OPEN LETTER & CHALLENGE TO DEBATE THE ELDERS (JEFF DURBIN, LUKE PIERSON & JAMES WHITE) OF APOLOGIA CHURCH – OVER THEIR PUBLIC COMMENTS OF FULL PRETERISM

Dear Pastors Jeff Durbin, Luke Pierson & James White or To Whom it May Concern at the APOLOGIA Church,

I recently listened to your podcast on “hyper-preterism” (see link at end of article) and as a Sovereign Grace Full Preterist apologist, author and debater — I would like to TRULY “engage” with you over your public statements of my position. I co-authored, “House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology…” and interacted with Keith A. Mathison and Simon Kistemaker and their attempts to refute Full Preterism in their co-authored book, “When Shall These Things Be?…” I have a background in being a Reformed Baptist, so I am very familiar with your views. I have challenged James White to debate but of course he “won’t debate eschatology.” The sad thing is when “Reformed” “Apologists” make these kind of statements (along with “dreading” teaching Matthew 24) when the facts are one cannot separate soteriology from eschatology or failing to realize that the call to “defend” our “hope” is an eschatological passage itself (1 Pet. 3:15/Cols. 1:27/Jn. 14:2; 23/Rev. 21:16/1 Cor. 15:28). I recently debated Charismatic Dr. Michael Brown (White’s friend) over 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 because Sam Waldron and White did such a horrible job of dealing with their foundational text with exegetical “integrity.”  Reformed theology can exegetically deal with 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 if we allow the Preterist “soon” AD 70 coming of Christ and arrival of the New Covenant creation of Revelation 22:4-7 to be a parallel passage.

Major Premise:  “That which is perfect” and the seeing of God’s face in 1 Corinthians 13:10-12 is the Second Coming and arrival of the New Creation event of Revelation 22:4-7.

Minor Premise:  But the “soon” coming of Christ and arrival of the New Covenant creation in Revelation 22:4-7 was fulfilled in AD 70.

Conclusion:  Therefore, “that which is perfect” or the “soon” Second Coming and arrival of the New Covenant Creation of 1 Corinthians 13:10-12 and Revelation 22:4-7 was fulfilled in AD 70 and when the miraculous revelatory and sign gifts of the Church “ceased.”

I conducted myself as a Christian gentleman and abided by the debate rules.  In fact the only criticism I got from the FP community was that I was “too soft” on him – lol. I would do the same in engaging with you.  Here is my debate with Dr. Brown over 1 Corinthians 13:8-12: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5DZRv56eQg&t=962s

Here was my review and further thoughts on the debate:  https://fullpreterism.com/reviewing-and-critiquing-my-debate-with-charismatic-dr-michael-brown-over-1-corinthians-138-12-and-introducing-a-full-preterist-chronomessianic-interpretation-argument-on-daniel-924-27-that-went-un/

Jeff, you claimed that it was so important that Reformed Christians have a “consistent eschatology” and that we need to accept the 100 plus time texts were fulfilled by AD 70 — if not, Christians aren’t dealing with these texts with “Christian integrity.” So where was James White or Sam Waldron to discuss the 100 plus time texts with you?!? Maybe because you would have had a 100 or more contradictory statements and exposed your eschatology is not as “consistent” as you claimed? I have on record Partial Preterists asserting that Premillennial or Amillennialists that don’t believe those 100 plus time texts were fulfilled in AD 70 are coming dangerously close to denying the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture. And I have other statements from Amillennialists who mock the Partial Preterist two comings theory to be no better than the two coming theory of the pre-trib rapture theory. Or they admit that if you accept those 100 plus time texts were fulfilled in AD 70, a “consistent hermeneutic” would require you go all the way into Full Preterism. Amazing how you didn’t address any of these issues. WHY?

Here is how your Partial Preterism and James White and Waldron’s classic Amillennialism “consistently” forms (not refutes) Full Preterism:

I also noticed how you didn’t discuss how Partial Preterism does believe the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70 and that the coming of Christ in BOTH Matthew 24 AND 25:31 was fulfilled in AD 70. Let’s discuss creedal “orthodoxy” and “consistency” on admissions like this. Nor did you go over how Partial Preterist Milton Terry took Acts 1:11 as fulfilled in AD 70. Very telling.

Your Partial Preterist guest Andrew Sandlin claimed we could have gotten a “splinter” if we touched the Tree of Life in Genesis. So does he believe the “Tree of Life” and cubed New Jerusalem is something we touch or will touch physically and get a splinter?!?

Of course the truth is the New Jerusalem was in the process of “coming down” (Rev. 3:11-12 NIV) and did arrive on earth at Christ’s “soon” Second Coming event in AD 70. The “Jerusalem from above” is the NC Church and the picture of her coming out of heaven to earth is descriptive of her maturity process from AD 30 – AD 70.  Now her gates are open and through the gospel the nations are being healed. The Tree of Life and Living Water are Christ and the Holy Spirit giving eternal life to all who enter by faith. Again, are there TWO arrivals of the New Jerusalem and the Tree of Life coming to earth?!? Are we going to get a “splinter” on Christ?

He also claims we will all be getting older before his third coming of Christ arrives (based on Isaiah 65). So Jeff, will the anatomy of animals begin changing as well – lions and wolves will eat straw and not ox or sheep before this imaginary third coming of Jesus? When do we begin allowing our children to play with poisonous snakes before this third coming of Jesus is fulfilled? Like Dispensationalism, its interesting where this hyper-literalism leads. Let’s discuss the “consistency” of these Partial Preterist interpretations.

Please respond to my gracious challenge so we can go over the propositions and format of the discussion/debate. I have heard from some on facebook that you might be willing to have a partner debate and they suggested you and Gary DeMar. Gary has been avoiding a public discussion / debate with us for over 30 years so we would gladly welcome him as your partner. He has publicly defended or supported that the coming of Christ in Matthew 24 and 25:31 was fulfilled in AD 70 (as has Keith Mathison). If I recall, Gary also holds to the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 as fulfilled in AD 70 as well? Myself and Don have wanted to press him on those admissions for years. If he isn’t willing to be your partner you may try your co-Elder James White.

While James is not a Partial Preterist and “doesn’t debate eschatology,” he does debate the atonement and if he agrees with your show that Full Preterism denies or perverts the atonement, then he could debate my debate partner (Don Preston) on that subject.

Don and James can debate the death/sin of Adam and the life/righteousness of Christ in our union with His resurrection (primary texts Romans 5-11 / 1 Corinthians 15) as the hope of Israel (the nature of a substitutionary atonement/death & resurrection) and Jeff, we can debate the timing of the Second Coming, judgment and resurrection of the dead, arrival of the New Creation and Reformed orthodoxy with the importance of having a “consistent hermeneutic.” I will be in touch with you and hope we can set something up in a FP “soon” time frame. Once we hear back from you we can discuss debate propositions, format and where it could take place. I personally favor in person debates and having access to power point slides in front of a live audience and not Internet debates.

Thank you for your time.

In Christ,

Michael Sullivan

My Response to Jeff Durbin’s Podcast:

1). “It is important for (Reformed) Christians to have a CONSISTENT eschatology” and to have “Christian INTEGRITY” by admitting there are over 100 imminent time texts in the NT which were fulfilled in AD 70.

This of course was one of the main issues we dealt with in “House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology…” – and that is, exposing this myth that they have a “consistent eschatology.” Just put James White, Sam Waldron, Keith Mathison and Kenneth Gentry on the show with Jeff and I would expose that myth rather quickly. Let’s run through just SOME examples. Since Jeff admitted all of Luke 21 and Matthew 21-24 was fulfilled in AD 70 along with the rest of the NT’s 100 plus time texts, lets address some of these issues.

Luke 21 / Matthew 21-25 – forms NT eschatology & “consistency” / “integrity”

Jeff (a Partial Preterist – PP) admits the coming of Christ and redemption of Luke 21 was fulfilled in AD 70. Yet classic Amillennialists such as Waldron and White would admit this is the Second Coming (SC) event and the “redemption” is the “redemption of the body” in Romans 8:18-23. While there, will Jeff please explain the “time text” of mello and admit like Gary DeMar that this glorification was “about to be” and was fulfilled in AD 70 (Rms. 8:18 YLT)? Or maybe elaborate on Reformed PP theologian John Lightfoot admitting the creation groaning and subject to decay here is addressing sin in the creation of man and not the physical planet? Was Lightfoot a “gnostic”? Obviously, this is not a minor inconsistency for you but not us – lol.

And obviously there are all of the parallels (the analogy of faith or analogy of Scripture hermeneutic) between Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 4-5 which most Reformed theologians and commentators would say is the ONE SC event — of which Jeff must deny.  Jeff maintains the coming and “gathering” into the kingdom of Matthew 24:30-31/Luke 21:27-32 was fulfilled spiritually while White and Waldron would say Matthew 24:30-31/Luke 21:27-32 is the SC and resurrection event. How can we make these two views TRULY “consistent” with exegetical “integrity”? Easy:

Jeff, White and Waldron along with MOST Reformed theologians and commentators would agree with US (not you) that the analogy of faith (parallels & Paul’s eschatology is Jesus’) principle of interpretation demonstrates the coming of Christ in Matthew 24 IS the parousia of Christ in 1 Thessalonians 4-5 AND 1 Corinthians 15:
So Jeff is maintaining the coming of Christ and the “redemption” of Luke 21 was fulfilled in AD 70, yet others like Waldron and White would claim this is the ONE SC and resurrection event. Jeff would maintain that the coming and “gathering” of Christ in Matthew 24:27-31 was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70 and yet Waldron and White would claim this is the ONE SC and resurrection event. If you call that being exegetically “consistent” “integrity” – I have other descriptive adjectives.

Not only should we allow Paul and Jesus to be harmonized in Matthew 24 / 1 Thessalonians 4-5 / 1 Corinthians 15, but we should allow Paul to interpret himself in comparing Romans 5-8 with 1 Corinthians 15.  First note the corporate body themes within Romans 5-8 and biological death not being the subject:

Now compare Romans 5-13 with 1 Corinthians 15:

Again Jeff, the “glory” and “redemption of the body” that was “ABOUT TO BE REVEALED” (Rms. 8:18-23 YLT) IS the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15. See David Green’s exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15 and response to Strimple in our book for more details on that subject.

Having “consistently” and with “integrity” interpreted Paul’s teaching in light of Jesus,’ we shall now examine Paul’s OT sources in 1 Corinthians 15 and see what they may reveal.  James White and his father were/are fans of the WUESTNT and yet he correctly pointed out how “the last enemy” “the death” was in the process of “BEING destroyed.” If this is biological death, “Houston we have a problem.” For an exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15 see David Green’s response to Strimple in HD and my exegesis here: https://fullpreterism.com/ppw-2017-the-problems-for-postmillennialism-in-the-olivet-discourse-the-resurrection-of-matthew-24-25-and-1-corinthians-15/

Jeff mentions the seriousness of believing in a physical judgment and resurrection of the dead at the end of world history. But of course Jeff isn’t telling you that his Reformed PP brethren have admitted that the resurrection and “end” of Daniel 12:1-3 was spiritually fulfilled at the end of the OC age in AD 70. Why not discuss the lack of “consistency” and what PPism really teaches Jeff – since you are claiming to “care” so much about us and have all this exegetical “integrity” – seriously?!? Let’s discuss the Reformed PP implications of taking the “end of the age” and resurrection of Daniel 12:1-3=Matthew 13:39-43=Matthew 24:3-31 as fulfilled spiritually in AD 70.

The Olivet Discourse forms Pauline and NT eschatology and the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 IS the resurrection of the NT. No wonder you didn’t want to discuss “consistency” and this admission of PPism.

The “ALL these things” of Matthew 24:34 and Daniel 12:7 and the Resurrection of the Dead

Someone sent me a video of you teaching on the Olivet Discourse and going over the parallels and overview of Daniel 2, 7, 9 and 12 with Jesus’ teaching.  What was missing was any discussion of the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3, 7:

Before leaving the subject of this message you preached in comparing Daniel with the OD, I want to briefly address your teaching on the 70 7’s of Daniel 9:24-27.  I too believe this is a “glorious” passage but it is MORE glorious to not end the 490 years before AD 70, but with the destruction of the city.  There is no exegetical evidence that the events are all fulfilled before AD 70 but by AD 70:

Jeff, since you take the “ALL these things” (Mt. 24:3-34 or Lk. 21:5-32) as referring to AD 70, wouldn’t the “ALL these things” of Daniel 12:7 be referring to the resurrection event being fulfilled within the 3.5 years along with the Tribulation and Desolation or “when the power of the holy people [was] completely shattered” in AD 70? If not why not? Since Partial Preterism admits the “end of the age” is the OC age in Matthew 13:39-43 and Matthew 24:3 then this is when the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 was also fulfilled. If not why not?

The Partial Preterist admission of the resurrection of Daniel 12 being fulfilled spiritually “gives the farm away” since it is the end of the millennium resurrection of Revelation 20 which John tells us would be “shortly” or “about to be” fulfilled (Rev. 1:1, 9YLT).  When we combine various views within Reformed eschatology in regards to the time texts and the recapitulation structure of Revelation it is not difficult to see how the resurrection of Revelation 20 was fulfilled by AD 70:

The resurrection of Daniel 12 is also the resurrection of John 5 and 1 Corinthians 15:

I find it also interesting that the “already and not yet” of the coming “hour” of John 4-5 is the eschatological “hour” of Daniel 12 and Partial Preterists admit the “not yet” of the coming hour of John 4 was fulfilled in AD 70 but the exact same phrases found in the next chapter somehow refers to a far distant 2,000 plus and counting hour. Creating TWO “already and not yet” periods or an “already and not yet and not yet” periods of Partial Preterism is hardly “consistent” Jeff:

We have allowed Jesus in Matthew 24 to interpret Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4-5 and 1 Corinthians 15.  We have allowed Paul to interpret himself (Rms. 5–13:11-12).  We allowed Paul’s OT sources to help interpret Paul, and we have allowed the Reformed PP admission and classic Amillennial admissions that the resurrection of Daniel 12 was spiritually fulfilled in AD 70 and yet it is the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 – to help us interpret 1 Corinthians 15. This is called “consistent” exegetical “integrity” Jeff. You are stuck on 1 Corinthians 15 and John 6 in the same way an Arminian is stuck on John 3:16 or 1 John 2:2. It’s time to dig deeper my friend or go back to the White and Waldron compromise and denial of NT imminence model. Those are your choices. Partial Preterism has already conceded that between AD 30 – AD 70 there was a corporate body progressive resurrection and that Daniel 12:2-3 supports this. They also affirm 1 Corinthians 15 IS the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3. I have “consistently” harmonized your PPism while at the same time harmonize the contradictions between your PPism and White’s classic Amillennialism. You are welcome

James White on the Olivet Discourse

Jeff, your co-Elder James White tells us the truth is in the “middle” of Hyper-Preterism and Dispensationalism when interpreting Matthew 24. What exactly is in the “middle”? Clearly he is referring to Reformed Partial Preterism (your view) and that of his and Waldron’s classic Amillennial view. BUT the “middle” of these two views IS the Sovereign Grace Full Preterist view:

Major Premise: The coming of Christ in the OD is the ONE SC event to be fulfilled at the end of the age (Reformed Amillennialism)

Minor Premise: BUT the coming of Christ in the OD was fulfilled at the end of the OC age spiritually in Jesus’ contemporary “this generation” in AD 70 (Partial Preterism)

Conclusion / “CONSISTENCY”: THEREFORE, The ONE SC event predicted by Christ in the OD was fulfilled spiritually at the end of the OC age in AD 70 (Sovereign Grace Full Preterism). This is what we call, “Reformed and always reforming” and exegetical and historical “consistency.”

Jeff’s PPism is obviously NOT “consistent” and lacks “integrity” when put alongside Waldron and White’s classic creedal and Amillennial view. The “end of the age” or “end” judgment and resurrection of the dead of Daniel 12 IS the “end” and resurrection of Matthew 13:39-43/24:31; John 5-6; 1 Corinthians 15 and Revelation 20:5-15. After all Jeff, Paul said this resurrection was “about to be” fulfilled in his day (Acts 24:15 YLT). So much for having “integrity” or “consistency” in dealing with those 100 plus time texts. Jeff, why not have a podcast explaining to us HOW within your PPism the judgment and resurrection of the dead was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70 (1 Pet. 4:5-7; Rev. 11:8ff.; Dan. 12:2-3 [and it’s NT references]) – and invite Waldron and White on?!? If you truly “care” and want to show us how “consistent” and “orthodox” (creedal) you are, let’s get with it brother. Let’s have White and Waldron on the show to discuss the timing of the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 in light of your PPism and those 100 plus NT time texts.

The Apologia Church Confession of Faith

The Apologia Church confession of faith on eschatology simply says you believe Jesus is “coming again to judge the living and dead.” But Peter says the living and the dead were to be judged in an AD 70 “at hand” time frame (1 Pet. 4:5-7). How many judgments of the living and dead does Apologia Church teach from the pulpit and explain for us HOW the dead were judged in AD 70? And if the dead were judged, they were raised as well right? Please explain HOW the dead were raised and judged in AD 70.

Maybe you and Dr. White could debate these subjects and let us see how much “consistency” emerges?

Since you have admitted the 100 plus time texts refer to AD 70, by all means explain how Paul referencing Genesis 3:15 and how “Satan” was “crushed” “shortly” in AD 70, but this wasn’t the “shortly” end of the millennium judgment of Satan in Revelation 20. Again, if you truly “care” you will have “an answer to ANYONE who asks” you about these matters (1 Pet. 3:15). If you aren’t willing to discuss and debate these issues, please stop pretending you “care” are “consistent” creedal “orthodox” etc… My guess is you won’t be an actual “apologist” and address these issues. But hey, I hope you will prove me wrong.

Psalm 110 / Hebrews 10 / 1 Corinthians 15

Your co-host Pastor Luke Pierson, mentioned a discussion he had with a FP who claimed these texts don’t mention a Second Coming following Christ putting his enemies under His feet?!? Hebrews 10:13-37 is VERY clear that the “enemies” were “about to be” burned with fire when Christ was going to come in a “very little while” and would “not delay” in AD 70. These first century “enemies” were in the process of being placed under Christ’s feet just as the “last enemy” “the death” was “bEING destroyed” (1 Cor. 15 WUESTNT). Has physical death been in the process of “being destroyed” for 2,000 plus years? Who’s really denying the efficacy of the atonement? Not me!

Harmonizing Luke 21 and Matthew 24-25

Jeff, you claimed Luke 21 is the coming of Christ in AD 70 but apparently Matthew 24-25 includes the SC? Wow, so when Luke is discussing Jesus’ teaching on this matter he totally forgets to tell his Gentile audience about the end of world history and about Jesus’ actual SC – because they are Gentiles? That is your “apologetic” against FPism and Bible skeptics? Sad my friend. The truth of course is that Luke and Mark were written to of a more Gentile audience (agree there), but since the phrase “end of the age” is more Jewish and Christ spoke to the Jews in parables, Matthew is going to add that to his account along with more parables. Nothing here to support TWO comings – good try though. Matthew 24-25 is written with recapitulation (as is the book of Revelation) and is dealing with ONE Second Coming event just as Mark and Luke are. This is called exegetical “integrity” while your view has none:

The wedding of Matthew 22; 24-25 / Revelation 19-21 / Isaiah 25:6-9

Jeff, you claim the eschatological wedding and wedding feast of Matthew 22; 24-25 and Revelation 19-21 was fulfilled in AD 70, BUT the Reformed classic Amillennialist will correctly point out to you that this is WHEN “the last enemy” “the death” is “swallowed up” (Isa. 25:6-9/1 Cor. 15). Again, we harmonize these two competing “Reformed” views and make them TRULY “consistent” and “orthodox” (straight) with “integrity” while your view does not.

Matthew 8:10-12:

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

Gentry writes,

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

Strengths:

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

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

Weaknesses:

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

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

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

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

D.A. Carson writes,

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

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

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

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

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

Strengths:

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

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

Weaknesses:

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

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

Matthew 22:1-14:

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

Joel McDurmon writes of verses 2-7,

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

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

Strengths:

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

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

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

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

Weaknesses:

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

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

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

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

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

Matthew 25:1-13

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

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

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

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

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

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

Context of Isaiah 25:6-9

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

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

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

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

Context of Isaiah 65:12-14

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

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

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

Putting it All Together “Bridging the Gap”

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

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

A (Mt. 8; 22; 25) = Wedding or wedding feast, end of the age, and parousia fulfilled by AD 70.
B (Isa. 25:6-9) = The wedding feast & resurrection are fulfilled together “in that day.”
C (1 Cor. 15) = The resurrection and end of the age are fulfilled at the parousia.

If A bears some relation to B…

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

…and B bears the same relation to C,…

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

…then A bears it to C.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeff, how many eschatological wedding and wedding feasts do you want to defend?!?  Time to man up my friend.  The righteous are as bold as a lion – and yet you, White and Waldron are no where to be found to “defend” your eschatological “hope” of the wedding and wedding feast.

Luke 21:22 – the fulfillment of all that has been written (in the OT)

And in your discussion of Luke 21, where was any discussion of this passage? If Jesus came to fulfill “all” that was written in the OT concerning His Second Coming within His contemporary “this generation,” then obviously that would include the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 and Isaiah 25:6-9.

End of world history and the PP missing de-creation text

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, 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. (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: BakerBooks, 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 statedviews. 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:

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.

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 the establishing the new by AD 70.

SOVEREIGN GRACE FULL PRETERIST VIEW (Synthesis/”CONSISTENCY”of above views – “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 establish the new.

Then there is the exegetical fact that what you place as the “end” of world history, the OT and NT instructs us is the “end” of the OC age and per the Futurist hyper-literal hermeneutic there is birth, sin, evangelism and death taking place postSecond Coming / arrival of the New Creation (Isa. 65-66/Rev. 22:17).

Revelation

And what about the book of Revelation? Jeff Durbin claims the imminent coming of Christ through the prophecy is referring to AD 70, while Waldron, White and other classic Amillennialists along with the WCF and London Baptist Confession of Faith would affirm this is the ONE SC event which ends the millennium of Revelation 20. Doesn’t the Partial Preterism of Jeff and classic Amillennial view of Waldron and White FORM Full Preterism – hardly refuting it?!?

One Partial Preterist Joel McDurmon desperate to find a physical end of world history passing of the heavens and earth claimed “heaven and earth” “fleeing” in Revelation 20 was physical because the Greek word pheugo was used. Of course he wasn’t “consistent” when he failed to comment on how pheugo is used within Revelation itself to refer to the de-creation of Israel in Revelation 6 and 16. This deceptive hermeneutic as not only inconsistent, but lacking “Christian integrity” – something Jeff claims his PPism is offering:

Seven Brief Points Which Prove The Full Preterist View of the Millennium of Revelation 20 is Exegetical and Orthodox

1)  Reformed Partial Preterist author Kenneth Gentry in his writings informs us that the book of Revelation is about things which were in the past, present, and things which were “about to be” fulfilled in John’s day (Rev. 1:19 YLT). Therefore, there is no exegetical evidence to support that Revelation 20 does not fall within these inspired time indicators.  In fact even Gentry’s reformed peers understand that if one interpret the imminent time texts at the beginning and end to be referring to AD 70, then everything is fulfilled by AD 70, “But 1:3 and 22:10 are like bookends enclosing the whole prophecy of Revelation. The fulfillment of everything, not just a part, is near.”  (Vern S. Poythress, THE RETURNING KING A GUIDE TO THE BOOK OF REVELATION, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P & R Publishing Company, 2000) 34).

2)  As G.K. Beale has reminded us, it is reformed and orthodox to believe that the thousand years is not just a symbolic number, but is one that does not have to be taken to describe a long time (ie. thousands of years etc…):  “The primary point of the thousand years is probably not a figurative reference to a long time…” (Beale, G. K. (1999). The book of Revelation: A commentary on the Greek text. New International Greek Testament Commentary (1018). Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle, Cumbria: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press.)

3).  It has also been acknowledged by reformed theologians Such as Beale when approaching the millennium of Revelation 20, that many Rabbis believed that the period of Messiah was to be only a transitionary stage between “this age/world and the age/world to come.”  These Rabbis (such as R. Adiba), understood this transition period to be forty years, based upon how long the Israelites were in the wilderness before inheriting the land (Beale, ibid., 1018-1019; see also, A. Cohen, Everyman’s TALMUD, 356).  This type/anti-type understanding and same kind of “this generation” or “in a very little while” time frame of “another day” approaching in which the “better” heavenly land/city/resurrection would be inherited or take place is developed for us in the book of Hebrews (cf. Heb. 3-4; 10:25, 37; 11—13:14YLT).  And as we have noted from reformed Partial Preterists such as Joel McDurmon or Gary DeMar, it is within the realm of reformed orthodoxy to believe that Jesus’ and Paul’s “this age/world” was the OC age and that the “age/world to come” refers to a transition period between the OC age and the NC age (ie. between AD 30 – AD 70).

4).  As the imminent time texts point to a fulfillment of Revelation 20, so does the recapitulation or parallel structure of Revelation point an AD 70 fulfillment for the millennium.  Reformed Partial Preterists such as Keith Mathison, Kenneth Gentry and James Jordan correctly teach us that the content of Revelation 1-19 and 21-22 was fulfilled by AD 70 (at which time there was a judgment and resurrection of the dead and arrival of the new creation).  And yet Amillennialists such as G.K. Beale, Robert Strimple and Simon Kistemaker correctly teach that Revelation 20:5-15 simply recapitulates these verses and themes or are paralleled to the same events related to the same judgment and consummation scenes depicted in chapters 1-19 and 21-22. We hold to both of these reformed and common sense “orthodox” positions in interpreting the book of Revelation and this becomes relevant in our discussion of the millennium of Revelation 20.  Revelation 20 is not an isolated island standing away from the time texts or from the structure the book was written in.

5).  In criticizing the Premillennial view which often seeks to isolate Revelation 20 from the rest of the NT, the Amillennial and Postmillennial views hold that Revelation 20 falls within the “already and not yet” of the “last days” period in the NT.  Or this transition period can be found in the parable of the wheat and tares or the time frame leading up to the coming of Christ in Matthew 24-25.  But as we have seen, it is “orthodox” to believe the “last days” ended with the OC age in AD 70, and that harvest gathering and coming of Christ in Matthew 13 and Matthew 24-25 was fulfilled by AD 70 (cf. the writings of and combinations found in Gary DeMar, Joel McDurmon, Peter Leithart, Keith A. Mathison, etc…).

6).  Consider the following:

a. if it is true that Matthew 24 – 25 cannot be divided and the coming of Christ and judgment in these chapters refer to AD 70 (Gary DeMar/Joel McDurmon and Keith Mathison or it is “possible” that they do ie. Kenneth Gentry) and…
b.  if “John’s version of Matthew 24-25 is found in the book of Revelation” (Gary DeMar) and…
c.  if it is true that Matthew 24:27-31—25:31ff. is descriptive of the one and end of the age  Second Coming, judgment and resurrection event as is Rev. 20:5-15 (the classic Amillennial or creedal position) and…
d.  if it is hermeneutically valid to “parallel” Matthew 24-25 material with the book of Revelation, then Partial Preterism along with the classic Amillennial view have some explaining to do in that their views form the “this generation” forty years millennial view of Full Preterism…

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

7).  Consider the following:

a.  if the judgment (opening of the book), resurrection, time of the end of Daniel 12:1-4, 13 was fulfilled by AD 70 (Partial Preterism Kenneth Gentry and James Jordan) and…
b.  if the judgment (opening of the book), resurrection, time of the end of Daniel 12:1-4, 13 is the same eschatological time of the end events as described for us in Revelation 20:5-15 (classic Amillennial view) and…
c.  if “John in the book of Revelation picks up where Daniel leaves off” (Partial Preterism John Lightfoot, Gary DeMar, James Jordan) and “parallels” between Daniel 12 and Revelation 20 are hermeneutically valid to make (classic Amillennialism), then once again Partial Preterism along with classic Amillennialism have some explaining to do in that their views form the “this generation” forty years millennial view of Full Preterism…

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

Conclusion:

Therefore, the reader should be able to discern that the Full Preterist AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation” millennial view is:

1). consistent with the teaching of Revelation itself,
2)  falls within the “orthodox” views of the Reformed church,
3)  is in line with the analogy of Scripture and
4)  offers historical support from many Rabbis whom promoted a forty years transitional period between the two ages.
Our view on the millennium is both exegetically sound and orthodox. Finding support for the Full Preterist view of the millennium is not as difficult as many  portray it – selah.

Your PP view that somehow Revelation 1-19 and 21-22 was fulfilled imminently in AD 70, but the end of the millennium judgment and resurrection of the dead of chapter 20 wasn’t, has no exegetical support.

Luke 21 / Matthew 24-5 and Acts 1-3

Jeff mentioned Acts 1:11 as just no way being fulfilled in AD 70. Of course what Jeff didn’t tell you is that one of the main if not main Partial Preterist theologian Milton Terry saw this passage being fulfilled in AD 70. Interesting how Jeff’s BEST PP theologian agrees with us and not him. He claims he is being “consistent” and having “integrity” but fails to mention how PP theologians both take Acts 1:11 and the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 as fulfilled in AD 70. Sorry, I just don’t see this as acting out of “Christian integrity” or exegetical “consistency.”

But again, the creeds and majority of Reformed theologians and commentators see the coming of Christ here in Acts 1:11 being the same coming of Christ in Matthew 24:30 and the evangelism or Great Commission (GC) of Matthew 24:14 being the same as Acts 1:8. In fact my Reformed PP opponent Keith Mathison has told us that when the GC of Acts 1:8 is fulfilled is when Christ coming on the clouds of Acts 1:11 will be fulfilled. So let’s examine these issues briefly.

We would agree with the creedal or classic Amillennialist that the Second Coming of Christ in Matthew 24 IS the same Second Coming event Luke lays out in Acts 1 – 3:

 

Of course the TRUTH is that Jeff’s Partial Preterism leads to the “consistent” Full Preterist view and when we combine the various Futurist positions (such as that of James White and Sam Waldron) they definitely form the “consistent” Sovereign Grace Full Preterist position. Yes I’m going to post this again in case you missed it:

Obviously the “consistency” and “integrity” belongs to my view and not yours. But good try though.

2). Logical fallacies, scare tactics and misrepresentations

Your logical fallacies and scare tactics were legion my friend. Your inability to defend what you said in the program and logical fallacies are what make me “angry” — let’s get the facts straight.

a). False claims that Full Preterists don’t see the Gentile inclusion in the OT and NT

Of course I have been a Sovereign Grace Full Preterist for over 30 years and have NEVER denied this. Not only have I not denied it, but establishing Jew and Gentile in ONE body/man is the essence of Full Preterism or Gospel Eschatology. Myself and other Full Preterists destroy the small amount of real “Hyper-Preterists” out there that do deny this. Let’s get the facts straight.

b). The assertion that we deny the physical resurrection of Christ, His deity or atonement.

This was SO desperate and sad. Again, over 30 years in the movement and I have NEVER believed the things you are tying to claim we believe! But it is YOU who deny the High Priestly atonement and redemption of Christ that was “about to be” fulfilled when He appeared a “second time” out of the Temple – at the end of the OC age in a “very little while” to take away our sin (Lk. 21:27/Heb. 9:26-28–10:37; Rms. 11:26-27/13:11-12).

c). Is Partial Preterism or Full Preterism more effective at refuting Bible skeptics and upholding the deity of Christ?

Some Jews did believe (all the way up until around AD 100) that Daniel 7:13 was not only Messianic, but He would somehow be divine (based on His description and that only God came upon the clouds). The OG LXX states that the one like the Son of Man would “come upon the clouds AS (not up to) the Ancient of Days.” This is exactly how Jesus is described in Revelation 1:7-18 – the Ancient of Days and the Alpha and Omega. Jeff, you are confused it is OUR view that more effetely refutes Bible critics (liberals, Islam & Zionists) regarding an imminent Second Coming (not “a” coming) that either refutes or upholds the claims of Jesus’ deity. Good try though.

d). “Come home the light is always on” 

The Father and Son have come and made their “home” within us and the light is always on in the New Jerusalem (Jn. 14:23 / Rev. 21:16ff.).  I don’t have to be a “member” of a Reformed Baptist Church to “be home.  Your appeals to “come hone” to mother church has been echoed by the Roman Catholic Church. Be consistent in your appeals to church tradition, counting noses and this manipulative nonsense and go Roman Catholic as some other “Reformed” theologians have.

I’m sure John Eck exhorted Luther to “come home” to compromise as well. I’ll pass on your offer Jeff, but if you and White want to actually continue the work of the Reformation “Reformed and always reforming” — we are always looking for some good men. David spent a lot of time in the caves and persecuted before his time of elevation. Such is the time frame of Full Preterism but we are going and will continue to grow with God adding “mighty men of valor” to our ranks daily.

e). You claim Full Preterists are “angry”

Jeff, how LONG has it been since your boy Keith A. Mathison said he would respond to my chapter response to him in our book, HD but hasn’t?!? You men claim you “care” and will “respond” to these issues but NEVER do. You “caring,” your alleged “integrity” and “consistency” are ALL scams. I think you may be mistaken over my “anger” it is being jealous and zealous for the Name and integrity of Christ as the “Faithful and True Witness” and not tolerating your false piety (you “care”) and false appeals to “consistency” etc…

You are allowed to be “angry” at Arminians when they censor you and won’t respond to your arguments but we aren’t allowed to be angry at your compromise, your censorship and failure to address the issues. Wow.

f). Lack of godliness

Another cheap shot below the belt. Again, I’ve been a SGFP for 30 years and my life has been nothing but blessed and my faith strengthened. So much so that I don’t have to stoop to these low levels you have had too. And you wonder why Full Preterists are “angry” – lol. The truth is we are “jealous / zealous” for His Name and He accomplished “ALL” (atonement as High Priest, judgment and resurrection of the dead, arrival of the New Creation) that He said He would “WHEN” (“this generation” “about to be” “will not be delayed”) He said He would.

And of course Futurist Calvinists have never been characterized as “bitter” “angry” or “one sighted” on their pet doctrines of election etc…?!? Never accused as being too focused on doctrine and not on “loving” others etc… Jeff, you really do need to come up with some real arguments – this false piety and manipulative garbage doesn’t work.

g). Conflating “Hyper-Preterism” with Full Preterism – and “leaving Christianity”

Sovereign Grace Full Preterism believes in the sovereign and free grace of God, the Trinity, the deity of Christ, etc… There have been MANY Futurists and Calvinists that have also left the faith and have gone into Open Theism, Catholicism and adopted bible skeptic arguments as to why the Scriptures are not inspired (you know them because James White has debated them!). So I could conclude that Futurism or Calvinism breeds unbelief if I were to adopt your horrific line of “logic” disguised as “caring.” And you wonder why you come across “angry” Full Preterists – lol.

When I attended The Master’s College and was a 5 point Calvinist 4 point “Calvinists” called my position on limited atonement to be “Hyper Calvinist” (before MacArthur made the change).  It’s just a way of trying to shut down the conversation and scare people from studying the view.  The truth of course is that a Hyper Calvinist is someone who does not Evangelize and a true Hyper Preterist is a small group of individuals who don’t see salvation post AD 70 for anyone.

h). The charge of “gnosticism”

I find it interesting that when Paul is addressing the error of a pre-AD 70 coming of the Lord and resurrection view, that he NEVER refers to the view as overly spiritual and thus gnostic. If it was the physical view you hold to, his powerful apologetic would have simply been something like this, “How can you believe the SC and resurrection has “already” occurred? We are still here aren’t we? The grave yards are still full aren’t they? The “end” of world history hasn’t taken place now has it? Again, power argument from silence that speaks VOLUMES.

To charge Jesus and the NT authors and the New Covenant anti-types of fulfillment as “gnostic” is a serious one.

  • Your Partial Preterism is about as “consistent” and has about as much “integrity” as a four point “Calvinist.” And just as four point “Calvinism” isn’t really Calvinism and only serves as a stepping stone which leads to real Calvinism, so too, your compromised Partial Preterism is not real, exegetical or true Preterism – of which only continues to lead your students to us and the truth. Selah.
  • I find it interesting that the “House Divided” of “When Shall These Things Be?…” approach has now made its way into your very own local church with you being a PP and James White being a classic Amillennialist (along with his mentor Sam Waldron). Let me know when you and White want to actually “engage” and do the work of an Apologist by debating us and stop pretending you as Elders are “consistent.” Until then, God’s people will see your approach for it was/is.
  • If you are not willing to actually do the work of an apologist and debate us, please do not claim you are “engaging” our view.

Jeff, is it “gnostic” to believe the teachings of Jesus that when He was revealed from heaven (His Second Coming) the Kingdom would not be seen with the physical eyes but placed “within” the believer (Lk. 17:20-37 / Lk. 21:27-32)? In fact Paul stated that this “glory” was “about to be revealed IN” them in AD 70 (Rms. 8:18YLT). We are the New Jerusalem or God’s Most Holy Place dwelling that comes down from heaven to earth at His “soon” Second Coming (Rev. 21:16–22:6-7, 20) of which Christ (the Tree of Life) and Living Water (Holy Spirit) flow from from within us. Nothing “gnostic” here my friend just “consistent” exegetical “integrity.” It is your view that gives these spiritual interpretations in AD 70 BUT to be creedal, then give them TWO or DOUBLE fulfillments (why not just go back to Dispensationalism then?). It is ironic to watch PPism tell Amillennialist and Dispensationalists that they are not allowed to give their AD 70 passages double fulfillments (the Tribulation, Desolation, destruction of the Temple, apostasy, etc…), but when they get in trouble with the creeds or are pressed for consistency from FPism, they begin talking about TWO comings, TWO passings of heaven and earth, TWO arrivals of the new heavens and earth, TWO judgments and resurrections of the dead, etc… That’s NOT “consistent” exegetical “integrity” friend.

David Green answers this charge of gnosticism in our book,

“Strimple Argument #10: Because preterists deny the physicality of the resurrection of the dead, preterists are teaching a new form of the old heresy of Gnosticism (313). Preterism is therefore a physical body – disparaging doctrine.

Answer: Before answering this argument, we must first note that though preterists deny the physicality of the resurrection of the dead, preterists do not agree with the Gnostics on the meaning of “resurrection.” Preterists do not believe that “resurrection” is a mystical attainment that is realized through knowledge, secret or otherwise. The Reformed preterist understanding of life in Christ is radically other than the Gnostic understanding.

We believe that we are raised to life through one thing, and one thing only: Faith in the historic (real, actual, physical) death and resurrection of God the Son, the Creator of Heaven and Earth. The Gnostic
denial of this core gospel truth is one of the central errors that made them heretics in the worst sense of the word.

As for the idea that preterism necessarily leads to the Gnostic view that the body is to be despised or that it is evil, this can be quickly dismissed with a look at Matthew 22:30. It is in that verse that Jesus said
that those who had physically died would, in the resurrection of the dead, “neither marry nor be given in marriage.”

The opponents of preterism accept this teaching of the Lord, but they do not realize that if the preterist interpretation (a non-physical resurrection) necessarily implies that the physical body must be despised or viewed as evil, then Jesus’ teaching (no more marriage for those who participate in the resurrection of the dead) necessarily implies that marriage, and by implication sex and reproduction, must also be despised or viewed as evil.

If the preterist teaching that the physically dead saints were raised non-physically necessarily implies that the physical aspect of man is to be despised or that it is evil, then Jesus’ teaching that there is no marriage for the physically dead after they are raised must likewise necessarily imply that marriage, sexuality, and reproduction are to be despised or considered evil. If one conclusion is necessarily true, the other is necessarily true. If preterism is necessarily anti-body Gnosticism, then Jesus was, by the same logic, necessarily anti-marriage, anti-sex, and anti-reproduction. Therefore, the futurist claim that preterism is necessarily Gnostic (physical-body-disparaging) is fallacious.

The truth is that marriage, sex, reproduction, and the physical body are all good and temporary (Job 14:12; Eccles. 9:6; 1 Cor. 6:13). “Temporary” does not equal “despised” or “evil.” As with the temporality of marriage, sex, and reproduction, the temporality of the physical body in no way minimizes or negates the eternality of the Spirit-empowered works that are wrought by means of it. A temporal “tabernacle” (2 Pet. 1:13-15) in which and through which we obey and worship God “in spirit and in truth” is by no stretch of the imagination evil or to be despised.

Ironically, the reason that the physically dead saints who were raised in AD 70 did not get remarried and procreate again is because they were raised in a non-biological manner. They were and are spirits, “like the angels” (Matt. 22:30; Heb. 1:7). The Sadducees, like the futurists after them, did not understand this.

Before I conclude this answer, there is another, related charge of Strimple against preterists that I should address here, and that is that preterists are naturalistic rationalists and skeptics. This accusation comes as a surprise because it is difficult to understand how one could simultaneously be a Gnostic and a naturalistic rationalist. How can preterists believe in an over-spiritualized resurrection of the dead and at the same time be steeped in, as Strimple puts it, old-fashioned, blatantly naturalistic, “the universe is a closed system” rationalism? (307, 310, 328, 339)

As though these accusations were not contradictory enough, Strimple admits elsewhere that preterists are devoted to the defense of the divine origin and the divine authority of the Scriptures: “ . . . [T]he motivation behind their theology and their exegesis is apologetic” (289). The question now is how can preterists be defenders of the divine origin and authority of Scripture and also be naturalistic rationalists and skeptics and Gnostics at the same time?

While it is true that we can find certain preterists who have argued that a physical resurrection of the dead is an impossibility because of the dispersal of molecules throughout the aeons, it is not correct to paint preterists in general as people who argue in that manner. I am sure that I speak for the vast majority of preterists of Reformed background when I say that God is able at any time to physically resurrect all people of all generations.

Preterists do not reject a physical resurrection of the dead because we believe in a “closed universe,” or because we think that God lacks ability, or because we are skeptics or rationalists or naturalists, or because we have a Gnostic, matter-despising bent. We reject a physical resurrection of the dead for one reason and one reason only: Because we believe that the Word of God—the divine origin and authority of which we are championing—teaches a spiritual, non-physical (yet “bodily”) resurrection of the dead in the end of the old covenant age.

Our belief in the inerrancy and divine authority of the Bible, and in the deity of Christ, and in the goodness of God’s physical universe, and in regeneration by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone does not prove that we are correct in our understanding of the resurrection of the dead, but it does prove that we are not “naturalistic Gnostics.” (HD, pp. 176-179).

For those that want to watch this sad attempt at refuting Full Preterism here is a link to Jeff’s podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDFWNE6ut7o

We have no problem pointing our readers to the heretical Futurist teachings on the Second Coming, but they are constantly CENSORING us and not debating us. That should tell you everything

I’m ready to debate when you are Jeff:

Or as I left a message on your phone — I am also willing to do a partner debate.  Don Preston has already agreed to be mine.  Please ask your co-Elder James White if he would be willing to be your partner. If he believes we are a “cult” and or he believes our view of the judgment and resurrection of the dead being fulfilled in AD 70 has somehow perverted the gospel and atonement, then this isn’t just a debate “about eschatology” and falls within the realm of subjects his ministry debates.  Or Gary DeMar would be fine as well.  Perhaps you could find one of the co-authors of WSTTB? to come on and be your partner as well?  Please do get back with me.

Still in progress…

THE RESURRECTION FROM THE GRAVES OF JOHN 5:28-29 WAS FULFILLED SPIRITUALLY IN AD 70 – A CONTINUED CHALLENGE TO PARTIAL PRETERISM / KENNETH GENTRY

Commentators have long understood that Daniel 12:2 is the source for Jesus’ teaching on the resurrection in John 5:28-29 because the only OT passage which mentions a resurrection for both the righteous and the wicked is Daniel 12:2 and the only OT passage addressing “eternal life” is Daniel 12:2.  G.K. Beale points out an additional connection – in that Jesus is following the (OG) LXX of Daniel 12:1-2, 4 when it comes to this coming resurrection “hour” of both believers and unbelievers [1]:
AD 30
1.  Daniel 12:1:  “And at that hour…”
1.  John 5:25:  “…an hour is coming and now is…”
AD 70
2.  Daniel 12:1:  “And at that hour…”
2.  John 5:28:  “…for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice,”
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
2.  Daniel 12:2:  “Many of those who sleep in the width of the earth will arise   [anatesontai]…some unto eternal life and others to reproach…and to eternal shame.”
2.  John 5:29:  “and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection   [anatasin] of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection [anatasin] of judgment.” (also related:  1 John 2:18: “Dear children it is the last hour…” and Revelation 14:7:  “…the hour of His judgment has come.”).
Partial Preterist theologians have finally conceded to Full Preterism that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 was fulfilled in AD 70 spiritually – “when the power of the holy people is/was completely shattered” (v. 7) and that the last hour of John’s eschatology in 1 John 2:17-18 and Revelation 14:7 was fulfilled in AD 70.
Kenneth Gentry wrote the following of the resurrection in Daniel 12:2 on his Facebook page:
“Dan 12 sees the “resurrection” of Israel in the birth of the Christian Church, which is the New Israel. Thus, it bears similarities with Eze 37 and the resurrection of the dry bones of Israel.”
Dan 12 is not dealing with bodily resurrection but national resurrection (as does Eze 37). Dan 12 sees the “resurrection” of Israel in the birth of the Christian Church, which is the New Israel. Thus, it bears similiarities with Eze 37 and the resurrection of the dry bones of Israel.”[2] And in his third addition of his book on Postmillennialism he concedes again:
“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.”[3] This is practically the same view taken by James Jordan in his recent commentary on Daniel:
“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.”[4] “Revelation takes up where Daniel leaves off, and deals mostly with the Apostolic Age and the death and resurrection of the Church.”[5] “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.”[6] When I challenged Gentry on how the NT develops the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 as also referring to AD 70 at the Criswell conference on the millennium in the Q & A period, he changed his tune and now gives Daniel 12:2 a double fulfillment – an AD 70 spiritual tyological fulfillment and then another literal fulfillment at the end of history so he can appease creedal supporters.  But now Gentry is once again guilty of cherry picking Daniel 12:2 from the rest of the events in this chapter.  As I wrote in our second edition of “House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology…,”
“Gentry gives Daniel 12:2 two fulfillments but won’t allow dispensationalists or any other futurist system to do the same thing with the Great Tribulation, the three and a half years, or the Abomination of Desolation in Daniel 12 or Daniel 9:27.” (HD, 94).In commenting on the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 Gentry mentions the spiritual and corporate nature of the resurrection for Israel of coming out of her “graves” in Ezekiel 37 to support his corporate view of Israel being raised into the new covenant Israel by AD 70.  Well, since there was a spiritual and corporate resurrection of the dead coming out of their “graves” in Ezekiel 37 and there is a spiritual fulfillment for the dead rising within the immediate context of John 5:24-26, there is no exegetical reason why the new covenant anti-type coming resurrection “hour” out of “graves” in John 5:28-29 is not also a corporate and spiritual resurrection.  And if James Jordan is claiming that Daniel’s soul was raised out of Abraham’s Bosom or Hades into God’s presence to inherit eternal life in AD 70, why isn’t this the same kind of resurrection Jesus is describing in John 5:28-29?
Since Partial Preterism is now teaching that the resurrection of John 5:28-29 is the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 and are fulfilled together, and that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 happened in AD 70, it necessarily follows that they need to prove without a shadow of doubt that the resurrection of John 5:28-29 is a physical  / biological resurrection which takes place at the end of history and not the AD 70 one.
David Green in response to Robert Strimple in the second edition of our book House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to When Shall These Things Be?, has some great comments on this crucial passage (see pages 178-180):
“Strimple Argument #6: John 5:28-29 obviously teaches a physical resurrection of the dead in that it speaks of a time in which “all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment” (297).
Answer: In order to understand John 5:28 and 29, we must first look three verses above it, in John 5:25, where Jesus said that the hour “now is” when “the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live.”  As most Reformed interpreters agree, Jesus in that verse was referring to the preaching of His death and resurrection.  The preaching of that message commenced at Pentecost.  “The dead” were physically living people who were spiritually dead in sin, and “the voice of the Son of God” was the gospel.  Having heard the gospel, those who were spiritually “dead” were spiritually resurrected.  They lived in that they received eternal life through faith in the gospel (“the voice of the Son of God”).
Then, in verses 28 and 29, Jesus expanded His teaching on the resurrection to include those who were not only spiritually dead, but who were also physically dead.  He did not call them “dead” (as He had already called the living who were spiritually dead), but He referred to them through another figure of speech as “all who are in the graves.”  They were not literally in their graves or tombs, of course, but were in Hades/Sheol.
What is often missed in this passage is that, like the physically living in verse 25, the physically dead in verse 28 were also going to live by means of hearing Christ’s “voice.”  As we know from verse 25, that “voice” is the gospel.  The physically dead therefore were going to hear the gospel (cf. 1 Pet. 4:6.) and were, as a result of hearing the gospel, going to be resurrected (regenerated, born from out of death and Hades).  This means that the physically dead were, like the physically living, spiritually dead.  And this inescapably means that both the physically living and the physically dead were going to be spiritually resurrected by means of the gospel-voice of the Son of God.  One resurrection in two main stages:  First, the last days saints; then, the Old Testament dead (“the rest of the dead” in Revelation 20:5). Note the parallels between John 4:21, 23 and John 5:25, 28:
1. . . . [T]he hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth. . . . (Jn. 4:23)
2. . . . [T]he hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. (Jn. 4:21)
1. . . . [T]he hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. (Jn. 5:25)
2. . . . [T]he hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice. . . . (Jn. 5:28)
These two sets of prophecies are parallel.  They speak of the same timeframes, which were these:
Pentecost (AD 30)
1. The true worshipers would worship the Father in spirit and in truth.
1. The dead would hear the voice of the Son of God, and live.
Fall of Jerusalem (AD 70)
2. God’s worshipers would no longer worship Him in Jerusalem.
2. All who were in the graves would hear His voice.
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).”
Another challenge for Partial Preterist Kenneth Gentry, is that he agrees with full preterism that Jesus’ “already and not yet” eschatological “hour” in John 4 is between AD 30 – AD 70 when the old covenant mountain and temple worship is removed and the new was established.[7]  But then Gentry asserts with no exegetical justification that Jesus’ same phrases on the coming eschatological “hour” in John 5 allegedly deal with the end of time?!?  We again find this arbitrary and exegetically unconvincing.
Jesus interprets Jesus – Resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 to be fulfilled at the end of the Old Covenant Age in AD 70 
We have further evidence that Jesus identifies the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 and John 5:28-29 to be fulfilled spiritually in AD 70.  In Jesus’ teaching elsewhere in the gospels we find that He posits the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 (referencing it directly) to be fulfilled at the end of His old covenant “this age” “gathering” and or in His AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation” (Matt. 13:39-43; Matt. 24:3, 30-31, 34).  Again, Partial Preterism has conceded to Full Preterism that the “end of the age” in Matthew 13 and 24 is not referring to the end of world history, but rather the end of the Old Covenant age in AD 70:
“A clear understanding of the parable of the wheat and tares [Matthew 13:39-43] emerges only after the proper translation of aion (age) and the biblical teaching concerning the two ages.  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 Jerusalem before the Roman siege.  This was consequent to Jesus’ advice to flee and not look back once the sings arose (Matt. 24:16-22); indeed this would correspond with the angels’ work of harvesting the elect (24:30).”[8] “It is after hearing about the desolation of their “house” [Matthew 23:40-38] – the temple – that the disciples ask about the “temple buildings” (24:1).  Jesus answered the disciples’ questions relating to the time and signs of Jerusalem’s destruction, always with the background of Matthew 23 in view, since His comments in that chapter had precipitated the questions (24:3).  The Old Covenant order would end with the destruction of Jerusalem.  This would be the “sign” of the “end of the age,” the end of the Old Covenant, and the consummation of the New Covenant.”[9] If Jesus’ teaching on the “end of the age” in Matthew 13 and 24 is referring to the end of the Old Covenant age in AD 70, then according to Jesus, the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 was fulfilled at this time as well.
John interprets John (John 5/Revelation 20)
No one disagrees that the resurrection of John 5:28-29 is the end of the millennium resurrection of Revelation 20.  In Revelation those participating in the “first resurrection” is a subject that has been previously addressed in chapters 7 and 14 – these being the first century Jewish “first fruits” or 144,000 that were the first to believe in Christ and continued enduring through the great tribulation until the end. Therefore, they would partake in the harvest/resurrection at the end of the Old Covenant age. These are those who were coming out of their “graves” through the preaching of the gospel (John 5:24-27) and would soon participate and be joined with the rest of the dead in the consummative resurrection event.
In our book (HD, 131-133) I gave seven brief exegetical, orthodox, and historical points which demonstrates that the end of the millennium resurrection of Revelation 20 was fulfilled during AD 30 – AD 70:
1)  Kenneth Gentry informs us that the book of Revelation is about things which were past, present, and “about to be” fulfilled in John’s day (Rev. 1:19 YLT). There is no exegetical evidence that Revelation 20 does not fall within these inspired parameters.  In fact even Gentry’s reformed peers understand that if one interpret the imminent time texts at the beginning and end to be referring to AD 70, then everything is fulfilled by AD 70, “But 1:3 and 22:10 are like bookends enclosing the whole prophecy of Revelation. The fulfillment of everything, not just a part, is near.”[10] 2) G.K. Beale has reminded us that it is exegetical and orthodox to believe that the thousand years is not just a symbolic number, but it is one that does not have to be taken to describe a long time (ie. thousands of years etc…): “The primary point of the thousand years is probably not a figurative reference to a long time…”[11] 3).  It has also been acknowledged by Reformed theologians that many Rabbis believed that the period of Messiah was to be a transitionary stage between “this age/world and the age/world to come.” These Rabbis (such as R. Adiba), understood this transition period to be forty years, based upon how long the Israelites were in the wilderness before inheriting the land.  This type/anti-type understanding is developed for us in the book of Hebrews (cf. Heb. 3-4; 10:25, 37; 11—13:14, YLT).  And as we have noted from Reformed partial preterists such as Joel McDurmon or Gary DeMar, it is within the realm of Reformed orthodoxy to believe that Jesus’ and Paul’s “this age/world” was the old covenant age, and that “the last days” were the days of transition between the old covenant age and the new covenant age (AD 30 – 70).
4)  Reformed Partial Preterists such as Keith Mathison, Kenneth Gentry, and James Jordan teach that the content of Revelation 1-19 and 21-22 was fulfilled by AD 70, at which time there was a judgment and resurrection of the dead and arrival of the new creation. And amillennialists such as Simon Kistemaker teach that Revelation 20:5–15 recapitulates the same judgment and consummation scenes that are depicted in chapters 1–19 and 21–22. Full Preterists hold to both of these Reformed and “orthodox” positions in interpreting the book of Revelation.
5)  In criticizing the premillennial view, which often seeks to isolate Revelation 20 from the rest of the NT, amillennialists and postmillennialists hold that Revelation 20 falls within the “already and not yet” of the “last days” period in the New Testament, and that this transition period is depicted in the parable of the wheat and tares, or in Matthew 24–25. But as we have seen, it is “orthodox” to believe the “last days” ended with the old covenant age in AD 70, and that the harvest/gathering and coming of Christ in Matthew 13 and 24–25 was fulfilled by AD 70.
6)  If it is true that a).  the invisible coming of Christ in both Matthew 24 – 25 is referring to the AD 70 judgment as Mathison and other partial preterists are now proposing and if it is true that b).  “John’s version of Matthew 24-25 is found in the book of Revelation” and if it is true that c).  Matthew 24:27-31—25:31ff. is descriptive of the one end of the age Second Coming, judgment and resurrection event (the classic amillennial or creedal position) then d).  the authors of WSTTB? have some explaining to do in that their views form the “this generation” forty years millennial view of full preterism:
Matthew 24-25 Revelation 20:5-15
a.  Resurrection and judgment Matt. 24:30-31 (cf. Matt. 13:39-43/Dan. 12:2-3) Matt. 25:31-46 (cf. Matt. 16:27)
a.  Resurrection and judgment Rev. 20:5-15
b.  De-creation heaven and earth pass/flee Matt. 24:29, 35 (cf. Matt. 5:17-18)
b.  De-creation heaven and earth pass/flee Rev. 20:11 (cf. Rev. 6:14; 16:20; 21:1)
c.  Christ on throne to judge Matt. 25:31
c.  God on throne to judge Rev. 20:11
d.  Wicked along with Devil eternally punished Matt. 25:41-46
d.  Wicked along with Devil eternally punished Rev. 20:10, 14-15
7)  If it is true that a).  The judgment (opening of the book) and “hour of the end” resurrection of the dead in Daniel 12:1-4, 13 was fulfilled by AD 70 (per Gentry) and if it is true that b).  the judgment (opening of the book) and “hour of the end” resurrection of the dead in Daniel 12:1-4, 13 is the same eschatological time of the end events described for us in Revelation 20:5-15 (classic amillennial view) and if it is true that c). “John in the book of Revelation picks up where Daniel leaves off” with “parallels” between Daniel 12 and Revelation 20 being hermeneutically valid to make, then d).  Once again the authors of WSTTB? have some explaining to do in that their views form the “this generation” forty years millennial view of Full Preterism:
Daniel 12:1-2 Revelation 20:5-15
a.  Only those whose names are written in the book would be delivered/saved from eternal condemnation Dan. 12:1-2
a.  Only those whose names are written in the book would be delivered/saved from the lake of fire Rev. 20:12-15
b.  This is the time for the resurrection and judgment of the dead Dan. 12:1-2
b.  This is the time for the resurrection and judgment of the dead Rev. 20:5-15
Therefore, the reader should be able to discern that the Full Preterist view of the millennium is: 1) consistent with the teaching of Revelation, 2) falls within the “orthodox” views the Reformed church, 3) is in harmony with the analogy of Scripture, and 4) has historical support from Rabbis who saw a forty-year transition period between the two ages. Our view on the millennium is exegetically sound and orthodox.   It is not as “difficult” as some try and portray it.
Pauline eschatology agrees 
Paul referring to the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 states:
“…there is about to be a rising again of the dead, both of righteous and unrighteous; (Acts 24:15 YLT WEY).
Conclusion 
The resurrection from the “graves” of John 5:28-29 is no more of a literal biological resurrection than the resurrection from the “graves” of Ezekiel 37:12.  Righteous souls such as Daniel’s was raised (Dan. 12:2, 13) out of Hades or Abraham’s Bosom at Christ’s parousia in AD 70 to inherit eternal life in God’s presence.  Jesus identifies the eschatological “gathering” of the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 to take place at the end of His Old Covenant “this age” and in His AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation” (Matthew 13; Matthew 24).  The resurrection of John 5:28-29 is the resurrection of  Revelation 20 which is said to be fulfilled in a “soon” or “shortly” AD 70 time frame — a resurrection of “souls” not literal corpses coming to life at the end of history.  Pauline eschatology agrees with Jesus’ and John’s “about to be” resurrection coming to close the OC age in AD 70 as well (Acts 24:15 YLT WEY).
The NT teaching on the resurrection is this:
*  There was an evangelistic resurrection or salvation of the soul taking people out of death and darkness into life and light of eternal life.
*  There was a corporate and covenantal resurrection by which the old covenant Israel/body was being changed/transformed/being raised into the new covenant Israel/body roughly during AD 30 – AD 70.
*  There was a resurrection of souls out from among Hades/Abraham’s Bosom to inherit eternal life in God’s presence.
*  This resurrection was from (and an overcoming of) “the [spiritual] death” that came from Adam the very same day he sinned against God.
Orthodox Partial Preterists such as Kenneth Gentry need to give exegetical and logical reasons why the resurrection of John 5:28-29 is a literal biological resurrection to take place at the end of time when they affirm with Full Preterism that:
1.  The resurrection in the immediate context is spiritual (John 5:24-27).
2.  The eschatological “not yet” coming “hour” of (John 4) is referring to AD 70.
3.  The resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 was fulfilled in AD 70 (Jesus referencing it in John 5:28-29).
4.  Jesus elsewhere teaches that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 would be fulfilled at the end of the old covenant age in AD 70 (Matthew 13:39-43; Matthew 24:3, 30-31, 34).
5.  John’s eschatological last “hour” in (1 John 2:17-18) and “hour” of judging the dead in (Revelation 14:7) was fulfilled in AD 70.
Gentry’s progressive Partial Preterism continues to lead his readers into the Full Preterist movement since he continually will not respond to our book and arguments directed towards him.  Selah.  He deserves the criticism from other futurists that his hermeneutics “lead to Full Preterism.”
[1]  G.K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of The Old Testament In The New (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), 131132.
[2]  This answer was taken off of Gentry’s facebook. Com page: http://www.facebook.com/home.php
[3]  Kenneth L. Gentry Jr. HE SHALL HAVE DOMINION (Draper, VA:  Apologetics Group Media, 2009 Third edition), 538.
[4]  James B. Jordan, THE HANDWRITING ON THE WALL A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2007), 620.
[5]  Ibid., 621.
[6]  Ibid. 628.
[7]  Kenneth Gentry, FOUR VIEWS ON THE BOOK OF REVELATION, IVP., 43.  Kenneth Gentry, THREE VIEWS ON THE MILLENNIUM AND BEYOND, (Grand Rapids MI:  Zondervan, 1999), 246 footnote 45.
[8]  Joel McDurmon, Jesus v. Jerusalem A COMMENTARY ON LUKE 9:51 – 20:26, JESUS’ LAWSUIT AGAINST ISRAEL (Powder Springs, GA:  The American Vision, Inc., 2011), 48-49, see entire section 43-51.
[9]  Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness Obsession of the Modern Church, (Powder Springs GA: American Vision, 1999), 37
[10]  Vern S. Poythress, THE RETURNING KING A GUIDE TO THE BOOK OF REVELATION, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P & R Publishing Company, 2000) 34.
[11]  Beale, G. K. (1999). The book of Revelation: A commentary on the Greek text. New International Greek Testament Commentary (1018). Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle, Cumbria: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press.

WHEN A "REFORMED" HYPER-CREEDALIST CALLS ME A “HERETIC” I ASK HIM OR HER THE FOLLOWING EXEGETICAL AND REFORMED QUESTIONS…

(The research contained in this article is documented in my chapter and in our book, House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to When Shall These Things Be?)
I have been a full preterist and a 5 point Calvinist for over 25 years and it never ceases to amaze me when some of my Reformed or Sovereign Grace brethren call me a “heretic” for holding to my eschatological position.  It is argued that since full preterism cannot be found in the creeds, church fathers, and or the Reformed tradition my position must not even have a hearing.  As I argue in this article, full preterism can be found in the Reformed tradition of the church and is the organic development (“Reformed and always reforming”)  of the classic amillennial position and the partial preterist position.  As I will demonstrate either these positions form a “contradiction” as (“Popes and councils have contradicted each other” in the past – Martin Luther) within Reformed eschatology or they form full preterism (“Reformed and always reforming”) — there is no middle ground here.  In fact as one can see below the full preterist actually embraces MORE of Reformed eschatology or covenant theology than the isolated partial preterist postmillennialist or the isolated classic amillennialists because he combines the two together into one non-contradictory system.   
When a “Reformed” Hyper-Creedalist calls me a “heretic” I ask him or her the following Reformed questions…
Matthew 24-25
Is it…:
a. …my Reformed view that the coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 24-25 is the Second Coming event which brings about the judgment and resurrection of the dead that makes me a heretic? (classic amillennial view).
b. …my Reformed view that the coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 24-25 took place spiritually in Jesus’ contemporary “this generation” (ie. in AD 70) which makes me a heretic? (partial preterist view).
Either “a” and “b” above form a contradiction (as “Popes and councils have contradicted each other” in the past – Martin Luther), or they form full preterism (“Reformed and always reforming“).  Which is it?
If “a” and “b” are true, then “c” (full preterism) is true.  If not why not?
Is it…:
a.  …my Reformed view that the one Second Coming, de-creation, resurrection and judgment of the dead in Matthew 24-25 is one eschatological event which does not have multiple fulfillments which causes me to be a heretic?  (classic amillennial view).
b.  …my Reformed view that the prophetic events in Matthew 24-25 cannot be double fulfilled or have multiple fulfillments beyond AD 70 which makes me a heretic?  (partial preterist view).
Either “a” and “b” above form a contradiction (as “Popes and councils have contradicted each other” in the past – Martin Luther), or they form full preterism (“Reformed and always reforming“).  Which is it?
If “a” and “b” are true, then “c” (full preterism) is true.  If not why not?
Is it…:
*  …my Reformed view that Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 24-25 develops the eschatology for the rest of the NT which makes me a heretic?  (classic amillennial view & partial preterist view).
*  …my Reformed view that John’s version of Matthew 24-25 is found in the book of Revelation which makes me a heretic?  (classic amillennial view & partial preterist view).  To which we now turn to and address…
Matthew 24-25 / Revelation
Is it…:
a.  …my Reformed view that the coming of Christ in the book of Revelation is the Second Coming event that brings about the judgment and resurrection of the dead which makes me a heretic? (classic amillennial view).
b.  …my Reformed view that the coming of Christ in the book of Revelation took place in an “at hand,” “shortly,” “quickly,” “about to,” time frame which brought about the judgment of the dead spiritually in AD 70 that makes me a heretic? (partial preterist view).
Either “a” and “b” above form a contradiction (as “Popes and councils have contradicted each other” in the past – Martin Luther), or they form full preterism (“Reformed and always reforming“).  Which is it?
If “a” and “b” are true, then “c” (full preterism) is true.  If not why not?
Is it…:
a.  …my Reformed view that the judgment and resurrection depicted in Revelation 20 has already been recapitulated in the previous chapters which makes me a heretic?  (classic amillennial view).
b.  …my Reformed view that Revelation chapters 1-19, 21-22 were fulfilled in AD 70 that makes me a heretic?  (partial preterist).
Either “a” and “b” above form a contradiction (as “Popes and councils have contradicted each other” in the past – Martin Luther), or they form full preterism (“Reformed and always reforming“).  Which is it?
If “a” and “b” are true, then “c” (full preterism) is true.  If not why not?
Is it…:
*  …my Reformed view that the imminent coming of Christ in the book of Revelation ends the millennium of Revelation 20 which makes me a heretic?  (classic amillennial view & partial preterist view).
*  …my Reformed view that a thousand years does not have to mean a long period of time which makes me a heretic?  (a amillennial view).
*  …my Reformed view that Daniel was raised out of Hades or Abraham’s Bosom according to Daniel 12:2, 13 and Revelation 20 to inherit the kingdom and eternal life which makes me a “heretic?” (partial preterist view).

*  …my Reformed view that the “first heavens and first earth” was the old covenant world and the “new heaven and a new earth” correspond to the new covenant world which came down from heaven to earth in an AD 70 “shortly,” “at hand,” “quickly,” “about to” time frame that makes me a heretic?  Is it my Reformed view that this passing of “heaven and earth” is equivalent to the passing of the Temple and or old covenant age in Matthew 24:3, 35 which makes me a heretic?  (partial preterist view).

*  …my Reformed view that the coming of Christ, judgment and resurrection of the dead and de-creation/new creation in the book of Revelation cannot have double or multiple fulfillments which makes me a heretic?  (classic amillennial view).
*  …my Reformed view that AD 70 fulfillments in the book of Revelation cannot have double or multiple fulfillments beyond AD 70 which makes me a heretic?  (partial preterist view).
Matthew 24-25 / Pauline Eschatology
Is it…:
a.  …my Reformed view that the Second Coming of Christ and resurrection in Matthew 24:30-31 (cf. Matthew 13:39-43/Daniel 12:2-3) which takes place at the end of the age (and has no multiple fulfillments) – and is the same coming of Christ/trumpet blown and resurrection as is described in Pauline eschatology (cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17/1 Corinthians 15) which makes me a heretic?  (classic amillennial view).
b.  …my Reformed view that the coming of Christ in Matthew 24:30-31 and the resurrection of Matthew 13:39-43/Daniel 12:2-3 was fulfilled spiritually and corporately at the end of the old covenant age in AD 70 which makes me a heretic? (partial preterist view).
Either “a” and “b” above form a contradiction (as “Popes and councils have contradicted each other” in the past – Martin Luther), or they form full preterism (“Reformed and always reforming“).  Which is it?
If “a” and “b” are true, then “c” (full preterism) is true.  If not why not?
Is it…:
a.  …my Reformed view that the coming of Christ, salvation, glory to be revealed, restoration of creation, and redemption of the body in Romans 8:18-23; 11:26-27; 13:11-12; is the same eschatological event as described by Jesus in Matthew 24-25 or Luke 21 which makes me a heretic?  (classic amillennial view).
b.  …my Reformed view that the coming of Christ, salvation, glory, liberation of creation, adoption of the son’s of God, and redemption of the body were “about to be revealed” in AD 70 (Romans 8:18-23 YLT; 11:26-27; 13:11-12) which makes me a heretic?  Perhaps my view that the “creation” and “decay” in Romans 8 has nothing to do with the planet earth but rather with the hearts and souls of men which makes me a heretic?  (partial preterist view).
Either “a” and “b” above form a contradiction (as “Popes and councils have contradicted each other” in the past – Martin Luther), or they form full preterism (“Reformed and always reforming“).  Which is it?
If “a” and “b” are true, then “c” (full preterism) is true.  If not why not?
Matthew 24-25 / Acts
Is it…:
a.  …my Reformed view that the coming of Christ in Matthew 24-25  and Acts 1:11 is Christ’s Second Coming whereby He judges the quick and the dead which makes me a heretic?  (classic amillennial view).
b.  …my Reformed view that the analogy of Scripture teaches us that the coming of Christ in Matthew 24-25 and Acts 1:11 was fulfilled in AD 70 (partial preterist view).  Maybe my agreement with Young’s Literal Translation of an AD 70 “about to be” time frame for the judgment and resurrection of the dead in Acts 17:31 YLT and Acts 24:15 YLT is what makes me a heretic?
Either “a” and “b” above form a contradiction (as “Popes and councils have contradicted each other” in the past – Martin Luther), or they form full preterism (“Reformed and always reforming“).  Which is it?
If “a” and “b” are true, then “c” (full preterism) is true.  If not why not?
Matthew 24-25 / Peter’s Eschatology
Is it…:
a.  …my Reformed view that the coming of Christ in Peter’s Epistles is the same coming of Christ as is depicted in Matthew 24-25 which makes me a heretic?  Or perhaps my Reformed view that the “elements” and de-creation and arrival of the new creation in 2 Peter 3 and Matthew 24:29, 35 (arrival of new implied) are the same events (that cannot have multiple fulfillments) which makes me a heretic?
b.  …my Reformed view that the coming of Christ in Matthew 24-25 and 2 Peter 3 along with the passing of the old covenant world/age and the arrival of the new covenant world/age was fulfilled in AD 70 which makes me a “heretic?” (partial preterist view).
Either “a” and “b” above form a contradiction (as “Popes and councils have contradicted each other” in the past – Martin Luther), or they form full preterism (“Reformed and always reforming“).  Which is it?
If “a” and “b” are true, then “c” (full preterism) is true.  If not why not?
Is it…:
a.  …my Reformed view that “the judgment” of the living and dead in 1 Peter 4:5-7, 17 is the same judgment which takes place at the coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 24—25:31-46 (that cannot have multiple fulfillments) which makes me a heretic? (classic amillennial view).
b.  …my Reformed view that Christ came and judged the living and dead in an AD 70 “at hand” and “this generation” time frame according to 1 Peter 4:5-7 and Matthew 24:34, 25:31ff. which makes me a heretic?  (partial preterist view).
Either “a” and “b” above form a contradiction (as “Popes and councils have contradicted each other” in the past – Martin Luther), or they form full preterism (“Reformed and always reforming“).  Which is it?
If “a” and “b” are true, then “c” (full preterism) is true.  If not why not?
Matthew 24-25 / Hebrews 
Is it…:
a.  …my Reformed view that the coming of Christ or His “Second Appearing” at the end of the age in Hebrews 9:26-28—10:25-37 is the same Second Coming and end of the age event described by Jesus in Matthew 24-25 (that cannot have multiple fulfillments) which makes me a heretic?  (classic amillennial view).
b.  …my Reformed view that the coming of Christ in Hebrews 9:26-28—10:25-37 and Matthew 24-25 took place in AD 70 at the end of the old covenant age which makes me a heretic?  (partial preterist view).
Either “a” and “b” above form a contradiction (as “Popes and councils have contradicted each other” in the past – Martin Luther), or they form full preterism (“Reformed and always reforming“).  Which is it?
If “a” and “b” are true, then “c” (full preterism) is true.  If not why not?
Is it…:
a.  …my Reformed view that the “better resurrection” of (Hebrews 11:35-39-40) takes place when the “in a very little while” “Second Appearing” of Christ ends the age (Hebrews 9:26-28—10:25-37) (that cannot have multiple fulfillments) which makes me a heretic?  (classic amillennial view & partial preterist view).
b.  …my Reformed view that the “in a very little while” “Second Appearing” of Christ ended the old covenant age in AD 70 (thus fulfilling the “better resurrection”) that makes me a heretic?  (partial preterism).
Either “a” and “b” above form a contradiction (as “Popes and councils have contradicted each other” in the past – Martin Luther), or they form full preterism (“Reformed and always reforming“).  Which is it?
If “a” and “b” are true, then “c” (full preterism) is true.  If not why not?
Last Days
Is it…:
a.  …my Reformed view that the NT’s use of the “last/latter days” is a period of time from Christ’s first to Second Coming to end the age and to judge and raise the dead which makes me a heretic?  (classic amillennial view).
b.  …my Reformed view that the NT’s use of the “last/latter days” is a period of time from Christ’s first to Second Coming to end the old covenant age (ie. roughly from AD 30 – AD 70) and to judge and raise the dead in AD 70 which makes me a heretic?  (partial preterist view).
Either “a” and “b” above form a contradiction (as “Popes and councils have contradicted each other” in the past – Martin Luther), or they form full preterism (“Reformed and always reforming“).  Which is it?
If “a” and “b” are true, then “c” (full preterism) is true.  If not why not?
Judgment and Resurrection of the Dead
Is it…:
a.  …my Reformed view which teaches there is only ONE general judgment and resurrection of the dead — both of the righteous and unrighteous (Daniel 12:1-4, 13; Matthew 13:39-43; John 5:28-29; Acts 24:15; Revelation 20) which takes place at the end of the age and cannot have double or multiple fulfillments that causes one to call me a heretic?  (classic amillennial view).
b.  …my Reformed view which teaches that there was a judgment and resurrection of the dead – both of the righteous and unrighteous (Daniel 12:1-4, 13; Matthew 13:39-43; Revelation 20) which took place at the end of the old covenant age in AD 70.  This judgment and resurrection was:
1. Corporate & covenantal – new covenant Israel being raised from the carcass or grave of old covenant Israel in AD 70.
2.  Progressive – a spiritual process that corresponded to the preaching of the gospel from roughly AD 30 – AD 70.
3.  Involved the souls – of people being raised out of Hades or Abraham’s Bosom to inherit the kingdom and eternal life in AD 70.
Is believing that this Reformed AD 30 – AD 70 view of the judgment and resurrection of the dead that makes me a heretic? (partial preterist view).
Either “a” and “b” (1-3) above form a contradiction (as “Popes and councils have contradicted each other” in the past – Martin Luther), or they form full preterism (“Reformed and always reforming“).  Which is it?
If “a” and “b” are true, then “c” (full preterism) is true.  If not why not?
Is it…:
a.  …my Reformed view whereby Jesus taught that the general judgment and resurrection would take place when “this age” gave way to the “age to come” (Matthew 13:39-43/Daniel 12:2-3; Luke 20:34-35) that makes me a heretic?  (classic amillennial view)
b.  …my Reformed view that Jesus’ “this age” is the old covenant age which gave way to the “age to come” – being the new covenant age in (Matthew 13:39-43/Daniel 12:2-3; Luke 20:34-35) arriving in AD 70  – that makes me a heretic?  (partial preterist view).
Either “a” and “b” above form a contradiction (as “Popes and councils have contradicted each other” in the past – Martin Luther), or they form full preterism (“Reformed and always reforming“).  Which is it?
If “a” and “b” are true, then “c” (full preterism) is true.  If not why not?
I could go on and on with this and use plenty of other Scriptures, but I think this has been sufficient to prove my point.
Conclusion:
It shouldn’t surprise us that often times the Reformed classic amillennial camp condemns the postmillennial partial preterist camp as “heretics” and or uses other harsh statements — and vice versa.  Is it possible that full preterists can also agree with each of these camps when they criticize each other?
Is it…
a.  …my Reformed view and agreement with the classic amillennialists that the partial preterist view is in error and offers a “skewed interpretation” on eschatology because the NT only teaches ONE “THE parousia” or Second Coming of Christ, attended by ONE judgment and resurrection of the dead, and ONE arrival of the New Creation at the end of ONE “end of the age” which makes me a heretic?
b.  …my Reformed view and agreement with the partial preterist that the classic amillennial view comes very close to denying the inspiration and integrity of the Scriptures when they disregard the plain and straightforward AD 70 imminence which saturates the NT that makes me a heretic?  Perhaps it is my agreement with partial preterists that many amillennialists are treating the NT time texts in a similar way than some liberals have (“in a sense the Second Coming is ‘always near'”) which makes me a heretic?

  • I do not believe any “Reformed” Christian has the exegetical or historical right to call me a heretic for believing and affirming these Reformed views on eschatology which actually form full preterism – not condemning it!
  • My Reformed view is that the reformed creeds can be in error and are subject to change in light of Scripture as they themselves affirm.  I just demonstrated and proved in what areas they need to be changed.
  • My Reformed views on “Sola Scriptura” or “Reformed and always reforming” are Biblical and historical.
  • My Reformed and Biblical challenge to Reformed eschatology as a whole (classic amillennialism and partial preterism) to “always be ready” to “defend” and or sit down and discuss these issues should be honored.  I am requesting a hearing at any Reformed Bible College or Seminary that has the courage and humility to do it.

Objection “If full preterism is true, then why can’t we find this teaching anywhere in the early church fathers?  Did the Holy Spirit fail the Church for 2,000 years before full preterism came along?”
Answer – Since the important doctrine of forensic justification was not found anywhere in the early church fathers prior to Luther, does this mean the Holy Spirit failed the Church for 1,500 years?  Was John Eck and the Roman Catholic Church justified to condemn Luther and his teachings based upon this kind of thinking that the “Reformed” Hyper-Creedalists are now using against their own brethren?!?
One Reformed writer addressing one of the Reformation’s battle cries, “Reformed and always reforming” correctly states,
“In hermeneutical and exegetical practice “Reformed” folk today have regressed to the security, comfort, complacency, naïveté, false humility, ignorance and laze of the Dark Ages—blindly following their own confessions and catechisms, now ironically immune to further biblical reform, searching the Scriptures only to contrive new ways to defend the doctrines spoon-fed them by the “great Reformers.” To them it is unimaginable that their sixteenth-century heroes could have been substantially wrong on anything (save, perhaps, on blatant snafus such as the pope being Antichrist). To be sure, if today’s Reformed scholars and churchgoers (who take pride in tradition-acquiescence rather than in the hard work of reading Scripture themselves in any serious, self-critical way) had lived in Luther’s and Calvin’s day, there may be little doubt they would ironically have been on the side of Rome—condemning the Reformers for their innovative departures from the “tried and true traditions of the church.”  (M. Allan Eby, Requiem for a Reformation, http://secundum-verbum-dei.blogspot.com/2012/10/requiem-for-reforma…).  Special thanks to David Green and Michael Bennett for posting Eby’s comments on their lists.
Reformers are indeed condemning themselves.  Full preterism is not new as this article demonstrates at every point!  The Reformed Church (through the classic amillennial and partial preterist views) has been teaching the premises and doctrine of full preterism this entire time.  Just because full preterists are uniting and putting the two together (systematically or in a non-contradictory form “Reformed and always reforming”) does not warrant excommunication of its members – rather these men and women ought to be honored for their desire to follow God’s Word at any cost and be peace makers and bridge builders among the Reformed brethren.  Selah.
“In the minds of those who coined it, the phrase semper reformanda emblematized the conviction that the church must continually reexamine itself in light of Scripture in order to maintain (and where necessary, recover) its purity of belief and practice. The Reformers themselves, of course, were mindful of the fact that they, like popes and councils, could err. Indeed they (like popes and councils) often contradicted one another at points and openly welcomed correction, so long as it came plainly reasoned from Scripture. They recognized that their newfound biblical re-readings were an ongoing work in-progress, and that further progress toward truth could only come via close and repeated inductive examination of Scripture. They called their followers to be “Bereans” with them (Acts 17:11). This humble approach was beautifully captured on April 18, 1521 at the Diet of Worms, where Luther’s corpus—indeed his very life—was on the line.

Luther:  “When Christ stood before Annas, he said, ‘Produce witnesses.’ If our Lord, who could not err, made this demand, why may not a worm like me ask to be convicted of error from the prophets and the Gospels? If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. . . .”

Johann Eck:  “Martin, . . . . Your plea to be heard from Scripture is the one always made by heretics. You do nothing but renew the errors of Wyclif and Hus. How will the Jews, how will the Turks, exult to hear Christians discussing whether they have been wrong all these years! Martin, how can you assume that you are the only one to understand the sense of Scripture? Would you put your judgment above that of so many famous men and claim that you know more than they all? You have no right to call into question the most holy orthodox faith, instituted by Christ the perfect lawgiver, proclaimed throughout the world by the apostles, sealed by the red blood of the martyrs, confirmed by the sacred councils, defined by the Church in which all our fathers believed until death and gave to us as an inheritance, and which now we are forbidden by the pope and the emperor to discuss lest there be no end of debate. I ask you, Martin—answer candidly and without horns—do you or do you not repudiate your books and the errors which they contain?”
Luther:  “Since then Your Majesty and your lordships desire a simple reply, I will answer without horns and without teeth. Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason—I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other—my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other. God help me! Amen.”” (Ibid., Eby).
“…I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason…” that full preterism is true and have therefore sought to peacefully “bridge the gap” between the classic amillennial view and the partial preterist view which without full preterism “…have contradicted each other…”  as have “…the authority of popes and councils…” in the past.  As we wrote in our book, House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology —  “And lastly, we are grateful to the Partial Preterist and Amillennial theologians of the historic Reformed church, on whose shoulders we stand, and through whom God has led us, and so many others, to the biblical view of Full Preterism.”
I rest my case.  Selah.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAFnbkEwqjI

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


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

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

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

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

Full Preterists

Partial Preterists

A.D. 70

At the end of history

A.D.   70

At the end of history

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

Yes

No

Yes

Yes & No

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

Yes

No

Yes

Yes & No

United Matt. 24-25 one parousia in AD   70

Yes

No

Yes

Yes & No

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

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

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

Yes

No

Yes

Yes & No

2 Peter 3 fulfilled

Yes

No

Yes

Yes & No

“All Israel” in Rom. 11:26 saved

Yes

No

Yes

Yes & No

Acts 1:11

Yes

No

Yes

Yes & No

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

Yes

No

Yes

Yes & No

1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 “rapture”

Yes

No

Yes

Yes & No

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

Progressive Dispensationalism & Progressive Partial Preterism

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

“Fraudulent” and “Sloppy Scholarship”

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

“State of Flux”

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

Gary DeMar & “Fitting Questions” From Full Preterists

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

Conclusion:

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

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



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

A Full Preterist Response to Kenneth Gentry’s Articles: DANIEL 12, TRIBULATION, AND RESURRECTION and ACTS 24:15 AND THE ALLEGED NEARNESS OF THE RESURRECTION

A Full Preterist Response to Kenneth Gentry’s Articles:  DANIEL 12, TRIBULATION, AND RESURRECTION and ACTS 24:15 AND THE ALLEGED NEARNESS OF THE RESURRECTION 
By:  Michael J. Sullivan
“At that time Michael shall stand up, The great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people; And there shall be a time of trouble, Such as never was since there was a nation, Even to that time.  And at that time your people shall be delivered, Every one who is found written in the book.  2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt (cf. John 5:28-29; Matthew 13:39-43/24:3, 30-31; Acts 24:15; Revelation 20:5-15).  3Those who are wise shall shine Like the brightness of the firmament, And those who turn many to righteousness Like the stars forever and ever“But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end (Matthew 13:39-43/24-25); many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase (of Messiah and new covenant salvation).”  Then I, Daniel, looked; and there stood two others, one on this riverbank and the other on that riverbank. And one said to the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, “How long shall the fulfillment of these wonders be (vss. 1-4)?”  Then I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand to heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever, that it shall be for a time, times, and half a time; and when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all these things (including the resurrection and glorification of vss. 2-3) shall be finishedAlthough I heard, I did not understand. Then I said, “My lord, what shall be the end of these things (again they are all fulfilled together)?”  And he said, “Go your way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. 10 Many shall be purified, made white, and refined, but the wicked shall do wickedly; and none of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand. 11 “And from the time that the daily sacrifice is taken away, and the abomination of desolation is set up, there shall be one thousand two hundred and ninety days. 12 Blessed is he who waits, and comes to the one thousand three hundred and thirty-five days.  13 But you, go your way till the end; for you shall rest, and will arise to your inheritance at the end of the days.
Introduction
There are several things that are missing from Mr. Gentry’s new view that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 was fulfilled corporately in AD 70 in his book,[1] article on his site,[2] or in the various lectures he has given where this passage comes up.
First, there is no humble acknowledgment that his new position on this text is the result of Full Preterist arguments pressing him to it over several years.  Nor is there any humble apology or acknowledgment to the Full Preterist community (or even to his futurist readers for that matter) for his past faulty eisegesis oF cherry-picking the time and fulfillment of the resurrection from the other eschatological events he took as fulfilled in AD 70 (the shattering of Jerusalem in judgment, the tribulation, and the three and a half years’ time frame).  Contextually the passage tells us that “all these things” not “some of these things” would be fulfilled together during the same “time of the end” period (Dan. 12:7).
Secondly, not only does Gentry neglect to tell his readers that his change on Daniel 12:2 is a result of full preterism pushing him in that direction, he doesn’t think twice about accepting the fact that men like him and James Jordan have actually stolen and are teaching the full preterist view on the resurrection and judgment of the dead.  Here is what they are proposing happened which is the full preterist view:

  • There was an “already/becoming/not yet” or progressive resurrection taking place for Israel roughly between AD 30 – AD 70.  In AD 70 the Church (God’s new covenant corporate Israel) was raised from the carcass of old covenant corporate Israel.
  • The souls of OT saints such as Daniel and Christians whom died prior to AD 70 were raised out of Hades or Abraham’s Bosom and inherited God’s kingdom/presence/eternal life at that time.

In a nut shell, that is the full preterist view on the judgment and resurrection of the living and dead between AD 30 – AD 70.  The only difference between progressive partial preterists and full preterists at this point is that full preterists do not go beyond what is written and make up an additional “already/becoming/not yet” eschaton beyond AD 70 which allegedly involves a casket resurrection at the end of history – to appease the creeds and or creedal supporters and publishers.
Thirdly, perhaps Gentry is not remorseful for his eisegesis and cherry-picking Daniel 12:2 from the rest of the AD 70 fulfillments he has given in this chapter, because he knows his new interpretation continues with this deplorable approach.  Let me explain.  There is no exegetical defense of Gentry’s novel view that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 can have two or multiple fulfillments (one in AD 70 and a “consummate” physical one at the end of time).  Therefore, Gentry has come full circle on performing eisegesis (reading things into the text that are not there) or cherry-picking the eschatological events in Daniel chapter 12 from verse 2.  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 or preview fulfillments for Israel today after Israel rebuilds her temple in the near future.”  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 9:27. Jesus in Luke 21:20-22 and Matthew 13:39-43 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.
It is more than inconsistent for Gentry and other partial preterists when debating premillennialists, dispensationalists, and amillennialists to argue that their preterist fulfillments in Matthew 24 and 95% of the book of Revelation were fulfilled in AD 70 and cannot have double, multiple, or be placed in a 2000+ “already-not yet” fulfillment reaching beyond AD 70; and then turn around and use this very argument on the resurrection when debating and trying to dismiss Full Preterist exegesis!  Selah.  For example Gary DeMar, rejects openness to the double fulfillment, mixed fulfillments, or future fulfillment theories in the Olivet Discourse:
“Either the Olivet Discourse applies to a generation located in the distant future from the time the gospel writers composed the Olivet Discourse or to the generation to whom Jesus was speaking; it can’t be a little bit of both. As we will see, the interpretation of the Olivet Discourse in any of the synoptic gospels does not allow for a mixed approach, a double fulfillment, or even a future completion. Matthew 24:34 won’t allow for it.”[3]
And Gentry teaches that a theory of “double fulfilling” AD 70 fulfillments in the book of Revelation, for example, is “pure theological assertion” that has “no exegetical warrant.”[4]  We couldn’t agree more!  So if it is true that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 is found in the Matthew 24 and in the book of Revelation, then it would be “pure theological assertion” to claim another fulfillment of that resurrection is yet future to us.  Per Gentry, his approach has “no exegetical warrant” to it.
Similarly, Gentry and other partial preterists have attempted to blur and muddy their NT two comings of Christ (the parousia), two great commissions, two end of the ages, two fulfillments of the passing of the first creation and arrival of the new, and now two judgments and resurrections of the dead under the guise of two “already and not yet” eschatons.  If you have seen the plethora of exegetical problems with the dispensational double vision eschaton of a “the parousia” consummation/coming of Christ for Israel before the millennium and then another “the parousia” (“secret rapture”) consummation/coming of Christ for the Church, then one can easily see how partial preterism suffers from the same kind of eisegetical double vision hermeneutic which rips apart the harmony and analogy of the NT Scriptures!  Partial preterism teaches that there was one “already and not yet” 1)  roughly between AD 30 – AD 70 for Israel, and then what appears to be the first “not yet” in AD 70 becomes the “already” of the second “already and not yet” 2)  AD 70 – end of time for the Church.  They have learned from their futurist opponents that when an AD 70 fulfillment is exegetically developed their opponents “out” seems to be to throw it into a scholarly “already and not yet” scene.  This is Gentry’s approach now in debating Full Preterists which according to him is “pure theological assertion” with “no exegetical warrant.”  Even partial preterist Joel McDurmon tried this in his debate with Don Preston.  When pressed into a corner on such passages as Daniel 12:2/1 Corinthians 15/Revelation 20 – McDurmon admitted that these passages “could” have had “a” fulfillment in AD 70, but await another fulfillment/manifestation.  To claim that the resurrection and or judgment of the dead in 1 Corinthians 15 and Revelation 20 “could have a fulfillment in AD 70” is a huge admission which “gives the farm away.”
Fourthly, when one considers Gentry’s older writings and new writings on the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 they definitely do lead us to Full Preterism.  In the past Gentry has argued that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 is the same “one” resurrection as what we see in these texts (Matt. 13:39-43; John 5:28-29—6:40; Acts 24:15; 1 Corinthians 15; Revelation 20).  This is a Full Preterist view.  In his new writings he is arguing that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 was fulfilled spiritually and corporately in AD 70.  This too is a Full Preterist position.
Fifthly, Gentry never explains how Daniel (the person ie. his soul) was raised and received everlasting life in AD 70 (cf. Dan. 12:2, 13).  How and how many times must Daniel be raised from the dead to inherit eternal life and the kingdom?!?  Does Gentry believe that Daniel was raised out of Abraham’s Bosom (as James Jordan believes according to Revelation 20) in AD 70 and inheriting everlasting life was being raised into God’s presence?  Who knows because Gentry cannot articulate his position or attempt to answer the tough questions.
Lastly and most importantly, there is no exegetical work done by Gentry on where the judgment, resurrection, and “end” of Daniel 12:1-4 is referenced and alluded to in the NT (ex. Matt. 13:39-43/Matt. 24:3, 31; John 5:28-29; 1 Corinthians 15; Acts 24:15; Revelation 20) in order to prove that the Full Preterist view that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 was consummately fulfilled in AD 70 is the wrong view.  As I will demonstrate in the bulk of this article, Ken doesn’t want to even acknowledge the collecting of these dots because he knows how reformed creedal eschatology and how full preterism has “connected these dots!” Gentry simply asserts that his new view that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 was fulfilled in AD 70 does not lead to Full Preterism.   He  references only a few passages in the gospels and in the book of Revelation which he feels is an AD 70 fulfillment of Daniel 12:2 (where most commentators and orthodoxy has not made the connections) while ignoring the main passages such as Matthew 13:39-43; John 5:28-29; Acts 24:15 and Revelation 20 (where commentators and orthodoxy has made the connections)!   Here are the passages which Gentry applies to Daniel 12:2 and note how the relevant passages I listed are ignored:
“Christ himself points out that some from Israel will believe and be saved, while others will not (e.g., Mt 10:34–36; 13:11–15), that in the removing of the kingdom from Israel many will be crushed and scattered like dust (Mt 21:43–45). He even speaks of the saved Jews as arising from the “shadow of death” (Mt 4:16). Though in AD 70 elect Jews will flee Israel and will live (Mt 24:22), the rest of the nation will be a corpse: “wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather” (Mt 24:28). Indeed, in AD 70 we see in the destruction of the city of Jerusalem (Mt 22:7) that “many are called, but few are chosen” (Mt 22:14).
Second, elsewhere he employs the imagery of “regeneration” to the arising of the new Israel from out of dead, old covenant Israel in AD 70: “You who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Mt 19:28).
This paralleling of divine blessing and divine curse, of life and death (cf. Ro 11:15) for those in Israel is a frequent theme (under varied images) in the Book of Revelation
Third, God’s angels protect some Jews from the winds of judgment, while not protecting others (Rev 7:1–9). John measures some Jews for safe-keeping in the temple, while not measuring others (11:1–2). Some stand high upon Mt. Zion in safety (Rev 14:1–5), while others do not (Rev 14:17–20).
Returning now to Daniel, it appears that Daniel is drawing from the hope of the future, literal resurrection and applying it symbolically to the first century leading up to the tribulation in AD 70. That is, he is portraying God’s separating believing Jews out of Israel through the winnowing of Israel in AD 70. Again, this is much like Ezekiel’s practice in his vision of the valley of dry bones.
Fourth, though Ezekiel’s prophecy is concerned with Israel as a whole, whereas Daniel shows that Israel’s hope is the believing remnant.
In Daniel 12:4 the prophet hears a command to seal up his message until Israel’s end, thus delaying its prophesied actions. In Revelation 22:10 John receives a command precisely the opposite of Daniel’s, resulting in Revelation as a whole being opened and thereby fulfilled shortly: “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near” (Rev 22:10; cp. 1:1, 3; 22:6).”[5]
I feel this is by far the most glaring weakness of Gentry’s new view on Daniel 12:2, and therefore I will go ahead and do the exegetical work he can’t do and won’t do while quoting and referencing other reformed theologians to make the full preterist case.

Jesus’ Teaching on the Resurrection and Judgment of Daniel 12:1-4

Matthew 13:39-43/Daniel 12:2-3
Historical Argument:
The Jews during the times of Jesus and the NT era believed in two ages.  The first “this age” was that of the Mosaic old covenant law and prophets and the “age to come” or “age about to come” was that ushered in by Messiah and answered to the new covenant age.
“The end of this age” Exegetical Argument#1:
The new covenant age had not yet begun when Christ was teaching his audience about the judgment and resurrection which would take place at the end of their “this age” (Christ had not shed His blood yet).  Clearly the “this age” he is discussing is the old covenant age and the harvest/judgment/gathering/resurrection which would take place at that time.
Partial Preterist (Orthodox) Admission to Full Preterism confirms this interpretation:
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 son-in-law, and Director of Research for Gary DeMar’s American Vision):[6]
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 Jerusalem before 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).[7]
“The end” or “This age” Exegetical Argument #2:
“The end” of “this age” is equivalent to Daniel’s “time of the end” in (Daniel 12:4) and thus answers to the same time period.  That this is the same “time of the end” resurrection is clarified even stronger in our next argument.
“Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father” Exegetical Argument #3:
Virtually every commentator understands that Jesus is referencing the resurrection and glorification of (Daniel 12:2-3) in which the wise and righteous rise and “shine like the firmament” and “like the stars forever and ever.”
Gentry simply avoids the exegetical facts that Jesus is teaching the harvest/judgment/resurrection of Daniel 12:1-4 would be fulfilled at the end of the old covenant age in AD 70.  Here merely assumes that the parable of the wheat and tares will be fulfilled at the end of the Christian age or “end of history.”  Following James Jordan, the closest Gentry wants to come to applying the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 to Matthew 13:39-43 (the parable of the wheat and tares) is oddly in the parable right before it in Matthew 13:11-15 (the parable of the soils):
“Christ himself points out that some from Israel will believe and be saved, while others will not (e.g., Mt 10:34–36; 13:11–15), that in the removing of the kingdom from Israel many will be crushed and scattered like dust (Mt 21:43–45).”[8]
The harvest is the end of the age” Exegetical Argument #3
Gentry writes of Daniel’s resurrection,
“That is, he (Daniel) is portraying God’s separating believing Jews out of Israel through the winnowing of Israel in AD 70.”[9]
Uh, but isn’t it Jesus here in Matthew 13:39-43 that is connecting the resurrection/glorification of Daniel 12:2-3 with a “harvest” and thus a “winnowing of Israel in AD 70”?!?  Don’t be afraid of the text Ken.  At least another partial preterist Peter Leithart, who understands that the parable of the wheat and tares was fulfilled in AD 70 correctly writes, “Jesus has now come with His winnowing fork, and before the end of the age, the wheat and tares will be separated.  The end of the age thus refers not to the final judgment but to the close of “this generation.”[10]  Gentry takes the eschatological harvest/judgment/gathering of John the Baptist’s teaching in Matthew 3:7-12 as fulfilled in AD 70, so why is Ken so afraid of Jesus’ harvest/judgment/gathering in Matthew 13:39-43 as being the same harvest fulfilled in AD 70?  The answers I believe are as follows:
First, if Gentry concedes that the harvest/gathering/judgment/resurrection took place at the end of the old covenant age in AD 70, then this is but one more passage he has surrendered to full preterism – thus once again demonstrating that his writings and that of partial preterism in general “leads to full preterism” (something Gentry try’s to deny but everyone from any other eschatological school of thought knows to be true).
Secondly, if Gentry concedes that the harvest/gathering/judgment/resurrection of Matthew 13:39-43 took place in AD 70, then the harmony of Jesus’ teaching in the gospel of Matthew and exegetical evidence would demonstrate that the eschatological gathering at the “end of the age” in (Matthew 24:3, 30-31—chapter 25) was also fulfilled in AD 70 along with  the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20 at “the end [of the old covenant] age.”
Thirdly, if Gentry concedes that the harvest/gathering/judgment/resurrection of Matthew 13:39-43 took place in AD 70, then a “double,” “multiple,” “type / anti-type,” “already not yet” sell on the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 becomes virtually impossible to make to reformed/creedal orthodox folks who finance his ministry or creedal publishers who publish his materials.  This is also why American Vision and Gary DeMar have avoided this issue as well in my opinion.  If Jesus is directly teaching that the judgment and resurrection of Daniel 12:1-4, 13 would take place at the end of the old covenant “this age,” it would be pure and direct eisegesis (reading into the text something that is not there) to claim that somehow He meant that TWO different kinds of resurrections would take place in two different “this age” time frames spanning thousands or millions of years.  Early creedal statements and that of the Church fathers believed the “age to come” or “age about to come” was still future and when it came the Second Coming and judgment and resurrection of the living and dead would occur.  They did not teach that the NT’s use of the “age to come” or “age about to come” was fulfilled in AD 70 as partial preterists are now admitting and conceding to full preterism.
Concluding Daniel 12:1-4/Matthew 13:39-43 and the teachings of progressive partial preterism.  Directly or indirectly, progressive partial preterism has conceded to full preterism that Jesus taught the judgment and resurrection of the dead in Daniel 12:2-3 was fulfilled between AD 30 – AD 70 at the end of the old covenant age in fulfillment of the parable of the wheat and tares.  This begs the question as to if Jesus elsewhere in the gospels taught this AD 70 doctrine of the judgment and resurrection of the dead and if the rest of the NT applies the judgment and resurrection of the dead in Daniel 12:1-4 to AD 70 or the end of time.  To this issue we continue.
Matthew 24-25/Daniel 12:1-4

   Daniel 12:1-12

Olivet Discourse
1.  Tribulation and Abomination that causes   Desolation  (Dan. 12:1, 12) 1.  Tribulation and Abomination that causes   desolation

(Matt. 24:15, 21; Lk. 21:20-23)

2.  Judgment and Deliverance  (Dan. 12:1) 2.  Judgment and Deliverance

(Lk. 21:18-22, 28; Matt. 24:13)

3.  Resurrection  (Dan. 12:2-3) 3.  Resurrection (Matt. 13:40-43; 24:30-31; Lk.   21:27-28)
4.  The End (Dan. 12:4, 6, 8-9, 13) 4.  The End (Matt. 24:13-14)
5.  When would all this take place?  “. . .when the power [The Law] 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 one stone upon   another, that shall not be thrown down” [the destruction of the city and the   sanctuary in AD 70].”  “Verily I say   unto you, This generation shall   not pass, till all these things [judgment & resurrection] be   fulfilled.”(Matt. 24:1, 34)

 
Argument #1 The Analogy of Scripture “Parallels”
Of course progressive partial preterists such as Gary DeMar and Keith Mathison have surrendered to full preterism the belief that Matthew 24-25 cannot be divided into two comings of Christ (one in AD 70 and another at the end of time), but rather one in AD 70.  Gentry has nowhere to go at this point except to concede that this is now a legitimate and orthodox position to take although Luther, Calvin and the WCF all have taught that the coming of Christ in the OD is indeed the Second Coming.  For example the Reformation Study Bible, 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.”
It is important to note that full preterist hermeneutical “parallels” are reformed “parallels.”  Let’s briefly enjoy the analogy of Scripture which partial preterism arbitrarily rips asunder in hopes of trying to deal with NT imminence and stay creedal at the same time.
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. 21:43à22:41-44à24-25/1 Cor. 15:24-28).
This is the time for inheriting the kingdom (Lk. 21:31-32/1 Cor. 15:24).
This is the time for God’s final redemption when the sin, the death, and the Law are destroyed for God’s people (Lk. 21:27-28/1 Cor. 15:23, . The temple’s destruction =’s the death being swallowed up in victory over “the [Mosaic Torah] Law” (1 Cor. 15:55-56/Dan. 12:7).
Matthew 24 & 1 Thessalonians 4-5 Parallels
Reformed and Evangelical commentators such as G.K. Beale see that in 1 Thessalonians 4–5, Paul is drawing from Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 24.
“That both [1 Thessalonians] 4:15–18 and 5:1–11 explain the same events is discernible from observing that both passages actually form one continuous depiction of the same narrative in Matthew 24. . . .”[11]
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
Beale goes on to write:
“Other significant parallels include:  the use of the word parousia for Christ’s coming; reference to Christ’s advent as “that day” (Mt. 24:36) or “the day of the Lord” (1 Thess. 5:2); and a description of someone coming to “meet” another (eis apantesin autou, virgins coming out to “meet” the bridegroom in Mt. 25:6; eis apantesin tou kyriou, believers “meeting” the Lord in 1 Thess. 4:17; see further Waterman 1975).”[12]
Gentry, to support his argument that 2 Thessalonians 2 was fulfilled in AD 70, says that “Most commentators agree that the Olivet Discourse is undoubtedly a source of the Thessalonian Epistles.[13]  Unfortunately Gentry’s sources of authority end up proving too much.  For example, both D.A. Carson and G. Henry Waterman (the same source Beale uses) make virtually the same parallels between Matthew 24–25 and 1 Thessalonians 4–5 that we do.
Another partial preterist and outspoken critic of full preterism Keith Mathison attempts to avoid the unified parallels between Matthew 24–25 and 1 Thessalonians 4–5 by claiming that his Reformed brothers and “hyper-preterists” merely assume that “Jesus is speaking of his second advent when he speaks of ‘the coming of the Son of Man’ in Matthew 24 and that Paul is speaking of the same thing in 1 Thessalonians 4.”[14]  The notion that Mathison is trying to pawn off here in his new book From Age to Age, is that Jesus in Matthew 24-25 was not teaching on his Second Coming (thus Mathison contradicts Luther, Calvin, and the WCF) and had very little to say about it at all in the gospels, and that it was the Holy Spirit who allegedly leads Paul to develop the doctrine of the Second Coming more in-depth in 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15.  Seriously, I can’t make this stuff up folks!  Where is this taught in the reformed creeds and what early church fathers were teaching this?  The self-evident fact of the matter however is that Mathison turns a blind eye to overwhelming evidence because Mathison assumes that partial preterism is right.  It is more than inconsistent and arbitrary to claim preterist parallels between Matthew 24 and 2 Thessalonians 2[15] and between Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 5 to support AD 70 fulfillments of Pauline eschatology,[16] and then deny the obvious parallels between Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 4.  But this is what partial preterists such as Mathison do to remain creedal and support doctrines the Scripture does not teach.  This is why partial preterism is a nothing more than a stepping stone to full preterism.
Argument #2 – Christ came to fulfill “all” of the “jots and tittles” of the OT law and prophets in AD 70 (Matthew 5:17-18=Matthew 24:35).  This would have to include the judgment and resurrection of Daniel 12:1-4
Gentry says that when Christ referred to the fulfillment of “all things written” in (Luke 21:22), He was referring to Old Testament prophecies only, and that Christ therefore did not include the resurrection of all men and the Second Coming in the term “all things written.”[17]  But if Jesus came to fulfill “all” of the “jots and tittles” of the OT law and prophets when “heaven and earth” pass and if Reformed, Evangelical and partial preterist theologians are admitting that “heaven and earth” in (Matthew 5:17-18) refers to the Temple and or old covenant world of Israel which perished in AD 70, then “Houston we have a problem” for Gentry and partial preterism!  Some of the best Reformed theologians have taught that “heaven and earth” in Matthew 5:18 refers to the old covenant system which passed away in AD 70.  Reformed theologian John Brown:
But a person at all familiar with the phraseology of the Old Testament Scriptures, knows that the dissolution of the Mosaic economy, and the establishment of the Christian, is often spoken of as the removing of the old earth and heavens, and the creation of a new earth and new heavens.[18]
Evangelical theologian Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis agrees:
. . . [T]he principal reference of “heaven and earth” is the temple centered cosmology of second-temple Judaism which included the belief that the temple is heaven and earth in microcosm.  Mark 13[:31] and Matthew 5:18 refer then to the destruction of the temple as a passing away of an old cosmology. . . .[19]
One of Gentry’s co-author and partial preterist colleague’s Gary DeMar agrees and goes further building upon John Brown’s observations:
“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).  In other contexts, when stars fall, they fall to the earth, a sure sign of temporal judgment (Isa. 14:12; Dan. 8:10; Rev. 6:13; 9:1; 12:4).  So then, the “passing away of heaven and earth” is the passing away of the old covenant world of Judaism…[20]
Exegetically, Jesus says nothing about two passing’s of “heaven and earth.”  And another interpretive problem for progressive partial preterists such as Gary DeMar would be that they take both “heaven and earth” passages passing in (Matthew 5:17-18/Matthew 24:35) as the old covenant temple or world perishing in AD 70.  Follow me with these exegetical/logical points along with the teachings of reformed eschatology and see where we end up.
If the analogy of Scripture teaches us that these passages are “parallel” and thus are the same eschatological time of the end judgment and resurrection events (ie. Matthew 13:39-43=Matthew 24:31ff.=Daniel 12:1-4) and…
If Jesus’ statement of coming to fulfill “all” the OT “jots and tittles” of the law and prophets (Matthew 5:17-18) includes the judgment and resurrection of Daniel 12:1-4 (no one I know denies this).  And…
If all of the OT “law and prophets” were fulfilled when Israel’s “heaven and earth” passed in AD 70 (the necessary implication of partial preterism).  And…
If the passing of “heaven and earth” in both of these passages took place in AD 70 (ie. Matthew 5:17-18=Matthew 24:35), and…
If it is true per partial preterism (DeMar and others) that Matthew 24 cannot have double, multiple or have mixed fulfillments beyond AD 70,…
Then… the judgment and resurrection of Daniel 12:1-4 (necessarily implied in Matthew 5:17-18 and found in Matthew 13 and Matthew 24) took place at the end of the old covenant age in AD 70 and therefore, cannot have a double, mixed or fulfillment beyond AD 70.  Remember partial preterist teaching on the fulfillment of Matthew 24:  “Either the Olivet Discourse applies to a generation located in the distant future from the time the gospel writers composed the Olivet Discourse or to the generation to whom Jesus was speaking; it can’t be a little bit of both. As we will see, the interpretation of the Olivet Discourse in any of the synoptic gospels does not allow for a mixed approach, a double fulfillment, or even a future completion. Matthew 24:34 won’t allow for it.”[21]
Gentry’s assertion that Matthew 24:30-31 is not dealing with the Second Coming or resurrection event (and it’s possible that neither is Matthew 24:36ff.) is simply not valid.  It is not valid because 1)  Jesus is simply discussing the same end of the age gathering He addressed in Matthew 13:39-43 (which is Daniel 12:2-3), 2)  Pauline parallels between Matthew 24-25 / 1 Thessalonians 4-5 prove Jesus was addressing the gathering of the elect as the resurrection, 3)  When Jesus says He came to fulfill the OT law and prophets when Israel’s old covenant “heaven and earth” would pass away in such passages as Matthew 5:17-18/Luke 21:22/Matthew 24:35, He not only has the judgment and resurrection of Daniel 12:1-4 in view in Matthew 24-25 but also of what commentators and theologians have called “Isaiah’s little apocalypse” (Isa. 24—28):
“IN THAT DAY (the last day of the old covenant age) the Lord will thresh from the flowing Euphrates to the Wadi of Egypt, and you, O Israelites, WILL BE GATHERED (cf. Matt. 13:39-43, 49/Matt. 24:30-31/2 Thess. 2:1) up one by one. And in THAT DAY A GREAT TRUMPET WILL SOUND (Matt. 24:30-31/1 Thess. 4:15-17/1 Cor. 15:52) those who were perishing in Assyria and those who WORSHIP THE LORD ON THE HOLY MOUNTAIN IN JERUSALEM.” (Isa. 27:13).
Of Isaiah 27:13‘s connection with the NT texts I inserted above, let’s turn to G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson for support:
“The trumpet as a sign of the day of the Lord in 1 Cor. 15:52 recalls Isa. 27:13…” Of 2 Thessalonians 2:1, “The content of Paul’s appeal in this section concerns not only “the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,” but also “our gathering to him.” The immediate reference to this latter subject is the comforting picture given in the previous letter of how all believers, both those who have died and those who are still alive, will be gathered together to Jesus at his return (1 Thess. 4:16–17). The motif, however, goes back to the widespread OT hope in the gathering together of the scattered exiles to their own land on the day of the Lord (Ps. 106:47 [105:47 LXX]; Isa. 27:13; 43:4–7; 49:12; 56:8; Jer. 29:14; 30:3, 18; 31:8, 23; 33:7; Joel 3:1–2; Zech 2:6; Tob. 14:5; 2 Macc. 1:27; 2:7, 18; Pss. Sol. 17:50; T. Ash. 7:6–7; T. Naph. 8:3). This hope was taken over by Jesus and his scattered followers to refer to the final gathering of God’s people with the Messiah (Matt. 24:31 par.; cf. 23:37 par.).[22]
Within “Isaiah’s little apocalypse” the resurrection is to take place at the time of this trumpet gathering in Isaiah 27:13 and on a mountain where the wedding feast takes place Isaiah 25:6-8.  In Jewish weddings the feast always follows the wedding which leads us to our next argument.
Argument # 3 Wedding=Resurrection
If the parousia of Christ in both Matthew 24-25 is pointing to Christ coming to close the old covenant age in AD 70 (DeMar and Mathison’s view with Gentry seeing no problem with it), and if the wedding takes place at this time (cf. Matthew 25:1-13), then it necessarily follows that the resurrection of Isaiah 25:6-8 was also fulfilled in AD 70.
Daniel’s time of the end judgment and resurrection had to either be fulfilled at the end of the old covenant age in AD 70 or at the end of the Christian age – it can’t be both!  Either the passing of “heaven and earth” and the fulfilling of all the OT law and prophets were fulfilled when Israel’s old covenant world “heaven and earth” passed away with the destruction of the temple in AD 70, or it refers to the literal planet at the end of time – it can’t be both!  Either Christ came in His parousia and the wedding/resurrection took place in AD 70 or it takes place at the end of time – it can’t be both!  Whey?  Because in the words of DeMar,  “…Matthew 24:34 won’t allow for it.”
Concluding the teachings of progressive partial preterism on Matthew 24-25/Daniel 12:1-4.  Through 1)  the analogy of Scripture and 2) seeing that Jesus came to fulfill all the OT law and prophets by AD 70 in such passages as Matthew 5:17-18/Matthew 24:35/Luke 21:22 full preterism is justified in taking a consistently reformed position that the judgment and resurrection of the dead described by Jesus and Daniel in Matthew 13:39-43=Daniel 12:1-4=Matthew 24-25 were events fulfilled at the end of the old covenant age in AD 70.  This is when all OT prophecy was fulfilled (cf. Luke 21:20-22/Matthew 5:17-18/Matthew 24:35) and there can be no double, multiple, or mixed fulfillments of this prophetic material beyond AD 70.  This is consistent reformed eschatology pure and simple.  Selah.
John 5:28-29/Daniel 12:1-2
Commentators have long understood that Daniel 12:2 is the source for Jesus’ teaching on the resurrection in John 5:28-29 because the only OT passage which mentions a resurrection for both the righteous and the wicked is Daniel 12:2 and the only OT passage addressing “eternal life” is Daniel 12:2.  G.K. Beale points out an additional connection – in that Jesus is following the (OG) LXX of Daniel 12:1-2, 4 when it comes to this coming resurrection “hour” of both believers and unbelievers:[23]
The “already” or imminent “already”

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

 The “not yet”

Daniel 12:1:    “And at that hour…” John 5:28:    “…for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear   His voice,
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.” 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.”MJS – also related:1 John 2:18:    “Dear children it is the last hour…”Revelation   14:7:  “…the hour of His judgment has come.”

From the very start Gentry is at odds with reformed theologians such as G.K. Beale.  Both believe that the resurrection of John 5:28-29 is the “not yet” of a physical resurrection at the end of history, but consider the problem in that Beale believes the “not yet” resurrection “hour” of Daniel 12:1-2—John 5:28-29—1 John 2:17—Revelation 14:7 are all the same event to be fulfilled at the end of history, while Gentry on the other hand believes the judgment and resurrection “hour” of Daniel 12:1-2—1 John 2:17—Revelation 14:7 were fulfilled in AD 70!  However, both reformed views form full preterism when it comes to John’s judgment and resurrection “hour.”  Beale (nor the classical Reformed amillennial position) does not give the “not yet” judgment and resurrection of Daniel 12:1-4 TWO end of the age (“not yet”) fulfillments as the progressive partial preterists are now forced to do — in order to try and be consistent with NT imminence while trying to please creedal supporters at the same time.
In commenting on the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 Gentry mentions the spiritual and corporate nature of the resurrection for Israel in Ezekiel 37 a lot to support his corporate view of Israel being raised into the new covenant Israel by AD 70.  Well, since there was a spiritual and corporate resurrection of the dead coming out of their graves in Ezekiel 37 and there is a spiritual fulfillment for the dead rising within the immediate context of John 5:24-26, there is no exegetical reason why the new covenant anti-type coming resurrection hour out of graves in John 5:28-29 is not also a corporate and spiritual resurrection.
Since partial preterism is now teaching that the resurrection of John 5:28-29 is the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 and are fulfilled together, and that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 happened in AD 70, it necessarily follows that they need to prove without a shadow of doubt that the resurrection of John 5:28-29 is a physical/biological resurrection which takes place at the end of history and not the AD 70 one.  And if I’m not mistaken Joel McDurmon has also said that this passage could have had a fulfillment in AD 70 just like there “could” have been one in 1 Corinthians 15 and Revelation 20.  Gentry and partial preterism in general have not brought forth any compelling exegetical evidence that John 5:28-29 refers to a biological resurrection at the end of history.
David Green in response to Strimple in our book House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to When Shall These Things Be?, has updated his response a bit on this passage (see pages 178-180):
Strimple Argument #6: John 5:28-29 obviously teaches a physical resurrection of the dead in that it speaks of a time in which “all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment” (297).
Answer: In order to understand John 5:28 and 29, we must first look three verses above it, in John 5:25, where Jesus said that the hour “now is” when “the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live.”  As most Reformed interpreters agree, Jesus in that verse was referring to the preaching of His death and resurrection.  The preaching of that message commenced at Pentecost.  “The dead” were physically living people who were spiritually dead in sin, and “the voice of the Son of God” was the gospel.  Having heard the gospel, those who were spiritually “dead” were spiritually resurrected.  They lived in that they received eternal life through faith in the gospel (“the voice of the Son of God”).
Then, in verses 28 and 29, Jesus expanded His teaching on the resurrection to include those who were not only spiritually dead, but who were also physically dead.  He did not call them “dead” (as He had already called the living who were spiritually dead), but He referred to them through another figure of speech as “all who are in the graves.”  They were not literally in their graves or tombs, of course, but were in Hades/Sheol.
What is often missed in this passage is that, like the physically living in verse 25, the physically dead in verse 28 were also going to live by means of hearing Christ’s “voice.”  As we know from verse 25, that “voice” is the gospel.  The physically dead therefore were going to hear the gospel (cf. 1 Pet. 4:6.) and were, as a result of hearing the gospel, going to be resurrected (regenerated, born from out of death and Hades).  This means that the physically dead were, like the physically living, spiritually dead.  And this inescapably means that both the physically living and the physically dead were going to be spiritually resurrected by means of the gospel-voice of the Son of God.  One resurrection in two main stages:  First, the last days saints; then, the Old Testament dead (“the rest of the dead” in Revelation 20:5). Note the parallels between John 4:21, 23 and John 5:25, 28:

  1. . . . [T]he hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth. . . . (Jn. 4:23)
  2. . . . [T]he hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. (Jn. 4:21)

1. . . . [T]he hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. (Jn. 5:25)
2. . . . [T]he hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice. . . . (Jn. 5:28)
These two sets of prophecies are parallel.  They speak of the same timeframes, which were these:
Pentecost (AD 30)
1. The true worshipers would worship the Father in spirit and in truth.

  1. The dead would hear the voice of the Son of God, and live.

Fall of Jerusalem (AD 70)

  1. God’s worshipers would no longer worship Him in Jerusalem.

2. 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).”
Gentry agrees with full preterism that Jesus’ “already and not yet” eschatological “hour” in John 4 is between AD 30 – AD 70 when the old covenant mountain and temple worship is removed and the new established,[24] but then Gentry would claim Jesus’ same phrases on the coming eschatological “hour” in John 5 allegedly deal with the end of time.  We again find this arbitrary and exegetically unconvincing.

The Apostle Paul’s teaching on the Resurrection and Judgment of Daniel 12:1-4

We now turn our attention to Pauline eschatology and how Paul develops the resurrection of  Daniel 12:2, 13 in the NT.  Does Paul follow the same teaching that Jesus does in the gospels concerning an imminent AD 70 “hour” and judgment/resurrection of the living and dead?
Acts 24:15/Daniel 12:2
Paul, in agreement with Daniel and Jesus, also taught that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 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 of righteous and unrighteous (Acts 24:15, YLT & WEY)
Argument #1 – Paul taught the OT resurrection:
The Apostle Paul taught, “…nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place” (Acts 26:21-23).  This would obviously include Daniel 12:2
Argument #2 – Only one place in Prophets that predicted a resurrection for both groups:
There is only one passage found in “the law and prophets” (Acts 24:14-15) that explicitly speaks of a resurrection of believers and unbelievers, and that is Daniel 12:2.  This is Paul’s source in Acts 24:15, as virtually any commentary or scholarly work agrees.
Argument #3 – Paul’s resurrection was “about to” take place:
Paul says that Daniel’s resurrection was “about to” take place.  Although Gentry has completely ignored arguments 2-3 above, he has tried to appeal to lexical and language works such as BDAG to get rid of the imminence in this passage.[25]  He and other partial preterists appeal to YLT and WEY translations in supporting passages they want to be fulfilled in AD 70 when debating futurists, but somehow everyone is supposed to think that these translations must be in error if they posit the resurrection as being imminent in the first century when debating full preterist’s.  Unbelievable. 
Argument #4 – The burden of proof is now upon Gentry:
Gentry’s new progressive partial preterist interpretation that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 was fulfilled in AD 70 begs the question – if Jesus in the gospels and John in the book of Revelation apply the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 to AD 70, then why is it a stretch to believe that the Apostle Paul isn’t developing the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 in Acts 24:15 to AD 70 as well?
In Gentry’s article Acts 24:15 AND THE ALLEGED NEARNESS OF THE RESURRECTION,[26] he claims this passage does not support a full preterist interpretation concerning the judgment and resurrection of the dead.  Since Gentry and his partial preterist partners in crime have stolen a full preterist view of an AD 30 – AD 70 “already and not yet” resurrection (one that was progressive, spiritual, and corporate for Israel resulting in the souls of saints being raised out Hades or Abraham’s Bosom) the burden of proof is now upon Gentry to prove that Acts 24:15 isn’t the AD 70 judgment and resurrection he claims did take place in AD 70 (no matter if mello here should be translated as “about to” or not)!
Argument #5 – Cowards are usually found hiding and unable to respond:
Gentry will not allow myself, Don Preston or William Bell to add comments under his articles on his site, because he doesn’t want to look bad and have us demonstrate to his readers how indeed his teachings are in fact leading people to full preterism.  Nor does he want it publicly pointed out how he is avoiding 3 out of the 4 arguments that we have given on this passage (see above).  I continue to find Gentry arrogant, deceptive, ignorant and unscholarly when he behaves in such a manner.
Romans 13:11-12/Romans 8:18-23 YLT/Romans 11:11-27 & Daniel 12
Again since Paul taught no other things on the resurrection except that which could be found in the law and the prophets, it is no stretch to see that Daniel’s “hour” (cf. OG LXX) in Daniel 12:1-2 of resurrection is not only Jesus’ or John’s in (John 5:28-29) but also in Paul’s (Romans 13:11-12).  If Beale is correct in that the judgment and resurrection of Daniel 12:1-2 has an “already and not yet” aspect to it, and he makes parallel’s to the (OG) LXX with that of the “already and not yet” “hour” of John 5:24-29, then I see no reason why Paul is not drawing from that same “hour” and waking out of “sleep” here:  “Besides this you know what hour it is (cf. 1 John 2:17-18), how it is full time (the end time or time of the end of Daniel 12:4) now for you to wake from sleep (Dan. 12:2). For salvation (cf. Dan. 9:24 – finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness) is nearer to us now than when we first believed (the NT’s “already”); the night is far gone, the day is at hand (the NT’s AD 70 “not yet”). Let us then cast off the works of darkness and put on (the transformation resurrection process) the armor of light; (Romans 13:11-12).

Daniel 12:1:    “And at that hour…” Romans 13:11:    “…you know what hour it is…”
Daniel 12:4:    “the end time” or “time of the end” Romans 13:11:    “…how it is full time…”
Daniel 12:2:    “Many of those who sleep in the width of the earth will arise Romans 13:11:    “The hour has come for you to wake up from your sleep…”

Partial preterists such as Jordan and Gentry believe that Jesus and the Apostle John taught that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 had a spiritual and corporate body resurrection process taking place between AD 30 – AD 70.  We have this already and imminent not yet process in Paul’s theology on the resurrection in this passage as well pointing to AD 70.
Argument #1 – Imminence:
The resurrection of Romans 13:11-12 was the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 and it was “at hand.”
Argument #2 – The analogy of Scripture:
Partial preterists have acknowledged that Romans 13:11-12 was fulfilled in AD 70 and yet the Reformed Study Bible and classic amillennialists believe that the restoration of creation and the resurrection or redemption of the body in Romans 8:18-23 are the same events.  We couldn’t agree more and accept both of these reformed conclusions!
Argument #3 – Imminence in Romans 8:18-23 YLT and analogy of Scripture:
In our second edition of House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology (pages 116-120) I pointed out how Gary DeMar (Mathison and Gentry’s partner in crime when it comes to trying to overthrow full preterism) agrees with us and the YLT and WEY translations that the glorification of the Church or the “glory” that was “about to be revealed” points to an AD 70 fulfillment of (Romans 8:18).  At least this is more progressive and honest than Gentry’s more than inconsistent “scholarship” on mello here.  I wrote the following and would like a response from Mr. Gentry:
“It is more than arbitrary for partial preterists such as Gentry to honor Young’s literal translation of mello in Revelation 1:19 when debating Dispensationalists and Amimmennialists, but then not honor it in Romans 8:18 when debating full preterists.  Mello is used in the aorist infinitive in both verses.  Gentry writes of mello in Revelation 1:19:
…this term means “be on the point of, be about to.” …According to Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible, Revelation 1:19 reads: “Write the things that thou hast seen, and the things that are, and the things that are about to come [mello] after these things.” The leading interlinear versions of the New Testament concur. This is surely the proper translation of the verse.[27]    …when used with the aorist infinitive — as in Revelation 1:19 — the word’s preponderate usage and preferred meaning is: “be on the point of, be about to.  The same is true when the word is used with the present infinitive, as in the Rev. 3:10.[28]  Unfortunately, none of the major translators cited above translates Revelation 1:19 in a literal fashion.[29]
Where is Gentry’s disappointment when it comes to translators not translating Romans 8:18 by the same grammatical standard?  It is nowhere to be found, even though there are two other Greek words of imminence (apokaradokia and apekdekomai —  “eagerly waiting”) within the immediate context.
At least partial preterist Gary DeMar has tried to be more consistent with a proper translation of mello in Romans 8:18. Citing Robert Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible he writes:“Whatever the glory is it was ‘about to be revealed’…”[30]
We appreciate the honesty on properly translating mello here as “about to be revealed,” but contextually there is no ambiguity as to what the imminent manifestation of this “glory” was — the liberation of creation from its groaning and bondage, the full adoption of the sons of God, and the “redemption of the body” (vss. 18-23).”
To further complicate matters for progressive partial preterists such as Gentry, Mathison and DeMar on Paul’s imminent expectation of the glorification of the Church, liberation of creation, full adoption of the sons of God and the resurrection or redemption of the body in Romans 8:18-23 is my reference to John Lightfoot (one their favorite partial preterists to quote) who in no uncertain terms held to a full preterist view of the “creation” groaning – being men and not the planet earth (not even poetically).
And of course one final response to Gentry here on the use of mello in Romans 8:18 – Ken used BDAG as virtually his end all argument in his attempt to translate mello in (Acts 24:15) as “shall” or “will” instead of “about to be,” and yet BDAG references (Romans 8:18) as “about to be revealed.”  Once again we find partial preterist’s such as Gentry being unable to deal with what other partial preterists teach on important texts and or are using grammatical arguments and linguistic works arbitrarily.
Argument #4 – Romans 11:11-27:
Gentry, and his anti-full preterist co-authors in WSTTB? and other partial preterist associates form full preterism – the imminent glorification, restoration of creation, and resurrection in (Romans 8:18-23) and (Romans 13:11-12) were “about to be” fulfilled in an AD 70 “at hand” time frame along with a third resurrection text partial preterists take as fulfilled in AD 70 (“all Israel shall be saved” being “life from the dead”) which to my knowledge Gentry has not acknowledged along with Mathison (Romans 11:11-27) (see pages 126-128):
“Mathison neglects to interact with other partial preterists such as DeMar and Jordan who teach that “all Israel” was saved by AD 70 and that covenantally, there no longer remain “ethnic” Jews after AD 70.[31] Why was not the view of DeMar and Jordan one of the many “possible interpretations” within Mathison’s eschatology of uncertainty?”
To drive the point home again – if it is true that there was a spiritual corporate (process and covenantal) resurrection which was fulfilled to close the old covenant age in AD 70 (climaxing with dead saints such as Daniel himself being raised out of Hades or Abraham’s Bosom) per orthodox partial preterism, then why wouldn’t the Apostle Paul be teaching this kind of resurrection in Acts 24:15 YLT; Romans 8:18-23 YLT; Romans 13:11-12; and Romans 11:11-27?  If not why not Mr. Gentry?  And if so partial preterists such as Joel McDurmon need to prove from these passages that both an AD 70 resurrection is in view but an ultimate physical one is found in the text as well.
1 Corinthians 15/Daniel 12:1-4
Again, we would concur with Reformed Study Bibles, commentators and theologians whom state that Paul is following Christ’s eschatology and thus the two are “parallel” in such passages as Matthew 13:39-43; Matthew 24-25; 1 Thessalonians 4-5 and 1 Corinthians 15.  Or that Daniel’s resurrection is Paul’s in 1 Corinthians 15.  But can Gentry and Jordan’s progressive AD 30 – AD 70 resurrection for Israel resulting in the dead being raised out of Hades be seen in 1 Corinthians 15?  As Joel McDurmon has admitted there could have been an AD 70 fulfillment of the passage.

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 [the Mosaic OC law] is completely shattered (v.   7) 3.  When victory over “the [Mosaic OC] law” comes (v. 56)

Argument #1 The rising of the dead:
There definitely seems to be good reason to plug Gentry’s progressive and corporate view of the resurrection of Israel into 1 Corinthians 15.
Wuest’s translation of the present tense of (1 Cor. 15:25) correctly renders the last enemy of death as in the process of “being” destroyed.  Obviously this is not a fleshly corpse resurrection taking place over the last two thousand years.  Are corpses coming out of the ground?  Are men living to be 500-900 years old?  No.  But between AD 30 – AD 70 the administration of the old covenant condemning power of “the law” was present and its promises contained in the Law and Prophets had not been completely fulfilled (Matt. 5:17-19/1 Cor. 15:54-56).
In Hosea, Israel had been sown in death and captivity but she was in the process of being raised from something greater than a Gentile power (ie. “the death” that came through Adam), united together, and transformed through the good news of the new covenant.  Israel’s process of being transformed and being sown and rising from old covenant glory into new covenant glory in (1Cor. 15 & 2 Cor. 3) should be viewed together.  The Greek and grammar of these passages being in the present passive indicatives renders a more probable translation of “if the dead are not rising,”(vss. 16, 29, 32), “the death being destroyed” (vs.26), “But God is giving it a body,” (vs.38) and,  “So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is being sown in corruption; it is being raised in incorruption:  It is being sown in dishonour; it is being raised in glory: it is being sown in weakness; it is being raised in power:  It is being sown a natural body; it is being raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body” (vss.42-44).  Gordon Fee in his work on (1Cor.15) puzzles over this,
“The grammar of this sentence is somewhat puzzling…” “The sentence literally reads, “The last enemy is being destroyed.”[32]
Perhaps something else that might be “puzzling” in 1 Corinthians 15 that my friend Don K. Preston pointed out to me at the Criswell Conference concerning (1 Corinthians 15:49) is that  the text does not say “we shall bear the image” it is literally “let us bear the image.”  It is in the subjunctive, (phoresomen) not simple future!  That first century Christians were playing an active role in their resurrection (through the sovereign power and free grace of God) is something that we have already seen in the “already and not yet” resurrection of Romans 13:11-12/Daniel 12:1-2.
Most if not all of Gentry’s amillennial co-authors in WSTTB? would agree with the Reformed Study Bible for example which equates the parousia and or resurrection of Matthew 13:39-43; Matthew 24:27-31 with 1 Corinthians 15:
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.”
The classic amillennial position is that the one end time resurrection and judgment of Daniel 12:1-4 is the resurrection and judgment Paul is developing in 1 Corinthians 15.  So…
Argument #2 – Analogy of Scripture:
If it is true that the resurrection and judgment of Daniel 12:1-4 was fulfilled in AD 70 (per Gentry) and if it is also true that the resurrection and judgment of Daniel 12:1-4 is the same time of the end resurrection described by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 (which cannot be double fulfilled – per classic amillennial view), then the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 was fulfilled in AD 70.  This is a perfectly logical and reformed conclusion to make regarding the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15.
There are many more full preterist arguments that Gentry needs to respond to when it comes to 1 Corinthians 15 which are addressed in chapter seven of our book, House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology.

The book of Revelation and Daniel 12:1-4

Revelation 20/Daniel 12
Gentry has been very outspoken that the millennium of Revelation 20 was not fulfilled by AD 70 and yet at the same time holds that there was a progressive judgment and resurrection for Israel between AD 30 – AD 70.  In our second edition of HD, I added seven closing arguments or points on the millennium of Revelation 20 which would also refute Gentry’s futuristic position (pages 131-133):
“In scriptural usage, a symbolic “thousand” can be likened to “one” (day / yesterday / a watch in the night), or used in reference to millions of hills, or to eternity (“forever”). A “thousand” can be likened unto or used to represent a number lesser or greater than a literal thousand. Only its context can determine its literal numerical meaning, but the basic idea that is communicated by the number is “fullness.” As G. K. Beale wrote, “The primary point of the thousand years is probably not a figurative reference to a long time . . .”[33]
To conclude my section on the millennium of Revelation 20, please consider the following exegetical, orthodox, and historical points:
Kenneth Gentry informs us that the book of Revelation is about things which were past, present, and “about to be” fulfilled in John’s day (Rev. 1:19, YLT). There is no exegetical evidence that Revelation 20 does not fall within these inspired parameters.
As G.K. Beale has said, the symbol of the thousand years does not have to be taken as describing a long period of time (i.e., thousands of years).
It has also been acknowledged by Reformed theologians that many Rabbis believed that the period of Messiah was to be a transitionary stage between “this age/world and the age/ world to come.”  These Rabbis (such as R. Adiba), understood this transition period to be forty years, based upon how long the Israelites were in the wilderness before inheriting the land. This type/anti-type understanding is developed for us in the book of Hebrews (cf. Heb. 3-4; 10:25, 37; 11—13:14, YLT).  And as we have noted from Reformed partial preterists such as Joel McDurmon and Gary DeMar, it is within the realm of Reformed orthodoxy to believe that Jesus’ and Paul’s “this age/world” was the old covenant age, and that “the last days” were the days of transition between the old covenant age and the new covenant age (AD 30 – 70).
Reformed partial preterists such as Keith Mathison, Kenneth Gentry, and James Jordan teach that the content of Revelation 1-19 and 21-22 was fulfilled by AD 70, at which time there was a judgment and resurrection of the dead and arrival of the new creation.  And amillennialists such as Simon Kistemaker teach that Revelation 20:5–15 recapitulates the same judgment and consummation scenes that are depicted in chapters 1–19 and 21–22.  Full preterists hold to both of these Reformed and “orthodox” positions in interpreting the book of Revelation.
In criticizing the premillennial view, which often seeks to isolate Revelation 20 from the rest of the New Testament, amillennialists and many postmillennialists hold that Revelation 20 falls within the “already and not yet” of the “last days” period in the New Testament, and that this transition period is depicted in the parable of the wheat and tares, or in Matthew 24–25.  But as we have seen, it is “orthodox” to believe the “last days” ended with the old covenant age in AD 70, and that the harvest/gathering and coming of Christ in Matthew 13 and 24–25 was fulfilled by AD 70.
If it is true that a) the coming of Christ in Matthew 24 and 25 is referring to the AD 70 judgment, as Mathison and other partial preterists are now proposing, and if it is true that b) John’s version of Matthew 24-25 is found in the book of Revelation, and if it is true that c) Matthew 24:27-31 — 25:31ff. is descriptive of the one end-of-the-age Second Coming, judgment, and resurrection event (the creedal position), then d) the authors of WSTTB have some explaining to do, because these orthodox doctrines form the “this-generation” forty year millennial view of full preterism.

MATTHEW 24-25

REVELATION 20:5-15

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

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

DANIEL   12:1-2

REVELATION   20:5-15

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

Therefore, the reader should be able to discern that the full preterist view of the millennium is: 1) consistent with the teaching of Revelation, 2) falls within the “orthodox” views the Reformed church, 3) is in harmony with the analogy of Scripture, and 4) has historical support from Rabbis who saw a forty-year transition period between the two ages. Our view on the millennium is exegetically sound and orthodox. It is not as “difficult” as Mathison attempts to portray it.”
Mr. Gentry wants to apply his AD 30 – AD 70 judgment and resurrection view of Daniel 12:1-4 in Revelation 7 and 14 but doesn’t want to touch upon where everyone clearly sees Daniel 12:1-4 being fulfilled in the book of Revelation – ie. Revelation 20!  This appears to be once again an arbitrary creedal philosophy guiding him and not a commitment to “sola scriptura” or sound exegesis.  Again, Ken has already informed his readers that anyone wanting to give multiple or double fulfillments to his AD 70 fulfillments in the book of Revelation, would be guilty of “pure theological assertion” which  has “no exegetical warrant.”[34]  So he can’t then turn around and claim that John in Revelation 7 and 14 is giving the judgment and resurrection of Daniel 12:1-2 two fulfillments.  He sure would have to disagree with partial preterist Joel McDurmon who claimed there could have been an AD 70 fulfillment of the resurrection in Revelation 20 but it would also have to have another “final” fulfillment at the end of time.  McDurmon’s comments are indeed “pure theological assertion” without “exegetical warrant.”
I’m sure Ken would say that John in Revelation 7 and 14 is using the judgment and resurrection of Daniel 12:1-4 typologically to point to AD 70 whereas in Revelation 20 he is using Daniel 12:1-4 to refer to the “final” resurrection.  But once again reformed theology sees an “already” resurrection process for the living taking place in Revelation 20 culminating in what partial preterist James Jordan sees as a resurrection for Daniel’s soul being raised out of Hades or Abraham’s Bosom (per Daniel 12:2, 13/Revelation 20).  After all, where in Revelation 20 is there any mention of a physical or biological resurrection per Gentry?  Only “souls” are mentioned.  And your typical amillennialist is going to tell us that the same end time resurrection and judgment of the dead in Revelation 7, 11 and 14 is then recapitulated in Revelation 20.  These are orthodox views that full preterists have taken on the judgment and resurrection of the dead in Revelation 11, 7, 14 and 20.  We have no desire to “go beyond what is written” or “add” to the prophetic material in Revelation so that we can be creedal.  When creedal tradition seeks to trump sound exegesis, it’s time for the true reformed Christians to make a stand on sound exegesis and what the historical church (combined amillennial and partial preterists) have written on the millennium of Revelation 20.

Conclusion

If no written or printed response is forthcoming from Mr. Gentry and his co-authors of WSTTB? to our second edition of HD, then I will conclude with Gary North’s kind of logic in these matters and that this debate is over because no consistent exegetical one can be given.  I wanted to express my sincere appreciation to the work that Mr. Gentry and his co-authors and anti-full preterist associates have done thus far in demonstrating what full preterists have been saying all along:  the “one” Second Coming or “THE parousia” of Christ attended with the one judgment and resurrection of the living and dead was a process from AD 30 to AD 70 for Israel coming out of her old covenant world/body and into the her new covenant world/body, was spiritual, corporate, resulting in the souls of men such as Daniel (Daniel 12:13) being raised out of Hades or Abraham’s Bosom to close the old covenant age in AD 70.
This article has proven that progressive partial preterists have indeed “given the farm away” to full preterism when it comes to the judgment and resurrection of the dead.  This used to be the defining difference between the two views, but as we have seen Gentry and his progressive partial preterist associates have only stolen our AD 70 judgment and resurrection view of the living and dead (w/out giving us credit) and simply asserted with no exegetical evidence that such passages as John 5:28-29; Acts 24:15YLT; 1 Corinthians 15; and Revelation 20 teach two fulfillments or that a biological resurrection at the end of time is present in any of these passages.
Gentry co-authored a book entitled, HOUSE DIVIDED THE BREAK-UP OF DISPENSATIONAL THEOLOGY in which he and others demonstrated that progressive dispensationalists have given the farm away to covenant theology/eschatology and thus there remains nothing left to dispensationalism.  They must accept that their house is falling apart and cannot stand or accept covenant theology/eschatology.  Gentry is now on the receiving end of this kind of logic.  Our “House Divided” book has demonstrated without a shadow of doubt that progressive partial preterists such as Gentry, DeMar, McDurmon and Mathison combined with the classical amillennial and creedal views form full preterism and they can either accept this or watch their house continue to fall at the feet of full preterism.



[1] Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. He Shall Have Dominion (Draper, VA:  Apologetics Group Media, 2009 Third Edition), 538.
[2] Kenneth Gentry, DANIEL 12, TRIBULATION AND RESURRECTION, http://postmillennialism.com/2012/03/daniel-12-tribulation-and-resurrection/
[3] Gary DeMar, The Olivet Discourse: The Test of Truth, http://www. americanvision.org/blog/?p=190
[4] Kenneth Gentry, Four Views on the Book of Revelation, ed. C. Marvin Pate (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 43–44.
[5] Kenneth Gentry, DANIEL 12, TRIBULATION AND RESURRECTION, http://postmillennialism.com/2012/03/daniel-12-tribulation-and-resurrection/
[6]   Gary North, perhaps not knowing his own son-in-law’s position at the time, wrote in 2001: “Anyone who equates the fulfillment of [the parable of the wheat and tares] with A.D. 70 has broken with the historic faith of the church.” http://www.preteristcosmos.com/garynorth-dualism.html
[7] . Joel McDurmon, Jesus v. Jerusalem: A Commentary on Luke 9:51 – 20:26, Jesus’ Lawsuit Against Israel (Powder Springs, GA: The American Vision, Inc., 2011), 48-49; see entire section 43-51. One of DeMar’s co-authors
Peter Leithart, has also conceded that the parable of the wheat and tares was fulfilled in the first century, Peter J. Leithart, The Promise of His Appearing:  An Exposition of Second Peter (Moscow, ID:  Canon Press, 2004), 95.
[8] Kenneth Gentry, DANIEL 12, TRIBULATION AND RESURRECTION, http://postmillennialism.com/2012/03/daniel-12-tribulation-and-resurrection/
[9] Ibid.
[10] Peter J. Leithart, The Promise of His Appearing:  An Exposition of Second Peter (Moscow, ID:  Canon Press, 2004), 95.
[11] G.K. Beale, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series 1–2 Thessalo-nians (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2003), 136.  Copyright 2003 by G.K. Beale.  Some Progressive Partial Preterists are now agreeing that 1 Thessalonians 4:15–17 took place in AD 70.  Mike Bull is admitting that Gentry and Mathison are forced to “dodge and weave to put this passage [1 Thess. 4:15-17] into our future.” Mike Bull, The Last Trumpet, http://www.bullartistry.com.au/ wp/2011/06/05/the-last-trumpet/

[12] . Ibid, 136–137.

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

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

[15] . Mathison, Postmillenialism, 230.

[16] . Ibid, 226.

[17]Dominion, 542.

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

[19] .    Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis, Edited by Kent E. Brower & Mark W. Elliot, Eschatology in Bible & Theology: Evangelical Essays at the Dawn of a New Millennium (Downers Grove, IL:  Inter Varsity Press, 1997), 145.

[20] DeMar, Last Days Madness, Ibid. Fourth revised edition, 192.
[21] Gary DeMar, The Olivet Discourse: The Test of Truth, http://www. americanvision.org/blog/?p=190
[22] Beale, G. K., & Carson, D. A. (2007). Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament (747, 886–887). Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, UK: Baker Academic; Apollos..

[23] 0. G.K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of The

Old Testament In The New (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), 131132.

[24] Gentry, ibid. FOUR VIEWS ON THE BOOK OF REVELATION, 43.
[25] Kenneth L. Gentry, Acts 24:15 AND THE ALLEGED NEARNESS OF THE RESURRECTION http://postmillennialism.com/2012/02/acts-2415-and-the-alleged-nearness-of-the-resurrection/
[26] Kenneth Gentry, Acts 24:15 AND THE ALLEGED NEARNESS OF THE RESURRECTION, http://postmillennialism.com/2012/02/acts-2415-and-the-alleged-nearness-of-the-resurrection/
[27] . Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., The Beast of Revelation, (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), 23–24.
[28] . Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Before Jerusalem Fell, (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), 141–142.

[29] . Ibid., 141.

[30] . Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church, (Powder Springs, GA:  American Vision, 1999), 225.

[31] Gary DeMar, All Israel will be saved:  Notes on Romans 11:26, American Vision http://americanvision.org/1234/all-israel-will-be-saved-notes-onromans/#.UG3auVGJr3A.  James B. Jordan, The Future of Israel Re-examined, July 1991. Biblical Horizons, No. 27 July, 1991

[32] Gordon D. Fee, THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, (Grand Rapids, MI:  Eerdmans Publishing, 1987), 756.
[33] . G. K. Beale, The New International Greek Testament Commentary: The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999), 1018.
[34] Kenneth Gentry, Four Views on the Book of Revelation, ed. C. Marvin Pate (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 43–44.
 

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

House Divided

Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

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

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

1).  Exegesis of Daniel 12:2

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

2).  Exegesis of John 5:28-29

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

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

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

3).  An Exposition of 1 Corinthians 15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i.e., the habitation of

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

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

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

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

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

Or

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

Of these two possibilities, Paul countered the first in passing (1 Cor. 15:27), but rigorously pursued the implications of the second. As we know, many at Corinth were living as though the second possibility was the truth.
As Paul reasoned: If Christ did not come to accomplish the Father’s work of restoration (Isa. 55:11), to gather and uni