PART 3c. – DEBATE CHALLENGE AND RESPONSE TO: JAMES WHITE, ANTHONY ROGERS, SAM SHAMOUN, SHABIR ALLY: MATTHEW 24-25 "THIS GENERATION" AND DIVISION THEORIES REFUTED

We are continuing our series observing how Christian (futurist) apologists to Muslims haven’t been able to deal with Muslims stealing liberal and Bible skeptic arguments concerning how an imminent (and in their view “failed”) Second Coming in the NT overthrows Jesus’ claims to be divine and a faithful prophet. As we have noticed, James White didn’t even TOUCH the issue in his debate with Shabir Ally and even Partial Preterists such as Anthony Rogers and Sam Shamoun are scrambling and incompetent to give a consistent exegetical answer to him.
Our series continues in Matthew 24 (critiquing White’s sermons on the passage & the various Reformed Partial Preterist views) with emphasis in this article being on the meaning of “this generation” and if Matthew 24-25 can be divided up into two sections or two comings of the Son of Man – one in AD 70 and another future end of world history coming.
“This Generation”
Not surprisingly, James White flies by on what the meaning of “this generation” is in (Matt. 24:34) in his Sunday School lessons to his Church. All he really says is that some have tried to teach that it means, “the race of Jews will not pass away until all these things have been fulfilled” and that this is a view he “wouldn’t feel comfortable defending in a debate.” But then again I don’t think White is competent or comfortable doing any kind of “debate” in Matthew 24 something I am challenging him on – Selah. So what is his view?  I don’t know because he doesn’t say. But he sure doesn’t even remotely touch what the “all these things” are in (Matt. 24:34) that would be fulfilled in Jesus’ “this generation” (as he avoided in his debate with Shabir Ally) because contextually he knows that would be the signs, the end of the age, and His coming in the previous and immediate verses/context. Mr. White apparently isn’t available for doing any real exegesis (mocking Dispensationalism yes, irrelevant “rabbit trails” yes, but actual exegesis of the passage, no). So sad. Let’s provide the Christian public and members of White’s Church with a real exegesis of our passage.
Lexical evidence
The Thayer Greek-English Lexicon and Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words defines genea here in Matthew 24:34 (and in the other relevant passages), as Jesus addressing His Jewish contemporary generation (AD 30-70) and therefore is the subject of the prophetic pronouncement,
the whole multitude of men living at the same time: Mt.xxiv. 34; Mk. xiii. 30; Lk. i. 48; xxi. 32; Phil. ii. 15; used esp. of the Jewish race living at one and the same period: Mt. xi. 16; xii. 39, 41 sq. 45; xvi. 4; xxiii.36; Mk. Viii. 12, 38; Lk. Xi. 29 sq. 32, 50 sq.; xvii. 36; Heb. iii. 10…” “…who can describe the wickedness of the present generation, Acts viii. 33 (fr. Is. Liii. 8 Sept.).”[1]
“…of the whole multitude of men living at the same time, Matt. 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 1:48; 21:32; Phil. 2:15, and especially of those of the Jewish people to the time in which they lived, the world came to mean age, i.e., a period ordinarily occupied by each successive generation, say, of thirty or forty years, Acts 14:16; 15:21; Eph. 3:5; Col. 1:26; see also, e.g., Gen. 15:16.”[2]
Although somewhat inconsistent, the most impressive Greek work and interpretation I have come across thus far comes from Collin Brown,
“In Matt. it has the sense of this generation, and according to the first evangelist, Jesus expected the end of this age (Time, art. aion) to occur in connection with the judgment on Jerusalem at the end of that first generation (see Mk. 9:1 and Matt. 16:28).”[3]
And again,
“But if these events were expected within the first generation of Christians (and “generation” is the most probable translation of genea), either Jesus or the evangelists were mistaken…” or “…there is an alternative interpretation of the passage which points out that insufficient attention has been paid to the prophetic language of the passage as a whole.
The imagery of cosmic phenomena is used in the OT to describe this-worldly events and, in particular, historical acts of judgment. The following passages are significant, not least because of their affinities with the present context: Isa. 13:10 (predicting doom on Babylon); Isa. 34:4 (referring to “all the nations”, but especially to Edom); Ezek. 32:7 (concerning Egypt); Amos 8:9 (the Northern Kingdom of Israel); Joel 2:10 (Judah). The cosmic imagery draws attention to the divine dimension of the event in which the judgment of God is enacted. The use of Joel 2:28-32 in Acts 2:15-21 provides an instance of the way in which such prophetic cosmic imagery is applied to historical events in the present (cf. also Lk. 10:18; Jn. 12:31; 1 Thess. 4:16; 2 Pet. 3:10ff.; Rev. 6:12-17; 18:1). Other OT passages relevant to the interpretation of the present context are Isa. 19:1; 27:13; Dn. 7:13; Deut. 30:4; Zech. 2:6; 12:10-14; Mal. 3:1. In view of this, Mk. 13:24-30 may be interpreted as a Son of man will be vindicated. Such prophecy of judgment on Israel in which a judgment took place with the destruction of Jerusalem, the desecration of the  Temple and the scattering of Israel – all of which happened within the  lifetime of “this generation.” “…Such an interpretation fits the preceding discourse and the introductory remarks of the disciples (Mk. 13:1ff. par.).”[4] (Brown, Ibid., 38-39).
Brown is at least attempting to allow the Bible to interpret itself.  And if I’m not mistaken, he seems to be consenting that the “rapture” or resurrection passage of 1 Thessalonians 4:16 can been seen as fulfilled by the “historical event” of AD 70 just as the language of Matthew 24 can or should be interpreted.  Unfortunately, Brown was inconsistent in interpreting 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 elsewhere in his writings with a Preterist or using an OT apocalyptic/figurative “in history” (not at the end of history) hermeneutic. I will provide the consistent hermeneutic of apocalyptic language pointing to AD 70 between Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 4-5 in another article in this series.
Relevant Translations
Other translations that understand the meaning of Jesus’ words here translate Matthew 24:34:
“Remember that all these things will happen before the people now living have all died.” (Matt. 24:34 GNT – cf. Matt. 16:27-28)
“Don’t take this lightly. I’m not just saying this for some future generation, but for all of you. This age continues until all these things take place.” (Matt. 24:34 The Message)
“I tell you the truth, all these things will happen while the people of this time are still living.” (Matt. 24:34 NCV – cf. Matt. 16:27-28)
Matthew 24:34 and its context is unequivocally clear. Jesus promises that “ALL” of the “THINGS” the disciples previously asked about and that He just got done answering/teaching on (the destruction of the Temple, with the end of it’s OC “age,” the signs, and His coming) would be fulfilled in their AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation.” The very FACT that as that AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation” was ending, the NT posits Christ’s Second Coming as “near,” soon,” “at hand,” etc…, IS further overwhelming evidence that this how the inspired NT authors understood Jesus’ teaching here in Matthew 24! This is an obvious point that James White didn’t want to address to his Church (because it would violate the London Baptist 1689 Confession of Faith) and one he didn’t want to respond to in his debate with Shabir Ally over NT imminence!
Division Theories Considered
Although I have focused a great deal of attention on James White’s interpretation of Matthew 24, I will now be focusing more on various Partial Preterist views and that of Sam Shamoun and Anthony Rogers. Remember, White’s embarrassing neglect to deal with Shabir Ally’s points on NT imminence is the reason (I believe) Shamoun posted Anthony Rogers Partial Preterist response to Shabir Ally (http://answeringislam.net/authors/rogers/rebuttals/ally.html). This being the case, I have to point out once again that Rogers (conveniently) unfinished article stops right around Matthew 24:34-36 – begging the question as to if Anthony Rogers (and Shamoun) believe Matthew 24-25 is describing one coming of Christ upon the clouds in AD 70 (the view of DeMar, McDurmon, Mathison, etc…) or if the Olivet Discourse is divided up having two comings – one in AD 70 and one at the end of history (the view of Kenneth Gentry)? This is indeed where the “rubber meets the road” so to speak and these men aren’t really dealing with the exegetical issues that would or would not address Shabir Ally’s points concerning Jesus’ and the NT’s teaching on imminence.
“Heaven and earth will pass away”
So far we have found contextual and grammatical reasons to interpret the “end of the age” as the old covenant age in vs. 3, the stars falling from the heavens in vs. 29 to be the religious and civil rulers falling from their places of power when Jerusalem and her Temple was destroyed in AD 70, but what of verse 35 which addresses the “heaven and earth” passing away?  Surely that is referring to the end of planet earth and a possible switch of subject in Jesus’ teaching?  Once again there is contextual and a historical hermeneutic within the Christian church that understands the phrase “heaven and earth” to be referring to the old covenant heaven and earth and its temple as such – and not to planet earth.
G.K. Beale’s research indicates,
“…that ‘heaven and earth’ in the Old Testament may sometimes be a way of referring to Jerusalem or its temple, for which ‘Jerusalem’ is a metonymy.”[5] Reformed theologian John Brown in identifying the passing of “heaven and earth” in Matthew 5:18 writes:
“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.”[6] (John Brown, Discourses and Sayings of Our Lord (Edinburg: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1990 [1852]), 1:170).
Commentators are correct to identify the “heaven and earth” of (Matthew 5:18) as the “heaven and earth” of (Matthew 24:35), but the context of both point us to the old covenant system and not the planet earth passing by AD 70. According to Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5:17-18 if heaven and earth have not passed away, then we are currently under all of the “jots and tittles” of the old covenant law.
And now specifically of the passing of heaven and earth here in our text, Evangelical Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis makes the following comments on Mark 13:31/Matthew 24:35:
“The temple was far more than the point at which heaven and earth met. Rather, it was thought to correspond to, represent, or, in some sense, to be ‘heaven and earth’ in its totality.” And “. . . [T]he 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.[7]
Some Partial Preterists such as Kenneth Gentry make a distinction between Matthew 24:3-34 being fulfilled in AD 70 and Jesus allegedly switching into a discussion about the end of planet earth based upon Jesus discussing the passing of “heaven and earth” in v. 35. This is odd indeed since Gentry takes the de-creation language in v. 29 as referring to the old covenant rulers and system passing in AD 70. Gentry’s Partial Preterist colleague Gary DeMar takes v. 29 the same way but believes v. 35 simply re-iterates the same AD 70 fulfillment and quotes Gentry’s favorite Partial Preterist John Lightfoot for support:
“Jesus does not change subjects when He assures the disciples that “heaven and earth will pass away.” Rather, He merely affirms His prior predictions which are recorded in Matthew 24:29-31.”[8]
“The darkening of the sun and moon and the falling of the stars, coupled with the shaking of the heavens (24:29), are more descriptive ways of saying that “heaven and earth will pass away” (24:35).”[9]
Jesus nor the NT writers ever predicted the end of the planet earth as is simply assumed by so many here in Matthew 24:3, 29, 35 and elsewhere in the NT. When we take a combined look at some of the best theologians within the Reformed and Evangelical communities, we find a preterist interpretation of virtually every eschatological de-creation prophecy in the Bible. Combined, men such as 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.[10] (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 New Testament 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).
These interpretations are, individually considered, “orthodox.” Yet when full preterists consolidate the most defensible elements of Reformed and Evangelical eschatology, anti-preterists unite in opposition to even some of their own stated views. The Full Preterist combines the two competing “orthodox” views on the coming of the Lord and de-creation of Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 24-25 to form a consistently exegetical and historical position:

  1. CLASSIC AMILLENNIAL VIEW: The coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 24-25 is the ONE second coming event as is the de-creation spoken of here.
  2. PARTIAL PRETERIST VIEW: The coming of the Son of Man happened spiritually and the end of age, de-creation of verses 3, 29 and 35 are descriptive of the passing of the old covenant creation/age and establishment of the new by AD 70.
  3. FULL PRETERIST VIEW (Synthesis of 1-2 “Reformed and always reforming”): The coming of the Son of Man is the ONE second coming event (as is the de-creation spoken of in verses 3, 29, 35) whereby Christ came spiritually to end the old covenant creation/age in the events of AD 66 – AD 70 and established the new.

The “those days” (plural) vs. “that day” (singular)
Some Partial Preterists such as Kenneth Gentry argue that since Jesus uses the plural “days” in Matthew 24:1-34 this refers to the days leading up to the fall of Jerusalem and when Jesus uses “day” in Matthew 24:36ff. this refers to another future event or literal Second Coming of Jesus to end world history. Probably the best way to refute orthodox Partial Preterism is with orthodox Partial Preterism. Gary DeMar appeals to John Gill, Adam Clarke, and Gentry’s favorite Partial Preterist John Lightfoot – as taking the “day and hour” (Matt. 24:36) as Christ coming in the fall of Jerusalem (as do Full Preterists).[11] Others that see the “Day and hour” along with the parables in Matthew 24 being fulfilled in AD 70 would be Keith A. Mathison and N.T. Wright.[12]
Jesus in His exhortation to the Church at Sardis in Revelation 3 tells them (a church that no longer exists – not us) to “watch” for He would come upon them as a “thief” and at an “hour” they were not expecting if they did not repent.  This is consistent with what we have seen here in Matthew 24 -25 — Jesus would come in their “this generation” or as in the book of Revelation Him coming “shortly” to that first century audience.
The “last day” or “that day” (singular), is simply the last day of the “days” (plural) in question or in the context. Peter uses the terms “last time” (singular) and “last times” (plural) to be saying the same thing Jesus was – ALL the prophecies in the OT concerning the Messiah’s judgment and salvation would be accomplished in an “at hand” “last time” “last days” or “this generation” time period 1 Pet. 1:5-20, 4:5, 7, 17; Acts 2:40/Lk.21:22-32. One does not have to be a rocket scientist or have a PhD in theology to see this. This is an odd position for Gentry to have since he understands the de-creation and “last hour” (singular) of the Anti-Christ’s in 1 Jn. 2:17-18 to be the fulfillment of the “signs” section and Christ’s coming in an AD 70 found in Matthew 24:23-34.
In the OD and in Luke 17 Jesus uses the judgment of the days (plural) and day (singular) of Noah as a type and illustration of what was going to take place in His generation.
In Luke 17’s account of the Second Coming, both “days” and “day” are used interchangeably together describing the same event:
a). “For the Son of Man in His DAY will be like the lightening,…” (vs. 24).
b). “…so also will it be in the DAYS of the Son of Man” (vs. 26).
c). “It will be just like this on the DAY the Son of Man is revealed” (vs. 30).
d). “On that DAY…” (vs. 31).
Again, Jesus uses “days” (plural) and “day” (singular) in referring to the judgments of Noah and the destruction of Sodom as an example of His Second Coming in the fall of Jerusalem.
To further lay waist this eschatological schizophrenia of two second comings proposed by Partial Preterists such as Kenneth Gentry all we need to do is further harmonizing Matthew 24’s alleged two sections or comings of Christ with Luke 17. Please note that someone forgot to tell Luke to organize his material in a Partial Preterist “section A” coming and a “section B” coming chronology.
Matthew 24
Alleged section “A” (“a” coming of Christ in AD 70 before vs. 34) 
1) vss. 17,18 – “Let him which is on the housetop not come down…”
2) vs. 26-27 – “For just as the lightning comes from the east…”
3) vs. 28 – “Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.”
Section B (“The” Alleged Second (third?) Coming of Christ vs. 36ff.)
4) vss. 37-39 – “For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah.”
5) vss. 40.41 – “Then there shall be two men in the field; one will be taken, and one will be left.”
Luke 17 
One section describing one Second Coming (events mixed and nonsensical if Gentry’s division theory of Mt.24 is correct)
2) vss. 23, 24 – “For just as the lightning, when it flashes…”
4) vss. 26,27 – “And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it shall be also i the days of the Son of Man” 1) vs. 31- “On that day, let not the one who is on the housetop…”
1) vss. 31 – “On that day, let not the one who is on the housetop…”
5) vss. 35,36 – “There will be two women grinding at the same place; one will be taken, and the other will be left.
3) vs. 37 – “…Where the body is, there also will the vultures be gathered.”
The Matthew 24 and Luke 17 parallels present problems for all futurist eschatologies, but they effectively destroy some Postmillennial Partial Preterist positions such as Gentry’s. If Matthew 24 deals with two different parousias of Christ with events leading up to two different time periods, then Luke’s account is incorrect. Either Luke was wrong in mixing up these events or preterists such as Gentry are wrong in dividing up Matthew 24 into two sections with two comings of Christ. Both Matthew 24 and Luke 17 speak of the same “days” time period that were leading up to Christ’s revelation “DAY” in AD 70.
Two comings?  
Gary DeMar correctly points out:
“Similarly, there is little evidence that the “coming of the Son of Man” in Matthew 24:27, 30, 39, and 42 is different from the “coming of the Son of Man” in 25:31.”[13]
Signs vs. no signs  
Some Partial Preterists such as Gentry try and reason that since there are specific signs that are mentioned before verse 34 and there are none mentioned after this verse, that this somehow proves there are two sections with two different comings of Christ involved. Hmm. I think a more “common sense” approach might be that Jesus has finished answering the disciple’s questions as far as what specific signs to look for and not to look for in indicating His imminent return and is now going to give some further teaching and exhortations on being ready and watchful for these events! But doesn’t the fact Jesus exhorts the disciples after verse 34 to “watch,” “pray,” and “be ready” have some connection with being discerning of the signs He had just mentioned? Jesus has just finished answering the disciples question regarding the signs of His return and is now going to illustrate through the use of various parables the necessity of being ready and watching for the same events the disciples asked about and that He had just answered in verses 4-34. This is not difficult folks.
“This generation” vs. “a long time”
Some Partial Preterists such as Gentry argue that since before verse 34, there is a short time frame of forty years.  And after verse 34, the time frame is long (24:48; 25:5, 19) – thus a justification in two comings separated by thousands of years.
To be thorough, I will also cover Luke 19 since many appeal to this text as well. In Luke 19:11 many having listened to John the Baptist and Jesus’ declarations of the “kingdom being at hand” thought they were teaching the kingdom would come “immediately” or “at once” (Greek eggus). In response to that “immediate” mindset, Jesus gives the parable of the “Ten Minas” where He describes Himself as one going away into a far country to receive the rights to be King over Israel and then traveling back, as going into a “distant country” or taking a long journey (Lk. 19:12ff.). Jesus’ listeners would not gather from Jesus’ parable of the man going to a “distant country” as taking thousands of years! Jesus also understood that many false prophets would arise making premature statements that the kingdom was again “immediately” (Greek eutheos) going to appear when in fact it was not (Lk. 21:19). Jesus’ teaching of His coming and kingdom arriving in “this generation” (Lk. 21:27-32) was some 40 years removed from the false concept that He was teaching an “immediate” arrival or that general wars and earthquakes marked the nearness of His parousia and kingdom. There were certain events that needed to transpire first such as the great commission throughout the Jewish and Roman world.
Now let’s look at the first “long time” text in Matthew 24. The first appeal is to the wicked servant who interprets His master being gone as a “long time” and beats his fellow servants and drinks with other drunkards Matt. 24:48-49.   Obviously the servant was punished within his own lifetime so where is the thousands of years delay of Christ taught here?
Another appeal of some Partial Preterists for a 2,000+ years “delay” of Christ’s return is found in Jesus’ teaching of the ten virgins in Matt. 25:5 where He says, “the bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep.” Jesus’ first century audience were aware of the Jewish wedding scene of a man being betrothed to a woman up to a year while he prepared a home for them. He could come at any time to “snatch” (1Thess. 4:17) her from her life and existence under her father to himself. Because of this she needed to be excited and ready not sluggish and doubtful of his love. The foolish virgins considered this a “long time” and were not ready and fell asleep. Because they viewed this as taking too long and were “foolish,” they did not make preparations of buying oil for His surprise arrival. No one listening to Jesus’ words here would consider this parable as teaching a 2,000 + years “long time” as some Partial Preterists have interpreted it to mean. They would interpret “long time” in the context of a person’s lifetime along with the other parables and would consider it being consistent with Jesus’ 30 – 40 year “this generation” teaching and time frame.
The last reference is to the parable of the talents in Matt. 25:19. Again all the points I made above apply here as well. The servant was not “alert” but “lazy” and “worthless”! What he had was given to the faithful servants in verses 28-29 as the kingdom would be taken from the faithless apostates and given to the Church – the true Israel/Nation of God (cf. Matt. 21:33-45).
It’s not exactly accurate for some Partial Preterists to assume that that 40 years is a “short time.” Relatively speaking in the world and Israel waiting thousands of years for salvation of the Messiah – this could be true. But if one is 20-30 years old or older during the time Jesus utters His “this generation” statement, 40 years is making one nearing the end of his life 60 – 70 or older. Therefore, viewing it from Israel’s redemptive history, fulfillment within 40 years could easily be considered “at hand,” but in the context of a person’s lifetime, 40 years was enough time to be tempted to think it may not occur (as we see in Peter has to deal with in regards to the “mockers” and false teachers in His letters).
Gary DeMar responds to Partial Preterists who assume “long time” means thousands of years to justify two different comings in Matthew 24,
“In every other New Testament context, “a long time” means nothing more than an extended period of time (Luke 8:27; 23:8; John 5:6; Acts 8:11; 14:3, 28; 26:5, 29; 27:21; 28:6). Nowhere does it mean centuries or multiple generations.”[14]
Having spent some time critiquing and refuting Kenneth Gentry’s Partial Preterism with exegesis and using his own Partial Preterists to expose his arbitrary division of the OD, I will turn some attention to Gary DeMar and those Partial Preterists that see the coming of the Son of Man throughout Matthew 24-25 as being fulfilled in AD 70 – yet still claim the NT speaks of a future coming.
Not only does DeMar believe the coming of Christ in both Matthew 24-25 took place in AD 70, but he affirms that “John’s version of Matthew 24-25 is found in the book of Revelation.”  Apart of DeMar’s “exegetical” work 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

As I pointed out earlier in this series, 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

The analogy of Scripture and these charts demonstrate that DeMar’s view that we are still in the millennium and that the end of the millennium resurrection is still unfulfilled (while believing that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 was fulfilled in AD 70) is creedally arbitrary.
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 Full Preterists 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 creedal amillennialists are.

Passage Mike SullivanFull Peterist Gary DeMarPartial Preterist Kenneth GentryPartial Preterist James WhiteTraditional 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 has referenced John Murray before 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.
Concluding Matthew 24-25
James White – After critiquing White’s shallow handling of Matthew 24 to his Church (something he mentions in his debate with Shabir Ally), it is no wonder he didn’t want to address Jesus’ teaching here and in Matthew 16:27-28 as it pertained to NT imminence. White simply did not address Ally’s argument that Jesus and the NT predicted that the Second Coming would be fulfilled in their contemporary generation and before some of them died – period!
Between me posting my last article and this one James White moderated a debate between a Full Preterist (Don K. Preston) and a futurist (Michael Brown) over Romans 11. But my debate challenge to Mr. White remains. Mr. White – it is not enough to moderate debates with Full Preterists in them, you need to debate one. Selah.
Anthony Rogers / Sam Shamoun – Has published a series of articles attempting to respond to Shabir Ally from a Partial Preterist view. Rogers claims the “end of the age” is referring to the OC age ending in AD 70, but is shallow and arbitrary in his exegesis because he does not address that Jesus identifies the resurrection as taking place at the “end of the age” in other passages. And Rogers stopped his exegesis of Matthew 24 prior to verses 35-36ff. where the “rubber meets the road” so to speak and never delivered.
Gary DeMar / Keith Mathison / N.T. Wright – To be thorough I briefly critiqued other Partial Preterists that believe the coming of the Son of Man throughout Matthew 24-25 was fulfilled by AD 70 and is not divided up as other Partial Preterists have attempted to prove. As I pointed out earlier, there is almost unanimous agreement between all eschatological views that supports the idea that Matthew 24-25 is NT eschatology in a nutshell. Or simply put whatever your view of the OD is, will dictate your eschatology in the rest of the NT. This being said, DeMar, Mathison, and Wright fall miserably short in Matthew 24-25 being the foundation for 1 Thessalonians 4-5 (passages Shabir Ally pointed to that White did not address and neither has Rogers thus far) and Revelation 20 – to name just a couple.
Shabir Ally – If Shabir Ally wants to debate a Christian apologist that REALLY believes Jesus was and remains to be a faithful and true prophet and fulfilled His promises concerning His Second Coming, judgment, resurrection, and bringing an end to the age in which He and His contemporaries were living in (within the AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation”), then I suggest he debate me or the Full Preterist position. As I have demonstrated thus far, Shabir and other Bible skeptics will not get the answers they are looking for (or honest exegetical answers) from these other men and their positions when it comes to NT imminence. Selah.
PART 1 – Debate Challenge and Response to:  James White, Shabir Ally, Sam Shamoun, and Anthony Rogers – Matt. 16:27-28/Mark 8:38-9:1 https://fullpreterism.com/james-whites-embarrassing-failure-to-address-matthew-1627-28-matthew-24-and-1-thessalonians-416-17-in-his-debate-with-shabir-ally-and-my-public-challenge-to-debate-shabir-ally-james-whit/
PART 2 – Debate Challenge and Response to: James White, Shabir Ally, Sam Shamoun, and Anthony Rogers – “Time/Hour of the End” = “End of the Age” Resurrection (Dan. 12=Matt. 13=Luke 20:27-40=Matt. 24:30-31, 36=John 4-5) All Fulfilled In AD 70 https://fullpreterism.com/debate-challenge-and-response-to-james-white-shabir-ally-sam-shamoun-and-anthony-rogers-part-2-the-end-of-the-age-matthew-13-matthew-24/
PART 3a. – Debate Challenge And Response To: James White, Shabir Ally, Anthony Rogers, Sam Shamoun – All The Signs, Abomination That Causes Desolation, Tribulation, Times Of The Gentiles – “In Fulfillment Of All That Has Been Written” (Matt. 24:1-25/Luke 21:20-24) https://fullpreterism.com/part-3-a-debate-challenge-and-response-to-james-white-shabir-ally-anthony-rogers-sam-shamoun-matthew-241-25/
Part 3b. – Debate Challenge And Response To: James White, Shabir Ally, Sam Shamoun, And Anthony Rogers – The Coming Of The Son Of Man (Matt. 24:27—-25:31) Fulfilled By Ad 70 https://fullpreterism.com/part-3b-debate-challenge-and-response-to-james-white-shabir-ally-sam-shamoun-and-anthony-rogers-the-coming-of-the-son-of-man-matt-2427-2531-fulfilled-by-ad-70/
Part 3c. – Debate Challenge And Response To: James White, Anthony Rogers, Sam Shamoun, Shabir Ally: Matthew 24-25 “This Generation” And Division Theories Refutedhttps://fullpreterism.com/part-3c-debate-challenge-and-response-to-james-white-anthony-rogers-sam-shamoun-shabir-ally-matthew-24-25-this-generation-and-division-theories-refuted/
Part 4 – Debate Challenge And Response To: James White, Anthony Rogers, Sam Shamoun And Shabir Ally (1 Thess. 4:16-17 & Acts 1:9-11) https://fullpreterism.com/part-4-debate-challenge-and-response-to-james-white-anthony-rogers-sam-shamoun-and-shabir-alley-1-thess-416-17-and-acts-19-11/
[1] Joseph Henry Thayer, D.D., A GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1977), 112 (bold emphasis added).
[2] W.E. Vine (edited by F.F. Bruce), VINE’S Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Bible Publishers, 1981), 42 (emphasis added).
[3] Colin Brown, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology Vol. 2, (Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), 37-38 (bold emphasis added).
[4] Brown, Ibid., 38-39.
[5] G.K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission A biblical theology of the dwelling place of God, (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 2004), 25). See also a student of Beale’s – J.V. Fesko, Last things first Unlocking Genesis 1-3 with the Christ of Eschatology, (Scottland, UK, 2007), 70.
[6] John Brown, Discourses and Sayings of Our Lord (Edinburg: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1990 [1852]), 1:170.
[7] Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis a contributing author in, ESCHATOLOGY in Bible & Theology Evangelical Essays at the Dawn of a New Millennium, (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 1997), 157.
[8] Gary DeMar, Last Days MADNESS Obsession of the Modern Church, (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 1999, Fourth Edition), 189.
[9] Ibid., 190.
[10] 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 New Testament 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.
[11] DeMar, Last Days MADNESS, Ibid., 193-194.
[12] Keith A. Mathison, FROM AGE TO AGE THE UNFOLDING OF BIBLICAL ESCHATOLOGY, (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2009), 379.
[13] DeMar, Ibid., 200.
[14] DeMar, Ibid., 199.

PART 2 – DEBATE CHALLENGE AND RESPONSE TO: JAMES WHITE, SHABIR ALLY, SAM SHAMOUN, AND ANTHONY ROGERS – "TIME/HOUR OF THE END"="THE END OF THE AGE" RESURRECTION (DAN. 12=MATT. 13=LUKE 20:27-40=MATT. 24:30-31, 36=JOHN 4-5) ALL FULFILLED IN AD 70

I am continuing my series in challenging to debate and giving a response to James White, Shabir Ally (Muslim), Sam Shamoun, and Anthony Rogers concerning the Islamic charge that Jesus was a “false prophet” in that He allegedly taught that His Second Coming connected to “the end of the world” would take place in some of the lifetimes and generation of His first century audience and that the NT continued teaching this failed hope (Matt. 16:27-28/Matt. 24/1 Thess. 4-5).
In my last article I gave 8 exegetical arguments from Matthew 16:27-28 which proved Christ was faithful in fulfilling His Second Coming promise to come and close the end of the Old Covenant (OC) age (not end planet earth) in AD 70.  This not only refutes Shabir Ally’s charges (and that of liberals and atheist critics), but these exegetical arguments destroy James White’s Amillennialism and the Partial Preterist views of Anthony Rogers and Sam Shamoun. In this article, I will further develop that neither White’s Amillennialism nor Roger’s and Shamoun’s Partial Preterism have a sound “apologetic” against their Muslim critics as we enter a study on Daniel’s “time/hour of the end” (not end of time) judgment and resurrection event, and how Daniel 12 is developed in Jesus’ teaching on the “end of the age” or coming resurrection “hour” in Matthew 13:39-43/Matthew 24:3, 30-31/Luke 20:27-40/John 5:28-29.
The timing of the resurrection of the dead is the Achilles heel of creedal Partial Preterism and Amillennialism. I can and will prove that Muslim Shabir Ally’s “prophet” Muhammad was a false prophet on three points. First, by demonstrating that the last hour was not fulfilled when Muhammad taught it would be – in the lifetimes of those he was speaking to. Secondly, Muhammad was a false prophet because the Quran places the event in the future when Jesus in fact has already fulfilled the end of the [OC] age resurrection hour event in AD 70. And lastly, Muhammad was a false prophet because he claimed the end time resurrection would be physical when in fact the NT teaches it to be a spiritual one to be fulfilled by AD 70. And by the same standards I can prove that the eschatological NT Jesus James White, Anthony Rogers, David Wood, Robert Spencer, Robert Morey bring into their debates with Muslims (on this topic) – is also unfortunately a false prophet. Therefore, it is necessary that they repent from their views and accept the “Faithful and True Witness” of the Scriptures and not a failed creedal Jesus who did not accomplish what, when, and how He said He would fulfill the end of the age resurrection. Selah.       
I will begin addressing my Christian futurist brethren first and then address Shabir Ally and Islam’s false prophet Muhammad at the end of this article. Anthony Rogers quoting Milton Terry in his article agrees with Full Preterists such as myself that the “end of the age” or “the end” throughout Matthew 24 is not discussing the end of world history or the end of planet earth – but contextually it is referring to the end of the old covenant (OC) age in AD 70. This destroys the faulty premise of Shabir Ally and all those liberals which he quotes from that merely assume Jesus was predicting “the end of the world” or end of world history to take place within His generation. But as I will demonstrate claiming Matthew 24-25 is about the “end of the old covenant age” also destroys Anthony Roger’s Partial Preterism!
I reached out to Anthony Rogers and asked him why in his article he spent no time on how Jesus uses “the end of the age” in the rest of Matthew’s gospel (cf. Matthew 13:39-43 and Matthew 28:18-20)? I asked him if he agreed with other Partial Preterists (such as Joel McDurmon and Gary DeMar) that the end of the age in Matthew 13:39-43 is identified as the end of the OC age in AD 70? And if so does he realize that Jesus is referencing the resurrection of Daniel to be fulfilled at the end of the OC age in AD 70 (cf. Matt. 13:39-43/Dan. 12:2-3)? What was Anthony Roger’s response? He told me he was too busy to answer my question, referred me to ask Mr. Gentry these questions, and eventually “blocked” me from asking any further challenging questions directed at his article! Wow, what a bold public “apologist” he is – right up there with White and Shamoun apparently. He follows the same cowardly approach as Kenneth Gentry (whom he says lives just 10 miles from him – big deal is my response). I asked him to ask Ken to respond to questions and challenges we have given to him in our book which to this very day Ken has avoided answering (6 years and counting). What follows are the arguments and challenges that Partial Preterists such as Anthony Rogers and Kenneth Gentry want to literally block me from challenging them on and if they can block you from seeing (and is also the one that Amillennialists such as James White don’t want you to see or have them to address in a public setting with a Full Preterist theologian being present):
Partial Preterism (Anthony Rogers/Kenneth Gentry/Joel McDonald/James Jordan) – The “time of the end” resurrection of Daniel 12:2 was spiritually fulfilled in AD 70 at Christ’s parousia.  The “end of the age” is the end of the OC age in AD 70 in Matthew 13 and Matthew 24.  Jesus references the resurrection and glorification of Daniel 12:2-3 to be fulfilled at the end of the OC age gathering/judgment in Matthew 13:39-43 (ie. in AD 70).
Classic Amillennial view of the two ages (James White) – The “time of the end” resurrection takes place at Christ’s ONE Second Coming or “the parousia” event.  Jesus picks back up this “end of the age” “gathering” judgment/resurrection motif from Matthew 13:39-43 in Matthew 24:30-31 to be fulfilled at His One Second Coming event (ie. Dan. 12:2-3=Matt. 13:39-43=24:3, 30-31).
Full Preterism (Michael Sullivan/David Green) – Jesus teaches that the one “end of (the OC) age” resurrection and judgment gathering of (Dan. 12:2-3=Matt. 13:39-43=Matt. 24:3, 30-31) was fulfilled in AD 70 at His ONE Second Coming or “the parousia” event.
Here is the challenge in my chapter that I gave Partial Preterists such as Kenneth Gentry and Keith Mathison (authors of WSTTB? – the book James White ironically recommends which he alleges refutes Full Preterism) from my/our book response to them (in House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology…”):
“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” (Luke 21:22) have been 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. 13:39-43; 24:30-31; Lk. 21:27-28)
4. The End (Dan. 12:4, 6, 8-9, 13) 4. The End (Matt. 24:3, 13-14)
5. When would all this take place? “. . .when the power [The Law] of the holy people [Israel] has been completely shattered [the destruction of the city and the sanctuary in AD 70], all these things [including the judgment and resurrection] 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, This generation shall not pass, till all these things [judgment & resurrection] be fulfilled.” (Matt. 24:1, 34) Daniel was told he would not live to witness the resurrection and judgment while Jesus and Paul instructed that some of their contemporary’s would live to witness this event (Matt. 13/Matt. 16:27-28/Matt. 24-25/1 Thess. 4-5).

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 being 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 (Dan. 12:2-3; Matt. 13:39-43).
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 two groups 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 first century 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.” (Taken from Michael Sullivan’s chapter 4: The Eschatological Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be?) in my/our book, House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to When Shall These Things Be?; (Ramona, CA: Vision Publishing, Second and Expanded Edition, 2014) pp. 89-95).
James White and our Amillennial opponents in WSTTB? would agree with Full Preterists that the gathering/judgment/resurrection described in the parable of the wheat and tares taking place at the “end of the age” is the same eschatological event described for us in Matthew 24:

Matthew 13 Matthew 24
end of the age, vs. 39 [suntelias ton aionion] end of the age, vs. 39 [suntelias ton aionion]
Preaching of the gospel into all the world before the end Preaching of the gospel into all the world before the end
The coming of the Son of Man, vs. 39-41 The coming of the Son of Man, vs. 29-31
The sending of the angels to gather, vs. 41 The sending of the angels to gather, vs. 31
The time for separation The time for separation
Harvest is at the end of “this age” vs.40 This generation shall not pass till all be fulfilled, vs.34

This is obviously a problem for the Reformed community in that Partial Preterism agrees with Full Preterism that the “end of the age” in both Matthew 13 and Matthew 24 are referring to the OC age in AD 70.  Therefore, once again our opponents don’t refute us, they have formed us “Reformed and always reforming”:
Amillennialism:  The judgment, resurrection “gathering” at the “end of the age” in Matthew 13 and Matthew 24 are the same ONE eschatological event depicting the ONE Second Coming “the parousia” event.
Partial Preterism:  There was a spiritual and corporate resurrection and judgment of the living and dead that took place at the “end of the (OC) age” at Christ’s Parousia in AD 70.
Full Preterism:   The ONE Second Coming (“The parousia”) was fulfilled at the end of the (OC) age in AD 70, at which time there was a spiritual and corporate resurrection and judgment of the living and dead.
Let’s get back to Mr. Anthony Rogers and his unfinished response to Shabir Ally.  So in my brief communications with Anthony Rogers, he referred me to Kenneth Gentry (since Anthony couldn’t finish his articles and didn’t have time to answer my questions).  As one can see, I have addressed and challenged Gentry on these issues in our book and in several of my article online, and no in-depth scholarly article or book response to my/our challenges have been given. In fact NONE of the authors of the book James White recommends (WSTTB?) have attempted to refute my/our book that I just quoted from. Selah.
Again, since the “last hour” is a key element to Islamic eschatology and the failed predictions of the “prophet” Muhammad (a serious problem for Shabir Ally) and it is sticking point between creedal Reformed eschatology and Reformed or Sovereign Grace Full Preterism, I want to spend some time on John’s development of the judgment and resurrection in Daniel 12. 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.  And as I already addressed 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:
AD 30

  1. Daniel 12:1:  “And at that hour…”
  1. John 5:25:  “…an hour is coming and now is…”

AD 70

  1. Daniel 12:1:  “And at that hour…”
  1. John 5:28:  “…for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice,”

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.”

AD 70

  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 5:29:  “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.”).

David Green wrote the following in our book on the coming resurrection hour of John 5:28-29:
“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)

  1. God’s worshipers would no longer worship Him in Jerusalem.
  1. All who were in the graves would hear His voice.

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).” (David Green, Chapter 7: The Resurrection of the Dead, House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology, pp. 178-179).
Another exegetical challenge for Anthony Rogers and his friend Ken Gentry is that Partial Preterism agrees with Full Preterism that Jesus’ “already and not yet” eschatological “hour” in John 4:20-24 is between AD 30 – AD 70 when the era of old covenant mountain / temple worship is removed and the new was established (Kenneth Gentry, FOUR VIEWS ON THE BOOK OF REVELATION, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 46.  Kenneth Gentry, THREE VIEWS ON THE MILLENNIUM AND BEYOND, (Grand Rapids MI:  Zondervan, 1999), 246 footnote 45). But then Gentry asserts with no exegetical justification that Jesus’ same phrases depicting an eschatological “already and not yet” coming “hour” in John 5:24-29 allegedly deal with a literal resurrection at the end of world history?!?  We again find this arbitrary and exegetically unconvincing. The inconsistency of the Partial Preterist hermeneutic should be clear enough from these texts:
OT echo / reference to John 5:24-29:  The coming resurrection hour of Daniel 12:1-2 was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70.
Same phrases in previous context:  This “already and not yet” coming “hour” of John 4:20-24 was fulfilled spiritually in AD 30 – AD 70.
The immediate context of John 5:28-29:   It is admitted that the “already” aspect to the resurrection “hour” of John 5:24-26 is a spiritual resurrection, but unlike what we find in John 4:20-24 (the “not yet” of this “hour” that was fulfilled in AD 70), the “not yet” “hour” of Daniel 12:1-2 in John 5:28-29 is now mystically moved to be a literal/biological resurrection at the end of time?!?
Gentry and Partial Preterism in general, have painted themselves into a corner.  Based upon the above exegetical points, why can’t someone believe the resurrection of John 5:28-29 was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70 (“the time of the end”=”the end of the (OC) age”) since Partial Preterism teaches us that its source of fulfillment (Dan. 12:2) has a spiritual fulfillment in AD 70? This is more than terrible logic, it is horrendous and arbitrary exegesis designed to try and attempt to honor NT imminence on the one hand (and deal with critics such as Shabir Ally), while on the other hand try to please man and not violate what the Reformed creeds teach on a literal resurrection – supposedly to take place at the end of world history.
Before leaving John’s development of the coming judgment and resurrection of Daniel 12:1-2 let’s briefly address his teaching on the judgment and resurrection in Revelation 20:

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

As I noted earlier, Partial Preterist James Jordan believes that Daniel’s soul was raised out from among Abraham’s Bosom or Hades to inherit eternal life in God’s presence in fulfillment of Daniel 12:1-2, 13 and Revelation 20. As my chart demonstrates – if Partial Preterism wants to be exegetically consistent in its view that “John picks up where Daniel leaves off,” then THE (not “a”) spiritual resurrection in Revelation 20:5-15 was fulfilled in AD 70 at Christ’s Second Coming event. Selah. Interestingly enough when Partial Preterists such as Gentry debate other futurists who try and give his AD 70 fulfillments a “…double fulfillment” or claim they may have “…repeated recurrence until the end as the already/not yet nature of prophecy unfolds” in his own words these statements have “no exegetical warrant” and is nothing more than “pure theological assertion.” (Kenneth Gentry, FOUR VIEWS ON THE BOOK OF REVELATION, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 44).
So Partial Preterism’s NEW position of taking the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 as being fulfilled at the end of the OC age in AD 70 spiritually while now trying to claim it can have a double fulfillment or be stretched out within an “already and not yet” scenario has “no exegetical warrant” and is nothing more than “pure theological assertion.”  Selah.
The Reformed creedal position is that the “already and not yet” process ends with the ONE Second Coming event to close the ONE “end of the age” Jesus instructed us on in the gospels (White’s position).  IF Daniel’s “time of the end” is the end of the OC age (per Partial Preterism), and the “end of the age” in Matthew 13 and Matthew 24 is the OC age (per Partial Preterism), then the creeds are in error (as they themselves claim can be) and need to be Reformed further to place the ONE “time of the end” Second Coming, judgment and resurrection at the close of the OC age in AD 70 (that is if they still believe in “Sola Scriptura” and “Reformed and always reforming”).  Selah. Once again our opponents don’t refute Full Preterism, they form it:
James White (Classic Amillennialism) – The ONE judgment and resurrection depicted in Revelation 20:5-15 (and those elements to the millennial period) have already been recapitulated within the rest of the book (1-19, 21-22) and is brought about by Christ’s ONE Second Coming event (at the end of the age).
Anthony Rogers/Sam Shamoun (Partial Preterism) – The contents of Revelation 1-19, 21-22 were fulfilled imminently at Christ’s coming in judgment upon Jerusalem in AD 70.
Michael Sullivan (Full Preterism) – The ONE judgment and resurrection depicted in Revelation 20:5-15 (and those elements to the millennial period) have already been recapitulated within the rest of the book (1-19, 21-22) and were fulfilled imminently in Christ’s ONE Second Coming event in AD 70 (at the end of the [OC] age). There are a couple of other texts that I want to briefly address on this theme of the coming resurrection hour of Daniel 12:1-4 and it taking place at the “time/hour of the end” or the “end of the (OC) age” in the gospel of Matthew – Matthew 24:36 and Matthew 22:23-33/Luke 20:27-39.
Matthew 24:36 / 1 John 2:18 Day and Hour
“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” We understand this “day” and “hour” to be the “DAY of the Lord” (ie. the ONE Second Coming event known in the NT as the “day of the Lord,” “day of the Lord Jesus Christ,” “day of God,” “the great day of God Almighty,” etc…) or “HOUR” of resurrection/judgment described for us in Daniel 12:1-2ff. (OG) LXX. This “day” and “hour” is not a 24 hour day or a 60 minute hour, but rather an eschatological day and hour that describes Christ’s parousia (presence) whereby He would unleashing His wrath upon unbelievers and Jews in their land between AD 66 – AD 70 (and judging the unbelieving dead in the unseen realm – emptying Hades into the Lake of Fire) on the one hand, and on the other hand delivering Christians from Jerusalem (to Pella – a physical salvation) and raising / glorifying His corporate body the Church by in-filling them with His presence (overcoming “the [spiritual] death” – a spiritual salvation which overcome “the death” that took place the day that Adam sinned). Jesus is instructing His contemporary “this generation” (AD 30 – AD 70), that they would not know the day or hour of His coming, but (within the context), this day and hour (time period) would be known when the specific signs began being fulfilled.
And in 1 John 2:18 this is exactly what we see. John writes under inspiration: “Little children, it is the last time/hour: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time/hour.” (1 John 2:18). Both Jesus and John are describing Daniel’s “time/hour of the end” of judgment and resurrection as described for us in Daniel 12:1-4. “The Word” (Jesus Christ the eternal God) in His humanity did not know the “day and hour” (time period – roughly between AD 66 – AD 70) of His Second Coming while in the flesh. But beginning in His ascension (engulfed and rising within the glory cloud) when He was “glorified” in the Father’s “presence with the glory He had before the world began” (without a physical body anymore) He did know the “day and hour” of His coming and revealed such to John in 1 John and throughout the book of Revelation. 1 John and Revelation were written prior to AD 70 as the day and hour had begun or was on the verge of beginning.  Matthew Henry’s suggestion of 1 John 2:18 is helpful:
“…it is the last time; our Jewish polity in church and state is hastening to an end; the Mosaic institution and discipline are just upon vanishing away; Daniel’s weeks are now expiring; the destruction of the Hebrew city and sanctuary is approaching, the end whereof must be with a flood, and to the end of the war desolations are determined,” Dan. 9:26.” (Henry, M. (1994). Matthew Henry’s commentary on the whole Bible: complete and unabridged in one volume (p. 2446). Peabody: Hendrickson, bold emphasis MJS).
Anthony Rogers and Kenneth Gentry enjoy quoting John Lightfoot a lot (Gentry in his books and Rogers in his response to Shabir Ally). Since Rogers thus far seems to be following the non-division theory of Matthew 24-25 and position of Gary DeMar, I’m assuming he would agree with John Lightfoot at least at this point that the “day and hour” of (Matt. 24:36) is referring to Christ coming in the judgment of AD 70: But of that day and hour knoweth no man.] Of what day and hour? That the discourse is of the day of the destruction of Jerusalem is so evident, both by the disciples’ question, and by the whole thread of Christ’s discourse…” (Lightfoot, J. (2010). A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, Matthew-1 Corinthians, Matthew-Mark (Vol. 2, p. 442). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software).
“Now, therefore, the foreknowledge of things to come, of which the discourse here is, is to be numbered among those things which flowed from the anointing of the Holy Spirit, and from immediate revelation; not from the hypostatic union of the natures. So that those things which were revealed by Christ to his church, he had them from the revelation of the Spirit, not from that union. Nor is it any derogation or detraction from the dignity of his person, that he saith, ‘He knew not that day and hour of the destruction of Jerusalem;’ yea, it excellently agrees with his office and deputation, who, being the Father’s servant, messenger, and minister, followed the orders of the Father, and obeyed him in all things. “The Son knoweth not,” that is, it is not revealed to him from the Father to reveal to the church. Rev. 1:1, “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him.” (Ibid. p. 444-445).
The reason why the divine wisdom would have the time of the destruction of Jerusalem so concealed, is well known to itself; but by men, since the time of it was unsearchable, the reason certainly is not easy to be searched. We may conjecture that the time was hid, partly, lest the godly might be terrified with the sound of it, as 2 Thess. 2:2; partly, that the ungodly, and those that would be secure, might be taken in the snares of their own security, as Matt. 24:38. But let secret things belong to God.” (Ibid. p. 446).
The “hour/time of the end” judgment and resurrection in Daniel 12:1-4 is found in Jesus’ teaching on the eschatological gathering of the wheat/elect into the barn/kingdom at the end of the OC age in AD 70 (ie. Matt. 13:39-43=Matt. 24:30-31, 36ff.). That Matthew 24:30-31 is the resurrection event (predicted to take place within Jesus’ “this generation”) will be more evident once we get into an exegesis of 1 Thess. 4:15-17 and compare the two), but for now these are sufficient points that connect the judgment and resurrection of Daniel 12:1-4 with Matthew 13:39-43=Matthew 24:3, 30-31, 36ff. as fulfilled by the end of the OC age in AD 70. There is an obvious “domino effect” for Anthony Rogers with him taking the “end of the age” in Matthew 24 as referring to the OC age ending in AD 70, that his (conveniently unfinished) article series does not address. Selah.
Matthew 22:23-33/Luke 20:27-40 End of the age and resurrection
“Then some of the Sadducees, who deny that there is a resurrection, came to Him and asked Him, saying: “Teacher, Moses wrote to us that if a man’s brother dies, having a wife, and he dies without children, his brother should take his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. Now there were seven brothers. And the first took a wife, and died without children. And the second took her as wife, and he died childless. Then the third took her, and in like manner the seven also; and they left no children, and died.  Last of all the woman died also. Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife does she become? For all seven had her as wife.”  Jesus answered and said to them, “The sons of this age (OC age cf. Matt. 13:39-40) marry and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age (NC age – “age to come”), and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. But even Moses showed in the burning bush passage that the dead are raised, when he called the Lord ‘the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ For He is not the God of the dead but of the living, for all live to Him.” (Luke 20:27-38).
“This age” is once again easily identified as the OC age since the giving in marriage in the story is dealing with the Mosaic or the OC Levirate marriage law. I don’t think any Christian would claim this law and practice should be imposed today in the NC age – do they? At the end of the OC age the resurrection would take place for the dead, and while being raised into the eternal NC age they would be like the angels (having no physical bodies) so physical marriage and unions was to be non-existent or a moot point to make from the start! But as a Full Preterist I usually get a challenge something like this:
“You claim the resurrection or “change” for the living took place in AD 70 with the dead. Well, since you and others marry (and Jesus said marriage wouldn’t take place in the NC age), then your view must be false.”
First, while it is true that the resurrection did involve the dead and the living being raised or “perfected” together at the end of the OC age and rising into the NC age by AD 70, the context of this passage is dealing with the physical dead being raised and thus not being able to marry (not having physical bodies).
Secondly, let’s assume the passage does have an application or is dealing with marrying or not marrying for living Christians who have been raised in the NC age in AD 70 and beyond. If this were to be dealt with, again the context is clear in that under the OC Mosaic age marrying to produce (or raise up seed) was connected to the land of Israel. Christians being raised into the NC age by AD 70 and beyond no longer marry for that purpose because the OC law “vanished” “soon” in AD 70 (Heb. 8:13).
Therefore, if the passage has any application to living Christians, (in context) they will no longer marry for the purpose of raising up seed connected to the land and the law of Moses in the NC age. The passage poses no problem for Full Preterists and since it is “orthodox” for Partial Preterists (such as James Jordan) to believe that Daniel’s soul was raised out of Abraham’s Bosom or Hades at Christ’s parousia in AD 70 – I don’t see why this passage isn’t a fulfillment of that resurrection, do you?
This argument by the Sadducees (who denied any existence after physical death) worked well against their Pharisee opponents. Why? Because many of the Pharisees believed that the OT Torah would be carried into the New Creation or Messianic age. Therefore, the Sadducee challenge could be summarized like this:
“Since you believe in a physical bodily resurrection to take place before the New Creation arrives and that the Torah will be practiced at that time, then explain to us whose wife will this woman belong to once all seven brothers are raised and they are living in the New Heaven and Earth?!?” You can almost hear them chuckling because this was forcing the Pharisees into the practice of polyandry (the practice of a woman having more than one husband at once), which unlike polygamy (which was condoned and practiced under the OT law) was not lawful and considered an abomination of sorts.
While this argument worked for the Pharisees it did not work for Jesus. Why?
First, Jesus did not teach that the resurrection involved physical bodies capable and ready to produce (as they had in their lives upon earth).  Believers would be raised to be like the angels in heaven – spiritual beings not producing offspring.
Secondly, Jesus refutes the notion that the OT law (Levirate marriage law) would be applicable in the New Creation or New Covenant age (as most Pharisees had). The practice and purpose of marrying your husband’s brother for the purpose of raising up physical seed to be inherited “in the land” (OT type) would “vanish” in AD 70 (Heb. 8:13), while raising up seed/children through the gospel and producing an inheritance “in Christ” (the anti-type) would be the emphasis for the NC believer.
Jesus effectively silenced BOTH groups (Sadducees and Pharisees). He silenced the Sadducees who denied that the dead were still living, because He stated, that in effect they were very much still “alive” (even though they had physically perished) — “He is not the God of the dead (Sadducees view), but of the living (inferring that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were still very much alive/existing).” He silenced the Pharisees by in effect teaching that the dead would be “like the angels” (not having physical bodies) so the issue of “marrying” is a moot point for them. And if there is an application for the living – it also caused them to marvel in that He was supporting the view that the OT or Mosaic OC law would not be carried into the New Creation.
But this does pose a series of challenging question for James White and other futurists who see literal things being fulfilled in the New Creation of Isaiah 65. Since he/they believe a physical resurrection takes place before the arrival of the New Creation (ie. Isa. 65-66/Rev. 20-22), and there is no marriage and reproduction in the age of the resurrection, what kind of sexual unions are taking place in Isaiah 65:17-25 that are producing children at this time? If there is no physical pain in the New Creation, are these painless births for the mothers? If everyone is raised in physical bodies and then placed in the New Creation with no marrying and given in marriage being allowed – are these illegitimate or bastard children being born from these biologically raised individuals?  If everything is perfect in the New Creation, why is there still labor, sin, and biological death being described in the New Creation?
Concluding Part 2 “End of the age” and resurrection
When we use the sound hermeneutical principle of interpreting the Scriptures (the analogy of Scriptues) while at the same time paying attention to the Reformed historical views of the classical Amillennial view with that of Partial Preterism, we arrive at the conclusion that the ONE Second Coming event, judgment, and spiritual/corporate resurrection of the living and dead was fulfilled at the end of the OC age in AD 70 — Full Preterism.
The NT develops these eschatological events described in Daniel (cf. Daniel 7:13-14; 9:24-27; 12:1-13) as being fulfilled at the end of the OC age in AD 70 – and NO OTHER AGE.  Anyone who loves God’s Word will have no desire to go “beyond what is written” and hold to traditions that the Bible does not teach.
James White application:  White “dreads” studying eschatology and avoided the texts Shabir Ally brought up in the debate (Matt. 16:27-28/Matt. 24/1 Thess. 4-5), because he “saw the train (problem) coming” and decided to stick his head in the sand instead of debating and answering the challenge.  If White wants to claim he didn’t have enough time in the debate to address how he would answer Ally’s challenges, he should have requested a follow-up debate exclusively on this subject.  And if Ally was smart, he would call White out on a debate on the subject exclusively.  I am willing to debate either one (or both at the same time) on this subject – anytime anywhere.
White holds to the classical Amillennial view of the “two ages,” but wrongly identifies “this age” as the Christian NC age (which in reality is the OC age of the law and prophets) and the “age to come” to be the heavenly state (instead of the NC or gospel age).  This and his blind obedience to the Reformed creeds (which ironically claim they can and are mistaken on issues) causes him to not be able to deal with NT imminence.
Anthony Rogers/Sam Shamoun application:  Having been a Partial Preterist myself, I can see the “wall” so to speak that Rogers has hit in his response to Shabir Ally in Matthew 24.  He claims he hasn’t had enough time to finish the series, but I have a feeling that much more is involved.  Time will tell.  My debate challenge extends to Mr. Rogers as well.  Rogers has no apologetic for Muslim and other Bible skeptics on Matthew 16:27-28; Matthew 24; 1 Thessalonians 4-5 (or NT imminence in general) because all of these described the ONE Second Coming event to be fulfilled in the first century lifetimes of those Jesus and Paul are addressing.
Shabir Ally application:  Like James White, Anthony Rogers, and Sam Shamoun, Shabir Ally does not understand HOW the Second Coming and resurrection event was to be fulfilled at the end of the age in AD 70 – therefore he arrives at the false conclusion that Jesus was a “false prophet” and therefore the NT was corrupted with Muhammad allegedly fixing them for everyone.  But unfortunately for Islam, the “prophet” Muhammad did not understand the time and nature of these prophecies when he STOLE bits and pieces of these eschatological doctrines from the OT and NT inspired Scriptures.
For Shabir and Islam to claim these are future and physical events when the NT states they would be fulfilled spiritually by AD 70, causes Islam to be a false religion and Muhammad a false prophet.  Selah.
Apparently Islam and Shabir Ally, are willing to forget its rich history of alleged “inspired” and yet failed eschatological predictions (space forbids to address all of them, but for our topic here are a couple):
 Muhammad predicted the “Last Hour” would come within the lifetime and generation of his contemporaries:   
“Anas reported: A young boy of Mughira b. Shu’ba happened to pass by (the Holy Prophet) and he was of my age. Thereupon Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: If he lives long he would not grow very old till the Last Hour would come (to the old People of this generation).”  (Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 7053).
Muslims claim these hadiths are not sound narratives because they come from Sunan Abu Dawud.  But since these narratives are from Sahih Muslim, they are considered to be very authentic collections of hadiths in Islamic theology.
Other attempts to explain this passage away is that Muhammad was supposedly only teaching that as the child got older the day of judgment would get closer.  But as Sam Shamoun and others have pointed out:
“In the first place these narratives are from Sahih Muslim, considered the second most authentic collection of hadiths.
Secondly, Muhammad didn’t say that as the child grows the hour would be approaching ever closer. Rather, he expressly and unambiguously says that the child WILL NOT GROW VERY OLD until the Day of Judgment comes, which is clearly a false prophecy.” (Sam Shamoun, “Was Muhammad a Prophet of God?” Response to Sami Zaatari’s Debate Points [Part 1] http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zaatari_wood_debate1.htm)
Muhammad predicted that everyone would die on the earth within a hundred years (thus predicting the end time/last hour events of the judgment and resurrection):
“Once the Prophet led us in the ‘Isha’ prayer during the last days of his life and after finishing it (the prayer) (with Taslim) he said: “Do you realize (the importance of) this night? Nobody present on the surface of the earth tonight will be living after the completion of one hundred years from this night.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 1 Book 3, Number 116).
Of this Sam Shamoun and other Christian apologists to Muslim correctly point out:
“Nearly fourteen centuries have gone by and there continue to be human beings alive all around the earth! This particular hadith was so troubling that one narrator tried to explain it away by arguing that Muhammad really meant that none of his generation would be alive in a hundred years:
Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar:
The Prophet prayed one of the ‘lsha’ prayer in his last days and after finishing it with Taslim, he stood up and said, “Do you realize (the importance of) this night? Nobody present on the surface of the earth tonight would be living after the completion of one hundred years from this night.”
The people made a mistake in grasping the meaning of this statement of Allah’s Apostle and they indulged in those things which are said about these narrators (i.e. some said that the Day of Resurrection will be established after 100 years etc.) But the Prophet said, “Nobody present on the surface of earth tonight would be living after the completion of 100 years from this night”; he meant, “When that century (people of that century) would pass away.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 10, Number 575)
There are several points to note from this specific report. First, pay attention to the candid admission of the narrator that Muslims themselves understood from Muhammad’s words that the world was going to end in a hundred years. This provides corroborating evidence that the plain meaning of Muhammad’s so-called prophecy was that the last day would occur within a hundred years.
Second, also notice just how irrational this ad hoc explanation is. The hadith compiler really expects his readers to believe that what Muhammad meant was that no one of his generation would be alive within a hundred years when there is nothing amazing about such a claim. To say that one’s generation would all be dead within a hundred years doesn’t require supernatural knowledge. The only thing required to make such a claim is common sense since life expectancy was low in those days. Hardly anyone lived beyond the age of a hundred years. If it was supposed to be a statement (“prophecy”) about the life expectancy of the people living around him, then it was trivial. What is the point?
Even though trivial, it would almost certainly be wrong. Muhammad said “on the surface of the earth” – that is a large place. Although centenarians are rare, they probably existed at all times. Even in the life of Muhammad there was at least one such person. Abu Afak is reported to have lived to the age of 120:
SARIYYAH OF SALIM IBN ‘UMAYR
Then occurred the sariyyah of Salim Ibn ‘Umayr al-‘Amri against Abu ‘Afak, the Jew, in Shawwal in the beginning of the twentieth month from the hijrah of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him. Abu ‘Afak, was from Banu ‘Amr Ibn ‘Awf, and was an old man who had attained the age of one hundred and twenty years. He was a Jew, and used to instigate the people against the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, and composed (satirical) verses. Salim Ibn ‘Umayr who was one of the great weepers and who had participated in Badr, said: I take a vow that I shall either kill Abu ‘Afak or die before him. He waited for an opportunity until a hot night came, and Abu ‘Afak slept in an open place. Salim Ibn ‘Umayr knew it, so he placed the sword on his liver and pressed it till it reached his bed. The enemy of Allah screamed and the people, who were his followers rushed to him, took him to his house and interred him. (Ibn Sa’ad’s Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, English translation by S. Moinul Haq, M.A., PH.D assisted by H.K. Ghazanfar M.A. [Kitab Bhavan Exporters & Importers, 1784 Kalan Mahal, Daryaganj, New Delhi – 110 002 India), Volume II, p. 31; bold and underline emphasis ours)
Did Muhammad really want to say that in a hundred years from now, there will be no more people who are older than a hundred years? Again, what would be the point of such an announcement? What has that to do with the message of Islam?
Moreover, Muhammad introduced his announcement with these words: “Do you know the importance of this night?” For that main reason, the alternative interpretation supplied by the narrator makes little sense. After all, in what sense would the observation that a time will come when nobody will be older than a hundred years be important for Muslims or Islam? It is simply irrelevant, and irrelevant is the opposite of important.
On the other hand, the proclamation of the Day of Resurrection and Allah’s judgment of all people is an essential part of Islam. If it had been revealed to Muhammad in his prayer that the world would end in exactly one hundred years, such a revelation would mark this night without question as being very important.
Only this interpretation really makes sense of the statement. The problem is, however, that the only meaningful interpretation of it has the consequence that Muhammad made a false prophecy. Muslims have tried to avert this by putting instead an utterly trivial, irrelevant – and most probably still incorrect – statement into Muhammad’s mouth.
It must also be kept in mind that imam al-Bukhari collected these traditions roughly 250 years after Muhammad’s migration to Medina (c. 622/623 AD), long after the time that Muhammad said the world was going to end. In light of this, it is not surprising that he or someone else would provide an explanation in order to avoid having to admit that Muhammad was a false prophet for falsely claiming that the Day of Resurrection would take place a hundred years after his time.” (Sam Shamoun, Ibid.).
For White, Rogers, Shamoun and other Christians to mock Muslims who try and explain these statements away or ignore them, is hypocritical, for they themselves have stuck their heads in the sand when it comes to Jesus’ teachings on a first century Second Coming (cf. Matt. 10:17-23; Matt. 16:27-28; Matt. 24; Matt. 26:62-64) and then how their inspired Scriptures and first century Prophets understood them to be fulfilled in some of their lifetimes and in their generation (cf. Acts 2:20-40; Acts 17:31YLT; Acts 24:15YLT; Rom. 8:18-23YLT/AV; Rom. 13:11-12; Rom. 16:20; 1 Cor.7:29-31; 1 Cor. 10:11; 1 Cor. 15:51; Phil. 4:5; 1 Thess. 4:15ff–5:1-10; 2 Thess. 1:5-10; 2 Tim. 4:1YLT; Heb. 9:26-28, Heb. 10:37, Heb. 13:14YLT; James 5:7-9; 1 Pet. 1:4-12; 1 Pet. 4:5-7, 17; 1 John 2:17-18; Rev. 1:1–22:6-7, 10-12, 20).  Is it not hypocritical for Sam Shamoun to claim he knows Muhammad was teaching that the last hour of the resurrection and judgment would take place within a 100 years of some of those Muhammad was speaking to, BECAUSE that is how his listeners understood those words; and then turn around and try and deny that the NT understood Jesus’ teaching to be fulfilled within some of their lifetimes (just as Jesus taught them He would)?!?  Some like Sam merely assume that Matthew 16:27 has to be separated thousands of years from verse 28 pretending that Jesus wasn’t predicting that His Second Coming would take place within some of the lifetimes of those He was speaking to.  And Sam Shamoun claims, I’m “worse than a Muslim” because at least they still think he is coming in the future?!?  But in reality Sam shares the same false literal view of the Second Coming that Muslims do, and the truth is that Sam is treating these imminent texts the same way Muslims do of Muhammad’s teachings on the last hour — trying to justify them away using very bad arguments!
Others like James White try and claim the coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 24:27-30 is the Second Coming, but Jesus really wasn’t claiming it would be fulfilled within His AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation” when clearly He said “all these things” (the signs, end of the age, and His coming) would be fulfilled at that time.  Or perhaps they make embarrassing statements that “at hand,” “soon,” “about to be,” “near” “shortly,” don’t really mean what they mean.  They want to claim Muhammad’s disciples have put “words into his mouth that aren’t really there,” when it came to his false predictions, and yet due to their creedal allegiances and carnal literal interpretations and hopes of what they think the kingdom is to look like when it comes, that too have no problems putting words into Christ’s mouth or changing the meaning of words in the NT in order to fit their agenda!  Take the plank out of your own eye before trying to take the one growing out of the Muslims!  

I want nothing to do with their futuristic Second Coming “false prophet.”  I’ll stick with the Jesus of the NT that really did come when and how He said He would!  As this series will prove, not all Christians stick their heads in the sand like James White, Anthony Rogers, and Sam Shamoun on these crucial texts.  And I don’t “dread” the subject like White, I actually live and breathe the subject!  I have proven (better than the Muslim or Bible skeptic ever could) that Jesus did in fact teach that His Second Coming would arrive in the first century, but have also proven that He did fulfill this promise by Coming to end the OC age (not end world history) and fulfill a spiritual and corporate resurrection for His body (the Church). 
PART 1 – Debate Challenge and Response to:  James White, Shabir Ally, Sam Shamoun, and Anthony Rogers – Matt. 16:27-28/Mark 8:38-9:1 https://fullpreterism.com/james-whites-embarrassing-failure-to-address-matthew-1627-28-matthew-24-and-1-thessalonians-416-17-in-his-debate-with-shabir-ally-and-my-public-challenge-to-debate-shabir-ally-james-whit/
PART 2 – Debate Challenge and Response to: James White, Shabir Ally, Sam Shamoun, and Anthony Rogers – “Time/Hour of the End” = “End of the Age” Resurrection (Dan. 12=Matt. 13=Luke 20:27-40=Matt. 24:30-31, 36=John 4-5) All Fulfilled In AD 70 https://fullpreterism.com/debate-challenge-and-response-to-james-white-shabir-ally-sam-shamoun-and-anthony-rogers-part-2-the-end-of-the-age-matthew-13-matthew-24/
PART 3a. – Debate Challenge And Response To: James White, Shabir Ally, Anthony Rogers, Sam Shamoun – All The Signs, Abomination That Causes Desolation, Tribulation, Times Of The Gentiles – “In Fulfillment Of All That Has Been Written” (Matt. 24:1-25/Luke 21:20-24) https://fullpreterism.com/part-3-a-debate-challenge-and-response-to-james-white-shabir-ally-anthony-rogers-sam-shamoun-matthew-241-25/
Part 3b. – Debate Challenge And Response To: James White, Shabir Ally, Sam Shamoun, And Anthony Rogers – The Coming Of The Son Of Man (Matt. 24:27—-25:31) Fulfilled By Ad 70 https://fullpreterism.com/part-3b-debate-challenge-and-response-to-james-white-shabir-ally-sam-shamoun-and-anthony-rogers-the-coming-of-the-son-of-man-matt-2427-2531-fulfilled-by-ad-70/
Part 3c. – Debate Challenge And Response To: James White, Anthony Rogers, Sam Shamoun, Shabir Ally: Matthew 24-25 “This Generation” And Division Theories Refutedhttps://fullpreterism.com/part-3c-debate-challenge-and-response-to-james-white-anthony-rogers-sam-shamoun-shabir-ally-matthew-24-25-this-generation-and-division-theories-refuted/
Part 4 – Debate Challenge And Response To: James White, Anthony Rogers, Sam Shamoun And Shabir Ally (1 Thess. 4:16-17 & Acts 1:9-11) https://fullpreterism.com/part-4-debate-challenge-and-response-to-james-white-anthony-rogers-sam-shamoun-and-shabir-alley-1-thess-416-17-and-acts-19-11/

PART 1 – JAMES WHITE’S EMBARRASSING FAILURE TO ADDRESS MATT. 16:27-28/MATT. 24/1 THESS. 4:16-17 IN HIS DEBATE WITH SHABIR ALLY AND MY PUBLIC CHALLENGE TO DEBATE AND RESPONSES TO: SHABIR ALLY, JAMES WHITE, SAM SHAMOUN, AND ANTHONY ROGERS (MATT. 16:27-28).

Introduction:
In my studies of Islam I have been focusing in on arguments coming from such men as Shabir Ally whom allege that one of the reasons that “prove” Christians have a corrupted NT is that it depicts a Jesus that was a “false prophet.” For Shabir, the NT cannot be trusted in its revelation of Jesus as a “prophet,” since it depicts Him teaching that His Second Coming and end of the world would take place within the lifetime of some of his first century audience and or within their “this generation” (Matt. 16:27-28; Matthew 24; with Paul following this “failed” hope in such passages as 1 Thess. 4:12-17).
James White
James White debated Shabir Ally on a few occasions and was an utter embarrassment in representing Christianity because he addressed virtually all of Shabir’s arguments except this one and the NT passages Shabir brought up (Matt. 16:27-28; Matt. 24; 1 Thess. 4:12-17)!
This is a good depiction of James White’s “head in the sand” “apologetic” of ignoring to deal with Matthew 16:27-28/Matthew 24/1 Thessalonians 4-5 and NT imminence in general.  He also says he “dreads” discussing or debating eschatology (which is what he actually says in the Sunday School lessons on Matt. 24 – which he mentions in his debate with Ally).  How sad that he “dreads” this subject in teaching it to his church and then ignores it in public debate!
I have tried to reach out to other Christian “apologists” to the Muslim community such as James White, Sam Shamoun, Anthony Rogers, David Wood, and Robert Spencer whom either failed to address this argument in debate (at all as White has), or in my estimation have not dealt with these arguments sufficiently or exegetically.  Therefore, I have challenged these men to a  public debate.  Thus I will do what they obviously cannot do or are unwilling to do with their Muslim opponents – that is, actually present honestly and defend Christ’s teachings in the gospels and that of the NT which posit Christ’s Second Coming, end of the (old covenant) age/world,” judgment, and resurrection of the living and dead to be truly imminent and fulfilled by AD 70. I also will be contacting Shabir Ally and request a formal debate on this subject exclusively since James White was such an embarrassment and “dreads” to deal with this very important subject.
Since “Reformed” men like James White have actually treated their commitments to the WCF or the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith to be on the same level as Roman Catholics have embraced their traditions and confessions – White simply won’t accept that Full Preterism has solved the problem he “dreads” (eschatology) to address in debates with Muslims and Bible studies – Selah. Whenever Full Preterism comes up Mr. White always seems to recommend the book, When Shall These Things Be? A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism – never personally taking any debates with Full Preterists (at least that I know of). I have made an effort several times to inform Mr. White that I have co-authored a book that responded to the book he recommends on a consistent basis whenever the topic comes up and that I would like to debate him. On FB he simply now “blocks” my posts (as has Sam Shamoun and Anthony Rogers have) and ignores my personal messages to him because they expose how shallow he truly is on this subject and that he can’t and won’t debate Full Preterism. I pretty much have lost all respect for the guy at this point. News flash Mr. White – we are no longer in the 80’s and 90’s where you can “block” and pretend that Full Preterism doesn’t exist or that it is a view you need not debate.
I find it amazing that men like Hank Hanegraaff “the Bible Answer man” and his “apologetic” ministry screens Full Preterist questions and challenges on his show and won’t debate me or the Full Preterist view either. I literally had to drive down to the man’s studio and wrote out a question on Daniel 12:2 (“If you say the Tribulation was fulfilled in AD 70 then according to the context [“all these things” vs. 7] the resurrection of v. 2 must have been fulfilled at this time – how do you answer this?”) and even then he wouldn’t answer the question or challenge on air! I had an informal debate with him and his assistant after the show for almost 2 hours whereby I answered ALL of their questions/challenges and they told me they would “get back with me” to answer mine and they NEVER did! I eventually did an open and public letter to them asking why they claimed they would get back with me and never did and then eventually gave each of them a copy of my/our book and they STILL haven’t answered our challenges or debated us. And now men like James White, Sam Shamoun, Anthony Rogers claim to be public “apologists” and have to run and hide and “block” people asking questions they can’t answer or who challenge them to a debate? Wow. Yet on their web sites they claim to be willing to answer questions and challenges that arise from the articles they post!  They call us “heretics” and yet won’t debate us. They will all tell Christians they should go and get the Book of Mormon, the Watch Tower, the Quaran and read and study these materials (with the Bible) so that they can interact with these “heretical cults” and YET when it comes to Full Preterism they are SCARED to death that you get a copy of my/our book (“House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology…”) and read it.  And yet they are willing to debate all of these other groups except Full Preterism.  Think about it folks.
My interaction with Sam Shamoun and Anthony Rogers of Answeringislam.org
Sam Shamoun
As I said in my opening, I had been listening to some debates between Christians and Muslims on the internet and of course had previously known of Islam borrowing a version of liberal and atheist arguments to “prove” Jesus was either a false prophet or not God due to an alleged failed Second Coming to “end the world” in His generation. So when I came across a Muslim site, answering-christianity.com (an obvious spinoff or want to be copy of answeringislam.org) and saw this point being made by a Muslim I wanted to quote it and address it in one of my articles.[1] In that article the Muslim uses Matthew 16:27-28/Mark 8:38-9:1; Matthew 24:1-35; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8; Revelation 22:6-7, 10-12, 20 to “prove” his assertion that “Jesus broke his promise about his Second Coming.” Since the article was addressed to a one Sam Shamoun, I wanted to contact this individual and introduce myself as a Full Preterist theologian (offer him a free copy of our book) and explain how I have addressed these texts and “argument” and was curious where, how, and if he had responded to them?
I was shocked by Sam Shamoun’s immature and hateful rhetoric to me on FB.  To make a long story short (I have saved the interaction), Sam immediately wanted to challenge me on if I believe Jesus is going to literally and physically return to planet earth. So I referred him to two articles I wrote on that very subject which spell out my answer very directly.  I also asked Sam a question – “Do you believe the coming of Christ in Matthew 16:27 and Matthew 24 is the same coming of Christ on the clouds in Acts 1:11?”  Even after answering Sam’s question by directing him to two of my articles (with Sam not answering my question), Sam called me a “coward heretic” and “worse than a Muslim” because they at least believe in a physical future return of Jesus to this earth. Yes, I believe in the sovereign and free grace of Jesus Christ, His Deity, the Trinity, the sufficiency and inspiration of Scripture, and yet I’m “worse than a Muslim.” You just can’t make this stuff up – wow.
So since Sam made a very big mistake by calling me a “coward” (a Christian / Full Preterist / Irishman) and “worse than a Muslim” – I have (on David Wood’s FB page) and am once again challenging him from my site as well to a public debate. We will quickly see who the real “coward” is and who can exegetically deal with liberal, atheist, and Muslim “arguments” on the issue of an alleged failed Second Coming of Jesus in the first century! We will also see who ends up sticking their head in the sand on their prophet (as Muslims are forced to do of Muhammad’s predictions) predicting “the end” and last “hour” to be fulfilled within the lifetimes of his first century audience. And logically I don’t see how Sam can deny my request to debate. First, he claims he is involved in an “apologetic” ministry so I expect him to be able to defend his position publicly. Secondly, if he debates Muslims and I am allegedly “worse than a Muslim” – then obviously there is an urgency and necessity that should be greater to debate me over against a Muslim. Only makes sense. And lastly, he called me a “coward,” so let’s allow the public to witness who the coward really is here.
Since Sam cowardly and immaturely ran off and blocked me from messaging him on FB, I asked my friend and co-author David Green to contact Sam and ask him what his response has been to Muslim’s who claim the Jesus of the Gospels is a “false prophet” because He didn’t return in the first century based upon such passages as Matthew 16:27-28 and Matthew 24.
Sam’s response thus far has been two-fold: First, Sam directed Dave (and indirectly me) to something someone else has written on this subject from his site (Anthony Rogers). Wow, I thought Sam was so bold and yet he can’t direct us to something he personally has written on the subject?!? Secondly, I asked David to ask Sam if he agrees with Anthony Rogers (the article Sam referred us to) that the coming of Christ in Matthew 16:27 and in Matthew 24 was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70 and this was Sam’s response:
“Yes I do. And Anthony agrees with me that this doesn’t mean that Jesus won’t return physically, bodily to the earth, since he and I both affirm that. What we deny is that Matthew 24 is referring to his second coming necessarily. With that said, I believe that Matthew 16:27 is a reference to Christ’s second coming to the earth.”
I think everyone can see that Sam’s response is confusing. Does he agree with Rogers that Matthew 16:27 was fulfilled in AD 70 spiritually – he answers initially “yes.” But then later claims the verse is referring to Christ’s literal and bodily Second Coming. At least that’s how I read it. Then he and Rogers seem to agree with Partial Preterists such as Keith Mathison and Gary DeMar whom teach the coming of the Son of Man in the OD is consistently referring to AD 70 and not the Second Coming event (not “necessarily”). Hopefully Sam can clarify his position and that of Rogers since Rogers has conveniently stopped his series right around Matthew 24:35-36 (which is where the rubber really meets the road in any discussion of the OD and is where the debate between PP and FP really begins).
Anthony Rogers
My guess is that Anthony Rogers (like myself) saw how poorly White did in this area of his debate with Ally and wanted to try and address some of these issues from a Partial Preterist perspective (a view I used to hold to). So Mr. Rogers began a series of articles (mostly on Matthew 24) entitled, Coming on the Clouds of Heaven: A Reply to Shabir Ally’s Execrable Blasphemies and Calumnies Against the Son of Man Part I.[2]  I asked Mr. Rogers some simple questions about his article (which this web site and that of David Wood’s says can be done), and Anthony Rogers claimed he was too busy to provide such – referring me to Ken Gentry who hasn’t been able to answer the same questions and challenges we gave him in our book (going on 6 years now).  Since Mr. Rogers was unable to answer these questions he “blocked” me from asking anymore.  And these men claim to be “apologists” “always being ready to give an answer”?!?  Amazing.
Outline for this series of articles responding to these men
Part 1 – In this article I will be giving a detailed exegesis of Matthew 16:27-28/Mark 8:38-9:1 proving that Jesus did in fact promise that His Second Coming would take place within some of the lifetimes of the first century crowd He was speaking to — and in AD 70 was faithful to keep that promise.  Since Sam Shamoun has admitted Matthew 16:27 is the Second Coming event (something James White would also agree to), if I can prove that verse 27 is inseparably connected to verse 28 and are discussing the same Second Coming event, then I will have proven that Jesus’ Second Coming was fulfilled by AD 70.
Part 2 – This article will deal with how the coming judgment and resurrection of the dead (the time or hour of the end – not the end of time) in Daniel 12:1-13 is developed by Jesus to be fulfilled at the end of the Old Covenant (OC) age in AD 70 (cf. Matt. 13:39-43/Matt. 24:3, 30-31/Luke 20:27-40/John 4-5:28-29).  Since the “last hour” is a subject John picks up we will also spend some time on 1 John 2:18 in connection with the “day and hour” of (Matt. 24:36).  I will prove that since Reformed Partial Preterists see a spiritual, progressive, covenantal, corporate, resurrection of the living and dead taking place at the end of the OC age (ie. in AD 70) in these texts, and that the Reformed Amillennial position is that these texts address ONE end time judgment and resurrection event — the two positions form Full Preterism.
We also will take a look at passages concerning the “last hour” in the Quran and Hadiths whereby Muhammad (and thus Islam) have made false predictions that this event would be fulfilled within a 100 years – or within the lifetimes of those Muhammad was speaking to.  Thus Muhammad was a false prophet and Islam a false religion because Jesus had already fulfilled the “last hour” promise, and in AD 70 He proved that not only was a faithful Prophet, but God – having come back upon the clouds in the glory of the Father.
Parts 3a-c. – Will be an exposition of Matthew 24-25 (something that Anthony Rogers was incapable of finishing in his response to Shabir Ally).  Since James White mentions his Sunday School lessons on Matthew 24, I went a head and listened to them and will critique them in that article as well.  I will also demonstrate that Reformed theologians actually form Full Preterism in Matthew 24-25 for the Church since they affirm these two positions:
1.  The coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 24-25 is the ONE Second Coming event to close the “end of the age” (Classic Amillennial view – James White).
2.  The coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 24-25 was spiritually fulfilled in AD 70 which brought an end to the OC age (Partial Preterist view – Anthony Rogers / Sam Shamoun).
Part 4 – Will be an exposition of 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 and Acts 1:6-11.
Parts 1-4 will affirm and demonstrate that the ONE Second Coming, judgment and resurrection of the living and dead events were fulfilled at the end of the OC age in AD 70 and therefore James White, Anthony Rogers, Sam Shamoun (and others) need to stop presenting a futuristic Jesus that is in reality a “false prophet” to the atheist, bible skeptics, liberals, and Muslims in their “apologetic” ministries.  And this will also silence the criticism that Jesus was not able to fulfill these promises when and how He promised (Shabir Ally’s affirmative that the Jesus of the NT was a “false prophet”).

An Exposition of 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.
Anthony Rogers agrees with me that the coming of Christ in Matthew 16:27 was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70 and is exegetically connected to verse 28. Sam Shamoun claims that verse 27 is the “Second Coming.” So between the two of them they form my position – The Second Coming in verse 27 was spiritually fulfilled in some of the lifetimes of Jesus’ first century audience in verse 28!
But since Rogers didn’t do an in-depth exegsis of the passage showing how they are connected and Sam claims the coming of Christ in Matthew 24 was fulfilled in AD 70, let’s show how these two verses are connected (not separated as Sam is attempting to do).
Argument #1 (immediate context) – For the Son of Man is about to Come
I don’t remember Rogers doing any work on mello in Matthew 16:27. 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. Most Partial Preterists don’t really want to get into translating mello as “about to be” or “soon” unless they are in the book of Revelation debating Dispensationalists or other futurists. But as I documented in my chapter in HD we showed their problems with mello in Romans 8:18-23 and Acts 24:15. We will be visiting those texts later.
My point here is that 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.
Argument #2 (immediate context) – Verily I say unto you
Again, I didn’t see Rogers really spend any time here developing Jesus’ phrase “verily I say unto you” which tightens and unites verses 27-28 together even further (destroying Sam and White’s position on this text). Jesus uses the term “verily,” “truly,” or “most assuredly” many 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 (an empty claim that some futurists have tried to make with no evidence).  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.’” (Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice, The End Times Controversy: The Second Coming Under Attack (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2003), 87). But Mr. Ice fails to produce a single passage in which Jesus’ phrase, “Verily I say unto you,” separates one subject from another. Maybe Sam or White can produce one?
To the contrary, the phrase always signals an amplification of the previous thought – thus more exegetical evidence that the two verses are referring to the same AD 70 fulfillment and event!
Argument #3 (immediate context) – Some standing here shall not taste of death until
Some (such as Thomas Ice) have made the mistake in thinking that Jesus was only talking to the 12 disciples but according to Mark’s account, “ . . . He called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said . . . ” (Mk. 8:34–9:1).  This is the background to Peter’s questing of the Lord as to if John was going to be alive to witness His return (while he would be martyred) in John 21:21-23.  Some standing there listening to Christ would die of natural causes before the end of the OC age in AD 70 and others would be martyred prior to His Second Coming and the arrival of the Kingdom (cf. Matt. 10:17-23; Matt. 24:9; Dan. 7:21-22).
Rogers (in the article Sam ironically recommends on this subject) has already done a good job refuting Sam’s position, in that it makes no sense to apply verse 28 to the transfiguration event or others which were so short in duration from the time He spoke these words – that it would make very little sense for Jesus pointing out that some would obviously die before they would see verse 28 fulfilled.
Argument #4 (immediate context/parallels) – Until they see the kingdom of God already come in power
“…There, are, certain of those here standing, who shall in nowise taste of death, until they see the kingdom of God, already come in power.” (Mark 9:1 Rotherham Translation).
Rogers relies on the work of Kenneth Gentry so I was surprised to see him not deal with the Greek of Mark 9:1.
According to Mark’s account, Jesus’ teaching is that some of the disciples within the crowd he was addressing would live to actually be able to looked back on this historic event, knowing that Christ’s Second Coming and His kingdom had already come in power. (Literally, “until they see the kingdom of God having already come in power.”). Another of our critics Kenneth Gentry at least 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.” (Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., He Shall Have Dominion (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1992), 215–216, emphasis added).
The Greek word here for “see” is eido. As with the English word, eido not only refers to physical sight, but it can also mean “perceive” or “understand.”
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 Second Coming and His kingdom had arrived among and “within” them (Lk. 17:20–37; Col. 1:27; Jn. 14:2–3, 23, 29).
Jesus tells us that the Church would be alive on the earth post AD 70 (no literal “rapture” teaching folks) and be able to look at the historical events of AD 66 – 70 and know that He already fulfilled His Second Coming promise (contrary to the Muslim, skeptic, and Atheist claims that He didn’t fulfill His promise). We have the sure words of Jesus, not just historical references from Josephus and others (which Rogers references). Selah.
Argument #5 – (immediate context/parallel) – Christ comes within the shameful AD 30 – AD 70 “this adulterous and sinful generation”
Another caveat while here in Mark 8:38-9:1 is that Jesus addresses that His coming would take place within His contemporary “this adulterous and sinful generation.” Sam claims that the coming of Christ in Matthew 24 was fulfilled in the AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation” (Matt. 24:27-34) and therefore it should not be a strange thing for Sam to understand that he is teaching the same thing here in Mark 8:38/Matthew 16:27 as well.
That contemporary generation rejected God/Jesus as their Messiah and eschatological Groom (and High Priest) committing “adultery” (“we have no king but Caesar”) and therefore according to the OT Law she was to be stoned and burned to death in the events of AD 66 – AD 70 (Rev. 17-19). Sam Shamoun, was not the “coming” of Christ throughout the book of Revelation said to be fulfilled as that contemporary generation (Matt. 24:27-34/Mark 8:38-9:1) was ending or in an AD 70 “soon,” “shortly,” “at hand” time period (Rev. 1:1, 3:11, 22:6-7, 10-12, 20)? Therefore, we can know that the coming of Christ in Matthew 16:27/Mark 8:38 was fulfilled in AD 70, in that this is when Christ came and was ashamed of that adulterous Jewish generation!
Argument #6 (broader context of Matthew) – The analogy of Scripture teaches us that Matthew 16:27-28 is Jesus’ same teaching in Matthew 24 but condensed
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 (Sam’s and probably James White’s position). Using the analogy of Scripture 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)

If Sam Shamoun agrees with Rogers and other Partial Preterists such as DeMar and Mathison that the coming of Christ in Matthew 24-25 is not addressing the Second Coming (“not necessarily” Sam’s term), then claiming the coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 16:27 is Jesus’ literal and bodily future coming while His in Matthew 24 is not – just won’t fly. And by the way DeMar and Mathison don’t even attempt this distinction.
Argument #7 (analogy of Scripture similar language used by another NT writer) – A comparison of Matthew 16:27 with Revelation 22:12       
Since Sam Shamoun has directed us to Anthony Roger’s article and agrees with Rogers that the coming of Christ in Matthew 24 was fulfilled in AD 70 I am assuming he also agrees with Rogers that the coming of Christ throughout the book of Revelation was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70? If so, here is another argument that Rogers does not give on Matthew 16:27-28 to support his Partial Preterist view on the passage and one that Sam and White need to address as well.

Matthew 16:27 Revelation 22:12
“The Son of Man is about to come in the glory of His Father with His angels,…” “Behold I am coming soon.”
“then He shall reward every man according to his works “and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be”

Here once again our opponents form our position:
Classic Amillennial view (James Wright?): The “imminent” coming of Christ upon the clouds as a thief throughout the book of Revelation is the ONE Second Coming bodily return of Jesus of which “every eye” will literally “see” Him.
Partial Preterist view (Anthony Rogers / Sam Shamoun / Gentry): The imminent coming of Christ upon the clouds as a thief throughout the book of Revelation is Christ’s spiritual coming “perceived” and “understood” as being fulfilled in AD 70 by those first century “tribes of the land” Jews that had “pierced Him” (Rev. 1:7).
Full Preterism (Synthesis “Reformed and always reforming”): The imminent coming of Christ upon the clouds as a thief throughout the book of Revelation is the ONE Second Coming event, by which He came spiritually and “every eye” (of the Jewish “tribes of the land” that had “pierced Him”) “perceived” and “understood” to be fulfilled in AD 70.
Argument #8 (considering OT echo’s or source material) – Isaiah 40 and Isaiah 62
It is also significant to consider the OT source material whereby Christ came to fulfill the law and prophets. Probably the main OT source for Matthew 16:27-28 is found in Isaiah 40 and 62. In Isaiah 40 God comes to “reward” in judgment and salvation (Isa. 40:10) is now attributed to Jesus (“the Sovereign Lord”). John was the one preparing “the way” of the Kingdom through an imminent Second Coming of Christ or fiery “great and dreadful day of the Lord” (Matt. 3:7-12/Isa. 40/Matt. 11:10/Mal. 3:1—4:5). In other words John the Baptists eschatology IS Jesus’ eschatology and both point to an imminent fulfillment in AD 70.
This theme is picked back up in Isaiah 62:10-12, except this time the context of the chapter involves the “highway” leading to the eschatological marriage and inheriting the New Jerusalem / New Creation. The problem for our Partial Preterist friends (Rogers and Shamoun) is that they would have to concede that the marriage, and arrival of the New Jerusalem and New Creation was fulfilled “shortly” at Christ’s spiritual (non-bodily) coming in the book of Revelation 1:1—22:6-12, 20. If the eschatological marriage was fulfilled in AD 70 (Rev. 19:9; 21:1ff), then so was the resurrection since the eschatological banquet follows the marriage in Jewish weddings (Isa. 25:6-8/1 Cor. 15:54-55). We will address the resurrection in 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15 later on. But my point for now, is that since Rogers takes the judgment and rewarding of “every man” in Matthew 16:27 to be fulfilled at Christ’s spiritual coming in AD 70, the fulfillment of this is in Isaiah which develops this time of rewarding and judgment to be the time of the marriage and resurrection!
And it gets worse for Rogers and Shamoun because they agree that the coming of Christ in Matthew 24 was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70, and therefore the coming of the Son of Man is the time of the marriage (Matt. 25:1-10, 31). And since Rogers seems to be following the Partial Preterist (no two coming(s) or sections of Matthew 24-25) views proposed by that of Gary DeMar and Keith Mathison in his articles thus far, this begs the question as to how was the judgment of the sheep and the goats (“every man” of Matt. 16:27 and Rev. 22:10-12) and Satan’s judgment fulfilled at His coming in Matt. 25:31ff.?!?
Therefore, my questions to these men are similar to those given to Keith Mathison in our book – how many eschatological marriages and resurrections do Partial Preterists teach to match their two Second Coming(s) view? I’m still waiting for an answers to these questions so maybe Rogers will step up to the plate?
Concluding thoughts on Matthew 16:27-28
Shabir Ally (Muslim application):
We have examined Shabir Ally’s assertions that Jesus in the Christian NT Scriptures is a “false prophet” and have his theory to be false and in fact the opposite to be the truth.  Jesus’s Second Coming did take place within some of the lifetimes of those Jesus was speaking to (Matt. 16:27-28/Mark 8:38-9:1). The Christian can look back upon this historical event and know that Christ and His Kingdom have “already” come.  According to Isaiah 40:10 Jesus came as the “Sovereign Lord” (God). This was also in fulfillment of Daniel 7:13-14 as well which in the (OG) LXX depicts the one like a Son of Man coming upon the clouds “as the Ancient of Days” which is how He came “shortly” in AD 70 (cf. Revelation 1:1, 7-18)!  In Daniel 7:14 Jesus is to be “worshiped” because He is (and in AD 70 proved to be) a reliable Prophet AND the only Faithful and True God.  Selah.
James White / Sam Shamoun / Anthony Rogers (Futurist application):
Where is James White’s exegesis of Matthew 16:27-28/Mark 8:38-9:1? It sure was not present anywhere in his debate with Shabir Ally (at least that I listened to). Hopefully Mr. White will mature from “dreading” this subject and actually attempt some exegesis and debate it sometime soon with Bible skeptics, Muslims and debate Full Preterists? That would be a refreshing approach rather than trying to “block” Full Preterists and ignoring their debate challenges. Just a thought.
We have looked at Sam Shamoun’s view which attempts to separate Jesus’ coming in Matthew 16:27/Mark 8:38 from the following verses in Matthew 16:28/Mark 9:1 and have found them to be exegetically lacking (to be polite) when examining the immediate context and that of using the analogy of Scripture (within Matthew’s Gospel, rest of the NT, and then the OT).
I asked Mr. Shamoun if the coming of Christ in Matthew 16:27 was the “literal” “bodily” Second Coming that he understand Acts 1:11 to be teaching and his answer is essentially “yes.” But when we ask him for where he addresses Muslim arguments on these texts he refers us to no exegetical article he has provided on this verse – no, he refers us to an article on his site written by Anthony Rogers. When we go there we learn that the coming of Christ in Matthew 16:27 was a spiritual coming of Jesus fulfilled in AD 70. So what have we learned so far from these three men on Matthew 16:27-28? We learn that they don’t refute Full Preterism – they actually form it:
1.  Sam Shamoun/James White – Matthew 16:27 is the Second Coming event.
2. Anthony Rogers – Matthew 16:27-28 is actually Christ’s spiritual coming that was fulfilled in AD 70.
3.  Michael Sullivan (Synthesis of 1 – 2 “Reformed and always reforming”) – Matthew 16:27-28 is the Second Coming event and it was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70.
Sam Shamoun and James White have some exegetical work to do in answering my 8 arguments that demonstrate Matthew 16:27-28 stand together and prove that the Second Coming, judgment and resurrection of the living and dead were fulfilled in AD 70. Will they ever respond? If they don’t respond to us and Muslim critics, should they be considered Christian “apologists”?!? I’ll let you decide that. But let’s move on to Matthew 24-25 to further prove that James White and men like Kenneth Gentry and Anthony Rogers have no apologetic against the liberal and Muslim claims nor can they address the Full Preterist challenge in that Jesus taught that the resurrection of the dead would take place at the end of the OC age in AD 70.
I will once again give an exegesis of “the end of the age” in Matthew 13 and Matthew 24 demonstrating how the resurrection gathering and judgment was fulfilled in AD 70 and how my opponents don’t refute my position, they actually form it:
1. James White – The coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 24:27-30—chapter 25 is the ONE NT’s Second Coming event that takes place at the end of the ONE “end of the age” in our future.
2. Anthony Rogers/Sam Shamoun – The coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 24:27-30—chapter 25 was fulfilled spiritually to close “the end of the (old covenant) age” in AD 70.
3. Michael Sullivan (Synthesis of 1 – 2 “Reformed and always reforming”) – The coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 24:27-30—chapter 25 is the ONE NT’s Second Coming event fulfilled spiritually to close “the end of the (old covenant) age” in AD 70.
PART 1 – Debate Challenge and Response to:  James White, Shabir Ally, Sam Shamoun, and Anthony Rogers – Matt. 16:27-28/Mark 8:38-9:1 https://fullpreterism.com/james-whites-embarrassing-failure-to-address-matthew-1627-28-matthew-24-and-1-thessalonians-416-17-in-his-debate-with-shabir-ally-and-my-public-challenge-to-debate-shabir-ally-james-whit/
PART 2 – Debate Challenge and Response to: James White, Shabir Ally, Sam Shamoun, and Anthony Rogers – “Time/Hour of the End” = “End of the Age” Resurrection (Dan. 12=Matt. 13=Luke 20:27-40=Matt. 24:30-31, 36=John 4-5) All Fulfilled In AD 70 https://fullpreterism.com/debate-challenge-and-response-to-james-white-shabir-ally-sam-shamoun-and-anthony-rogers-part-2-the-end-of-the-age-matthew-13-matthew-24/
PART 3a. – Debate Challenge And Response To: James White, Shabir Ally, Anthony Rogers, Sam Shamoun – All The Signs, Abomination That Causes Desolation, Tribulation, Times Of The Gentiles – “In Fulfillment Of All That Has Been Written” (Matt. 24:1-25/Luke 21:20-24) https://fullpreterism.com/part-3-a-debate-challenge-and-response-to-james-white-shabir-ally-anthony-rogers-sam-shamoun-matthew-241-25/
Part 3b. – Debate Challenge And Response To: James White, Shabir Ally, Sam Shamoun, And Anthony Rogers – The Coming Of The Son Of Man (Matt. 24:27—-25:31) Fulfilled By Ad 70 https://fullpreterism.com/part-3b-debate-challenge-and-response-to-james-white-shabir-ally-sam-shamoun-and-anthony-rogers-the-coming-of-the-son-of-man-matt-2427-2531-fulfilled-by-ad-70/
Part 3c. – Debate Challenge And Response To: James White, Anthony Rogers, Sam Shamoun, Shabir Ally: Matthew 24-25 “This Generation” And Division Theories Refutedhttps://fullpreterism.com/part-3c-debate-challenge-and-response-to-james-white-anthony-rogers-sam-shamoun-shabir-ally-matthew-24-25-this-generation-and-division-theories-refuted/
Part 4 – Debate Challenge And Response To: James White, Anthony Rogers, Sam Shamoun And Shabir Ally (1 Thess. 4:16-17 & Acts 1:9-11) https://fullpreterism.com/part-4-debate-challenge-and-response-to-james-white-anthony-rogers-sam-shamoun-and-shabir-alley-1-thess-416-17-and-acts-19-11/
[1] Abdullah Smith, Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun Did Jesus Contradict Himself? http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/rebuttal_to_shamoun_1.htm
[2] http://answeringislam.net/authors/rogers/rebuttals/ally/olivet1.html