come:” in (Rev. 14:7). This of course is a problem for PPism and Mr. McDurmon since he sees “the last hour” and “hour of his judgment” of (1 John 2:17-18 and Rev. 14:7) as taking place in AD 70.
The “Hour is coming” and “The Last Days” Connection
A similar problem arises in that American Vision’s Gary DeMar and Joel McDurmon teach in their writings that the NT’s reference to “the last days” is ONLY addressing the last days or end to the OC age in AD 70. Well, the vast majority of Christian scholarship once again agrees with FPism and understands that John’s “The hour is coming” of (John 5:28-29) and “The last day” of (John 6:39) are referring to the “last hour” of the “last day” which closes the NT’s “last days” eschatology!
The John 5:24-29 and Revelation 20:1-13 Connections
And where was Joel’s “scholarly” or “exegetical” approach in examining John’s teachings on the resurrection and judgment of John 5:24-29 with that of Revelation 20?!? Reformed theologian and commentator Simon Kistemacker, understands these events to be the same as does FPism:

Fourth Gospel	Revelation
A. First Resurrection	A. First Resurrection
I most solemnly assure you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me has everlasting life … has passed out of death into life. I most solemnly assure you, the hour is coming — yea, has already arrived! — when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.	“… and I saw the souls of them that had been beheaded … and such as worshiped not the beast, neither his image, and received not the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.… This is the first resurrection.
… and (he) does not come into condemnation. (For the solemn introductory formula see on 1:51.)	“Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection: over these the second death has no power.”
B. Second Resurrection (unto judgment)	B. Second Resurrection (unto judgment)
Stop being surprised about this, for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and will come out: those who have done good, for the resurrection of life, and those who have practiced evil, for the resurrection of condemnation.	“And I saw a great white throne and him who sat upon it.… And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne; and books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of the things which were written in the books, according to their works: And the sea gave up the dead that were in it; and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.… And if any was not found in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire.”

[5] We too understand that these are dealing with the same judgment and resurrection of the dead event, but again we see two phases of ONE resurrection for “the dead” (both righteous and wicked) occurring at the end of the old-covenant age, not two kinds – one spiritual and one physical being taught by Jesus and John.
The John 5:25-29 and Matthew 25:31-46 Connections
American Vision’s Gary DeMar and Joel McDurmon along with PP associate Keith Mathison, have progressed much closer to FPism in that they now take the coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 25:31 as having occurred in AD 70. Well, hasn’t the vast majority if not virtually all of the exegetical commentators within reformed eschatology or systematic theologies connected these passages as taking place at the same time as does FPism?!? It is American Vision’s Gary DeMar and Joel McDurmon along with Keith Mathison whom seek to pull one over on everyone claiming the coming of the Son of Man throughout ALL of Matthew 24-25 is NOT the Second Coming — which is out of step with orthodoxy and the analogy of Scripture. Selah.
The John 5:28-29 and 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17/1 Corinthians 15 Connections
Since all of reformed theologians and commentators connect these passages as depicting the same eschatological events concerning the judgment and resurrection of the dead, and Joel McDurmon claims John 5:28-29 “could be applied to AD 70, and PP Mike Bull says the coming of Christ in 1 Thess. 4 and 1 Cor. 15 took place in AD 70, there isn’t much left to the PPism of American Vision. And their denial that their view does not lead to FPism is a total joke to the rest of the theological and scholarly world.
Concluding Joel’s Affirmative Points on John 5:25-29:
McDurmon miserably failed to address how Jesus uses these “already and not yet” phrases in the previous chapter as referring roughly from a time frame of AD 30 – AD 70, in attempting exegeting John 5:24-29. He also miserably failed to address Daniel 12:2 as being the OT source for Jesus’ eschatology in John 5:28-29.
Joel McDurmon wanted to sound scholarly by explaining to us in the beginning of the debate that he was going to be going over these issues from an exegetical, systematic/theological, and historical way, and yet I have to give him an “F” in failing to address the exegetical and contextual issues in John 4-5, and how the historic church and scholars from a wide range connect the resurrection of John 5:28-29 with Daniel 12:2. There is simply NO exegetical evidence that the resurrection of John 5:25-29/Dan. 12:2-3, 13 is a fleshly resurrection to take place at the end of time. We in fact do want to appeal to the historic reformed Church (the PP view and the Classic Amillennial view – their scholars and commentators) which forms the organic development or “Reformed and Always Reforming” view of Full Preterism:
1)      Partial Preterism (& Joel McDurmon) –
a)      Daniel 12:1-3, 13/Matt. 13:39-43/Matt. 24-25 was fulfilled in AD 70 and “The hour is coming” of (John 5:28-29) “could be applied to AD 70.” Joel McDurmon’s tutor for the debate and now American Vision contributing author – Sam Frost, believes the millennium of Revelation 20:1-10 was fulfilled between AD 30 – AD 70. Perhaps this too “could be applied to AD 70” Mr. McDurmon?!? PP James Jordan disciple Mike Bull believes the parousia of Christ in 1 Thess. 4 and 1 Cor. 15 took place in AD 70. Mr. McDurmon, can these texts likewise be “applied to AD 70” per your peers?
b)      The NT’s use of “The last days” referred to and ended the OC age in AD 70 and the “The last hour” and “Hour of judgment” of (1 John 2:17-18; Rev. 14:7) was fulfilled in AD 70.
2)      Classic Amillennialism –
a)      Daniel’s judgment and resurrection doctrine of Daniel 12:1-3 is that of Jesus’/John’s/and Paul’s in Matt. 13:39-43/Matt. 24-25/John 5:28-29/Rev. 20:5-13 and Acts 24:15YLT/WEY.
b)      The “Hour is coming” “The last hour” and “Hour of judgment” of (John 5:28-29; 1 John 2:17-18; Rev. 14:7) marks the end to the NT’s “already and not yet” “Last days” eschaton.
3)      True or Full Preterism/Covenant Eschatology –
a)      Daniel’s judgment and resurrection of the dead doctrine of Daniel 12:1-3, 13 is that of Jesus’/John’s/and Paul’s in Matt. 13:39-43/Matt. 24-25/John 5:28-29/Rev. 20:5-13 and 1 Thess. 4/1 Cor. 15/Acts 24:15YLT/WEY.
b)      The “Hour is coming” “The last hour” and “Hour of judgment” of (John 5:28-29; 1 John 2:17-18; Rev. 14:7) marks the end to the NT’s “already and not yet” “Last days” eschaton during the transition of the OC age and NC age and ended in AD 70..
Reformed eschatology (PPism and the classic Amillennial view) continues to lead their readers to Full Preterism. And although American Vision continues to deny that their writings are leading their readers into FPism, the statistics and testimonies are just too clear. Why did American Vision publish their (and Talbot’s) dancing bear trophy Sam Frost’s thin little book on why he is no longer a FP? It’s because they are DESPERATE for an image change! They know hundreds of books could be published from Full Preterist’s such as Why I Left Partial Preterism For Full Preterism compared to the few converts Talot is bribing with a free tuition at Whitfield Theological Seminary or a whispering in the ear of a bright future within “reformed” “orthodox” ministries. American Vision needs Sam Frost, and Sam Frost needs American Vision. Personally, I believe this was the beginning of the end or rapid decline for both of them. Time will tell.

[1]Beale, G. K., & Carson, D. A. (2007). Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament (747, 886–887). Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, UK: Baker Academic; Apollos..
[2] Edited by Stanely N. Gudry and C. Marvin Pate, a 4 co-authored debate with Kenneth Gentry, FOUR VIEWS ON THE BOOK OF REVELATION, p.66, Zondervan pub., 1998.
[3] Some examples being: 1) Christ’s coming in Matt. 24:27-30 happened in AD 70 but His coming in Matt. 25:31 allegedly takes place at the end of time. 2) The coming of Christ and parallels to Matt. 24 in 1 Thess. 5 took place in AD 70, but the PP hermeneutical points of Paul’s parallel source material in 1 Thess. 4:15-17 with that of Matt. 24 is dropped and 1 Thess. 4 is allegedly dealing with an end of time and history event. 3) The coming of Christ in Heb. 10:25-37 occurred in AD 70, but apparently the author of Hebrews is allegedly dealing with a different coming of the Lord in Heb. 9:26-28. The de-creation of Rev. 21:1 deals with the creation of the OC passing in AD 70, but allegedly the de-creation of Rev. 20:11 is dealing with the end/transformation of planet earth. These of course are just a few of the none contextual and arbitrary distinctions the PP view makes in its attempts to deal with the time texts and be creedal at the same time.
[4] Gentry, ibid. FOUR VIEWS ON THE BOOK OF REVELATION, p.43.
[5] Hendriksen, William ; Kistemaker, Simon J.: New Testament Commentary : Exposition of the Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids : Baker Book House, 1953-2001 (New Testament Commentary 1-2), S. 1:200.