The Whole Creation Groans: Romans 8 and the Glory “About to Be” Revealed–Covenant Creation, the Adam-to-Moses Problem, and the Liberation of God’s Covenant Creation (Part 7A)

Romans 8 does not describe a physical creation waiting thousands of years for planetary renovation. Paul places “the creation,” its liberation from bondage, the manifestation of the sons of God, and “the redemption of our body” within one approaching eschatological expectation—the glory that was “about to be revealed” (Rom. 8:18–23).

Part 7A follows Paul’s redemptive chronology from Adamic Sin and Death, to Israel’s Exodus-Sinai covenant creation under Torah, to Christ and resurrection Life, and finally to the apostolic expansion of the gospel from Israel to “the whole creation”—Jew and Gentile—in anticipation of the AD 70 consummation. This reading challenges Covenant Creation without surrendering Full Preterism: Sinai does not belong in Genesis 1, and Paul’s approaching resurrection and new-creation hope does not belong thousands of years beyond his first-century audience. It also begins to expose the fatal problem for Israel Only: covenant incorporation into God’s people was never reducible to biological descent.

Romans 8:18–23: The Argument in Brief

Because this study of Romans 8:18–23 has developed into three substantial parts, 7A–7C, it will help to state my interpretation of the passage before defending each element in detail. Paul is not abruptly introducing a future transformation of the physical universe or the biological resurrection of individual human bodies. Romans 8:18–23 brings the argument of Romans 5–8 toward its eschatological climax. Adam introduced Sin and spiritual Death into the human world; Israel was subsequently created as God’s covenant people through the Exodus and Sinai; Torah entered that already-existing Adamic reign of Sin and Death but could not impart resurrection Life; and Christ, the Last Adam, brought the righteousness, Spirit, and Life necessary to accomplish what the Law could never accomplish.

That chronology is fundamental. Death does not begin at Sinai. Paul explicitly says that Death reigned “from Adam to Moses” (Rom. 5:14). Israel’s covenant creation therefore takes place within an already fallen Adamic world. The Law was holy, just, and good, but Adamic Sin seized the commandment and produced Death (Rom. 7:7–13). Israel under Torah consequently becomes the covenant arena in which the older Adamic problem is exposed and intensified, while the Law itself remains unable to impart the resurrection Life necessary to overcome it. Romans 8 supplies Paul’s answer: “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” liberates from “the law of sin and death” (Rom. 8:2).

Against that background Paul declares in Romans 8:18 that “the sufferings of this present time” were not worthy to be compared with “the glory about to be revealed in us.” That statement establishes the temporal horizon governing the entire paragraph. Paul and the first-century saints were suffering during the closing transition of the old covenant age, but the glory toward which they were moving was not thousands of years removed from them. It was “about to be revealed.” Romans 13:11–12 confirms the same horizon: their salvation was nearer, the night was far spent, and the Day was at hand.

In verses 19–21 Paul describes “the creation” awaiting the manifestation of the sons of God. I understand this creation as Israel in its covenant condition under Torah. God had made, created, and formed Israel through the first Exodus and Sinai (Deut. 32:6), even describing that covenant formation in heavens-and-earth language (Isa. 51:9–16). Yet Israel’s covenant creation remained subject to the older Adamic reign of Sin and Death. Torah could expose Sin and administer condemnation but could not impart resurrection Life. The creation was therefore subjected to futility “in hope,” awaiting the Messianic liberation that could come only through Christ, righteousness, and the Spirit.

The “bondage of corruption” in verse 21 consequently belongs to Paul’s larger Adam-to-Christ argument rather than primarily to the physical decay of animals, vegetation, or the planet. Romans 7 ends with the cry, “Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” Romans 8 answers with the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus. Adamic Sin and Death stand on one side of Paul’s argument; Christ, the Spirit, righteousness, liberty, and resurrection Life stand on the other. The creation’s liberation into “the glorious liberty of the children of God” therefore belongs to the same approaching complex as the manifestation of the sons and the glory “about to be revealed” in verse 18.

Verse 22 then makes an important movement from “the creation” to “the whole creation.” During the greater, second Exodus, the gospel had gone from Israel into the nations. Jesus commanded that it be preached to “all creation” (Mark 16:15), and Paul later declared that it had been preached “in all creation under heaven” (Col. 1:23). These passages demonstrate that creation language does not have to refer to the material cosmos. It can describe the human creation reached through the gospel.

The “whole creation” groaning and travailing “until now” is therefore the expanded Jew-Gentile creation being brought forth through the gospel. The creation subjected under Torah was Israel, but during the AD 30–70 second Exodus believing Gentiles were grafted into Israel’s covenant olive tree, received the same Spirit, and were joined with believing Jews in the one Body of Christ. The first Exodus itself anticipated this enlargement when a mixed multitude left Egypt with Israel and provision was made for the stranger who joined himself to Israel’s covenant worship. What appeared there on a comparatively small scale becomes enormous in the greater Exodus as the gospel goes into “all creation” and gathers the nations into Israel’s Messiah.

Verse 23 then focuses particularly upon Paul and the apostolic firstfruits: “we ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit.” They already possessed the Spirit and therefore participated in the resurrection Life of the physically risen Christ, but firstfruits anticipated a completed harvest. They were already sons through “the Spirit of adoption” (Rom. 8:15), yet they awaited adoption in its consummated manifestation and inheritance. They already belonged to Christ, yet they continued to groan while awaiting “the redemption of our body.”

The singular “our body” does not by itself prove a corporate interpretation, but neither should it simply be converted into “our individual physical bodies.” Paul supplies his own corporate category when he writes, “we, being many, are one body in Christ” (Rom. 12:5). That one Body consists of believing Jew and Gentile, and Romans 9–11 explains how it reaches its promised covenantal fullness. An elect remnant of Israel believes; unbelieving natural branches are broken off; believing Gentiles are grafted into Israel’s olive tree; natural branches may be grafted back in through faith; Israel’s reception is described as “life from the dead”; the fullness of the Gentiles comes in; and in this manner “all Israel shall be saved” (Rom. 11:15–26).

The argument of the paragraph can therefore be seen at a glance:

Text	Paul’s Language	Redemptive-Historical Meaning
Romans 8:18	“glory about to be revealed in us”	The first-century suffering saints were approaching the revelation of New Covenant glory
Romans 8:19	“the creation” eagerly waits	Israel, God’s covenant creation under Torah, awaits the manifestation of the Spirit-born sons
Romans 8:20	creation “subjected to futility”	Torah exposes and administers the Adamic problem of Sin and Death but cannot impart resurrection Life
Romans 8:21	creation liberated from “bondage of corruption”	Messianic liberation from the reign of Sin and Death through Christ, righteousness, and the Spirit
Romans 8:22	“the whole creation groaneth and travaileth”	The horizon expands through the gospel to the believing Jew-Gentile human creation during the second Exodus
Romans 8:23	“firstfruits of the Spirit”	The apostolic saints already possess inaugurated resurrection Life while awaiting its covenantal consummation
Romans 8:23	waiting for “the adoption”	Those already possessing the Spirit of adoption await the manifestation and completed inheritance of the sons
Romans 8:23	“the redemption of our body”	The one Jew-Gentile Body in Christ approaches its resurrection-redemption consummation

This chart is important because it keeps the internal movement of Romans 8:18–23 before us. Paul begins with an approaching glory, identifies a creation awaiting liberation, broadens his language to the “whole creation,” and then identifies a Spirit-bearing firstfruits community awaiting “the redemption of our body.” Romans 9–11 does not abandon that argument. It develops the identity and covenantal completion of that Jew-Gentile people through the remnant, olive tree, fullness of the Gentiles, “life from the dead,” and salvation of “all Israel.”

The Exegetical and Contextual Equations of Romans 8–11

Romans 8–11 therefore gives us several complementary descriptions of the same covenant people reaching the same resurrection-redemption consummation. The expressions should not be treated as lexical synonyms. “Whole creation,” “our body,” and “all Israel” each make their own contribution to Paul’s argument. Likewise, “redemption of the body,” “life from the dead,” and “all Israel shall be saved” are not dictionary definitions of one another. The equations express redemptive-historical identity and convergence: Paul is describing the same Jew-Gentile covenant people and the same approaching consummation from different perspectives.

The first equation identifies the people approaching consummation:

WHOLE CREATION (Rom. 8:22)
= OUR BODY (Rom. 8:23)
= ALL ISRAEL (Rom. 11:26)

“Whole creation” emphasizes the believing Jew-Gentile creation brought forth through the gospel. “Our body” emphasizes the corporate union of those believers in Christ. “All Israel” describes that covenant people reaching its promised Messianic fullness as believing Israel and the fullness of the Gentiles are gathered together in Israel’s Messiah and covenant olive tree.

Paul’s resurrection-redemption terminology gives us the corresponding equation:

REDEMPTION OF THE BODY (Rom. 8:23)
= LIFE FROM THE DEAD (Rom. 11:15)
= ALL ISRAEL IS SAVED (Rom. 11:26)

Again, these expressions perform different functions in their immediate contexts, but they converge upon the same resurrection-redemption consummation. The Body awaiting redemption in Romans 8 is not disconnected from the olive-tree people reaching fullness in Romans 11. The liberation of creation, manifestation of the sons, adoption, redemption, “life from the dead,” fullness of the Gentiles, and salvation of “all Israel” belong to one approaching Messianic consummation.

Bringing the two equations together gives us the larger movement of Romans 8–11:

THE WHOLE CREATION’S DELIVERANCE
= THE ONE BODY’S REDEMPTION
= LIFE FROM THE DEAD
= ALL ISRAEL SAVED
= BELIEVING JEW + BELIEVING GENTILE BROUGHT TO COVENANT MATURITY / COMPLETENESS / FULLNESS
= THE AD 70 CONSUMMATION

The two Exoduses help explain how Paul arrives at this Jew-Gentile consummation. The first Exodus redeemed Israel from Egyptian bondage and constituted her as God’s covenant people, while already making room for the mixed multitude and the believing stranger. The greater Exodus delivers from the deeper bondage of Adamic Sin and Death. During the AD 30–70 transition, the gospel goes from Israel into the nations, genuine Gentiles are grafted into Israel’s covenant promises through Israel’s Messiah, and believing Jew and Gentile are reconciled to God in one Body and given the same Spirit. The covenant creation centered in Israel thus reaches its promised Messianic maturity through the massive Gentile ingathering of the second Exodus.

Romans 8:18–23 can therefore be paraphrased this way:

The sufferings we are presently enduring during this final appointed time of covenant transition cannot compare with the glory that is about to be revealed in us. Israel, God’s covenant creation under Torah, has been waiting for the manifestation of God’s Spirit-born sons because the Law, though holy, could expose Adamic Sin and Death but could never impart the resurrection Life necessary to overcome them. God subjected that covenant creation in hope because Torah was never His final order; the creation was destined for the liberty and glory belonging to His children in Christ. And now, as the gospel has gone from Israel into the nations, the whole believing Jew-Gentile creation is groaning and travailing together toward the birth of the mature Messianic order. Even we who possess the firstfruits of the Spirit continue to groan because firstfruits anticipate harvest. We are already sons, already possess the Spirit, and already participate in the resurrection Life of Christ, but we eagerly await the consummated adoption—the redemption of our one Body.

This is the argument Parts 7A–7C will develop and defend. Adamic Sin and Death are answered by Christ, the Spirit, righteousness, and resurrection Life. The first Exodus creates Israel as God’s covenant people; the greater Exodus brings Israel’s promises to their Messianic goal through the gathering of believing Jew and Gentile into one Body. The gospel preached to “all creation” produces the believing Jew-Gentile “whole creation”; that whole creation constitutes the corporate Body awaiting redemption; and Romans 9–11 describes that covenant people reaching its fullness as the fullness of the Gentiles comes in and “all Israel” is saved.

It is one people, one Body, one resurrection-redemption, and one approaching consummation. And Paul tells us when that consummation stood in relation to himself and his first-century readers: the glory was “about to be revealed in us.”

Introduction: From Creation to Resurrection—Where the Argument Has Brought Us

The argument of this series has been cumulative. Parts 1–6B have challenged Covenant Creation at the points where its reinterpretation of Genesis must finally be tested against the larger movement of biblical revelation. The issue has never been whether Scripture can use the language of creation covenantally. It plainly can. Nor has the issue been whether the passing of an old heavens and earth and the arrival of a new heavens and earth can describe covenantal judgment and New Covenant fulfillment. Full Preterism has every reason to affirm those realities. The real question has been whether those later covenantal uses of creation language require us to go backward and redefine the original creation of Genesis 1–3 as the Mosaic covenant world.

The evidence examined thus far has given us no reason to make that move. The biblical writers distinguish the original created world from the covenant people later created and formed within it. Adam and the entrance of Sin and Death precede Moses. Paul explicitly says that Death reigned “from Adam to Moses” and that the Law subsequently “entered” the history already governed by Sin and Death (Rom. 5:14, 20). Israel is later described as a people Yahweh made, created, and formed through His redemptive acts, particularly the Exodus and covenant at Sinai. The existence of a genuine covenant creation therefore does not require Genesis to be that covenant creation. It requires us to preserve the chronology Scripture itself gives us.

That distinction has been especially important in answering the argument that later New Testament creation texts must determine the meaning of Genesis simply because the Bible begins and ends with creation. The bookends do not require identical referents. Biblical fulfillment regularly moves from physical and historical realities into greater covenantal and spiritual realities without retroactively changing the nature of the original type. The earthly land does not become nonphysical because the New Covenant inheritance is greater than Canaan. The earthly Jerusalem does not cease to have been a physical city because Paul contrasts it with “Jerusalem which is above.” Fleshly circumcision does not become nonphysical because the New Covenant people receive a circumcision “made without hands.” In the same way, the New Covenant creation does not require the original creation to have been the Mosaic covenant.

This has also been the weakness in the “bookends” approach to Genesis and Revelation. Revelation tells us how its visions are to be read. Its prophecy concerns things that “must shortly come to pass”; its appointed time was “at hand”; its fulfillment was not to be delayed; and its new heaven, new earth, and New Jerusalem belong within that explicitly imminent prophetic horizon. Genesis gives us no corresponding interpretive signal telling us that its heavens, earth, seas, vegetation, luminaries, animals, and mankind are symbols for Israel’s later covenant institutions. To use Revelation’s symbolic and covenantal consummation to redefine Genesis is to reverse the direction of revelation.

At the same time, Parts 1–6B have exposed the opposite problem in Partial Preterism. Kenneth Gentry and other partial-preterist interpreters can correctly resist Covenant Creation’s redefinition of Genesis while still carrying futurist assumptions into passages describing resurrection, new creation, and consummation. The result is a divided eschatology. Texts concerning Jerusalem, temple judgment, covenant transition, and much of the Olivet Discourse may be fulfilled in AD 70, while resurrection, the final transformation of the saints, and other elements belonging to the same New Testament expectation are detached from that horizon and moved thousands of years into the future.

That solution is no more satisfactory. We do not need to redefine Genesis in order to defend Full Preterism, but neither do we need to surrender the apostolic time texts in order to preserve the historical creation. The same hermeneutical discipline must govern both ends of the discussion. We must not move Sinai backward into Genesis, and we must not move the New Testament consummation forward beyond the horizon repeatedly established by Jesus and His apostles.

This is why the argument must now turn to Romans 8.

Romans 8:18–23 brings the major questions developed throughout Parts 1–6B into a single Pauline passage. Here we have “creation.” Here we have subjection to futility, bondage, and corruption. Here we have the manifestation of the sons of God. Here we have resurrection Life through the Spirit. Here we have adoption. Here we have “the redemption of our body.” And here Paul places the entire expectation under one of the clearest temporal statements in the chapter: “the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which is about to be revealed in us” (Rom. 8:18).

Romans 8 therefore allows us to test both systems simultaneously. Covenant Creation argues that covenantal creation and resurrection language ultimately requires a reinterpretation of Genesis. Partial Preterism argues, in effect, that preserving Genesis requires at least some of Paul’s resurrection and consummation language to remain future. But what if both moves are unnecessary? What if Paul himself supplies the redemptive chronology that allows us to preserve the original creation, the later Mosaic covenant creation, and the AD 70 resurrection consummation without collapsing one into another?

Part 7 will answer those questions in three installments. This first installment, Part 7A, concentrates upon the identity and condition of Paul’s “creation.” We will begin with Romans 5–8 and Paul’s Adam-to-Moses chronology, examine the glory that was “about to be revealed,” test the selective handling of Paul’s eager-expectation language, identify the “whole creation,” and then return to Deuteronomy 32 and Isaiah 51–52 to establish where Scripture itself places Israel’s covenant creation. Finally, Romans 8 and Galatians will allow us to examine what it means for that creation to have been subjected to futility and held in bondage while awaiting liberty.

The progression is deliberate. Before asking what Paul means by “the redemption of our body,” we must determine what creation is groaning. Before asking who participates in the resurrection, we must establish the relationship among Adam, Moses, Israel, the nations, Sin, Death, Torah, Spirit, and Life. And before deciding whether Paul’s consummation remains future, we must allow his own statement that the glory was “about to be revealed” to govern the discussion.

The biblical sequence defended throughout this series can therefore remain intact:

ORIGINAL CREATION → ADAMIC SIN AND DEATH → EXODUS-SINAI COVENANT CREATION → TORAH → CHRIST AND RESURRECTION LIFE → APOSTOLIC GOSPEL TO JEW AND GENTILE → ONE BODY IN CHRIST → AD 70 CONSUMMATION

Covenant Creation moves part of that sequence backward. Partial Preterism moves part of it forward. As Parts 7B and 7C will demonstrate, Israel Only attempts to narrow its Jew-Gentile fulfillment back into biological Israel. Paul requires none of these moves. He allows redemptive history to move forward from Adam to Moses, from Moses to Christ, from Israel into the nations, and from the firstfruits of resurrection Life to the approaching consummation.

We begin, therefore, where Paul places the issue: with a creation groaning in expectation and a glory that was “about to be revealed.”

I. Romans 5–8 Must Define Paul’s Death, Body, and Resurrection Language

Romans 8 does not suddenly introduce an unrelated discussion about environmental decay or the future repair of the physical universe. Paul has been developing an Adam-Christ, Death-Life, Flesh-Spirit argument since Romans 5. Through Adam, Sin enters the world and Death through Sin (Rom. 5:12). Death reigns from Adam to Moses even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of Adam’s transgression (v. 14). This fact alone is fatal to any attempt to identify Adamic Death with the Mosaic covenant. Adamic Sin and Death are already operating before Sinai. The law enters later so that the trespass might abound (v. 20). Paul therefore distinguishes the Adamic problem from the Mosaic administration even while showing how intimately they become related.

Romans 6 develops this contrast through union with Christ. Paul tells living Christians that they had already died and been buried with Christ and had been united with Him in “a death like his” (Rom. 6:5). Yet Paul could still speak prospectively: “if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him” (v. 8). Their participation in Christ’s death obviously did not require their biological death. Consequently, the corresponding participation in His resurrection “like” His cannot simply be assumed to require biological resurrection merely because Paul uses the language of death, burial, body, and resurrection. The controlling issue is participation in the two corporate orders represented by Adam and Christ—the reign of Sin and Death on the one hand and righteousness and Life on the other.

Romans 7 then shows how the Mosaic commandment interacts with the Adamic problem. Paul writes, “I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died” (Rom. 7:9). The commandment did not create Sin. Sin was already present. Rather, Sin “taking occasion by the commandment” deceived and killed (vv. 8, 11). This is precisely the distinction we must preserve against Covenant Creationism. Adamic Sin and Death do not begin at Sinai, but Torah becomes the covenantal sphere in which Sin seizes the commandment and produces transgression, condemnation, and Death. Thus, Paul can cry, “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” (v. 24), before immediately announcing the liberating work of Christ and the Spirit in Romans 8.

The categories in Romans 8 therefore cannot simply be equated with biological existence. Paul says that those “in the flesh cannot please God,” but immediately tells physically living believers, “ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit” (Rom. 8:8–9). He then says, “if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness” (v. 10). These Christians were biologically alive while being “not in the flesh,” and their “body” could be described as dead while they remained physically alive. Whatever else Paul intends, his categories of Flesh, Spirit, Death, Life, and body cannot be reduced to physical substance. Romans 8:18–23 must be interpreted within this argument rather than imported into an assumed scheme of material cosmic renovation.

This is also why we must be precise when speaking of the “body” under consideration. It is too imprecise to call it simply an “Adamic-Mosaic body,” as though Adam and Moses inaugurated the same covenantal order. Adam supplies the historical origin and federal headship of Sin and Death; Moses belongs to the later covenant administration in which those Adamic powers operate through Torah. The Mosaic covenant body therefore labors under Adamic Sin and Death. This formulation preserves Paul’s own chronology and prevents the old covenant from being pushed backward into Genesis.

II. “The Glory About to Be Revealed”: Gentry, Kayser, DeMar, Burgess, and Mellō

Paul introduces the groaning and liberation of Romans 8 with an explicit temporal statement: “For I reckon that the sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory about to be revealed in us” (Rom. 8:18 YLT). The grammatical construction should be stated accurately. The form mellousan is a present active participle of mellō, while apokalyphthēnai, “to be revealed,” is an aorist passive infinitive. The argument therefore does not depend upon incorrectly describing mellō itself as an aorist infinitive. The point is that Paul characterizes the glory governing the paragraph as glory that was “about to be revealed.”

As I pointed out in Part 6B, addressing mellō in Acts 17:31 and 24:15, Kenneth Gentry’s treatment of mellō creates a serious problem for his Postmillennial Partial Preterism. In Before Jerusalem Fell, discussing Revelation 1:19, Gentry states that when mellō is used with the aorist infinitive its “predominant usage and preferred meaning” is “be on the point of, be about to.” He adds that the same is true when the word is used with the present infinitive in Revelation 3:10 and observes that the basic meaning supplied by Thayer and Abbott-Smith is “to be about to.”[1] Gentry is certainly correct that context ultimately determines the force of a word and that no lexical gloss should simply be imposed mechanically upon every occurrence. But semantic range does not answer the exegetical question. The issue is what mellō means in Romans 8:18, and the surrounding context strengthens rather than weakens its ordinary imminent force.

Paul does not merely say that glory will someday be revealed. The glory was “about to be revealed” (v. 18); the creation was in “earnest expectation” awaiting the manifestation of the sons of God (v. 19); the whole creation was groaning and travailing “until now” (v. 22); and those possessing the firstfruits of the Spirit were themselves eagerly “waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body” (v. 23). Paul later tells these same Roman Christians that “now is our salvation nearer than when we believed,” that “the night is far spent,” and that “the day is at hand” (Rom. 13:11–12). Thus mellō does not bear the entire temporal argument by itself. About-to-be-revealed glory, eager expectation, groaning “until now,” approaching redemption, salvation drawing near, and the Day at hand form a cumulative first-century expectation.

Phillip Kayser is important precisely because, unlike Gentry, he does not weaken mellō when he reaches Romans 8:18. Kayser writes, “But I want you to notice the use of the word μέλλω in verse 18,” and renders Paul’s statement as “literally, ‘which is about to be’” revealed.[2] More significantly, Kayser does not isolate verse 18 from the resurrection-redemption language that follows. He states, “In context Paul is saying that this glory is the redemption of our bodies,” and concludes that Paul “was about to be raised in AD 70.”[3] Kayser therefore concedes three things of considerable importance: mellō has its imminent force, the approaching glory is connected with the redemption of the body, and resurrection fulfillment belongs to AD 70.

Kayser nevertheless preserves another resurrection at the end of history. His August 12, 2018 sermon on Revelation 20:4–6 is appropriately titled “The Two Resurrections,” because he distinguishes the resurrection he places in connection with AD 70 from another resurrection associated with the final judgment.[4] Kayser therefore solves Gentry’s mellō problem only by dividing the resurrection. Yet Romans 8 creates another difficulty for him. Kayser elsewhere understands the groaning creation in connection with the effects of Adam’s sin upon the physical creation and anticipates the ultimate removal of those effects in the final consummation.[5] He consequently places the glory and a resurrection-redemption in AD 70 while postponing the liberation of the physical creation associated with that glory.

The difficulty is visible in Paul’s own argument. It would be an overstatement to claim that mellousan in verse 18 grammatically modifies every verb in verses 19–23. It does not. Verse 18 establishes the temporal horizon of the glory, however, and the following verses explain what is awaiting that glory. The creation eagerly waits for the manifestation of the sons of God (v. 19), and Paul explains that “the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God” (v. 21). More literally, its liberation is into “the freedom of the glory of the children of God.” The creation’s liberation is therefore explicitly joined to the glory of God’s children—the glory Paul has just described as “about to be revealed.”

Verses 22–23 tighten that connection further. “The whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now,” followed immediately by, “And not only they, but ourselves also,” who possess “the firstfruits of the Spirit,” groaning while awaiting “the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.” The “not only . . . but also” construction coordinates the groaning and expectation of the creation with the groaning and expectation of the Spirit-bearing saints. If Kayser is correct that the glory of verse 18 was about to be revealed and that the redemption of the body in verse 23 belongs to an AD 70 resurrection, he needs an exegetical reason within Romans 8 for removing the creation’s liberation in verse 21 from that same approaching glory. The text itself supplies no second temporal horizon.

This becomes especially problematic if Kayser’s “creation” is the physical cosmos. If the bondage of corruption describes the biological decay imposed upon nature because of Adam, the physical world was plainly not liberated from that condition in AD 70. Animals continued to die, vegetation continued to decay, human bodies continued to return to dust, and the material creation did not enter biological incorruptibility. Kayser therefore solves Gentry’s mellō problem but creates a ktisis—“creation”—problem. His chronology points toward AD 70 while his definition of creation requires another consummation.

DeMar and Burgess Go Further Than Kayser

The developing position of Gary DeMar and Kim Burgess is especially significant because it goes farther than Kayser at precisely the point where Kayser’s interpretation encounters difficulty. DeMar had already conceded the temporal force of Romans 8:18 when, citing Young’s Literal Translation, he wrote, “Whatever the glory is it was ‘about to be revealed.’”[6] That admission is important, but mellō is only one element of the temporal case. Paul surrounds it with additional expressions of eager expectation: the creation was eagerly awaiting the manifestation of the sons of God (v. 19), while those possessing the firstfruits of the Spirit were eagerly awaiting adoption and the redemption of the body (v. 23). In their later treatment of the passage, DeMar and Burgess recognize these imminent expectations as belonging to the AD 70 consummation. Kayser therefore is not alone among Partial Preterists in conceding the first-century temporal horizon of Romans 8:18–23.

Their treatment in The Hope of Israel and the Nations goes considerably farther, however, because Burgess also rejects the assumption that Paul’s “creation” must refer to soil, vegetation, animals, and the material universe. He interprets the creation anthropologically—as human creation—and distinguishes different groups within the passage. Burgess identifies the “creation” of verses 19–21 with the Jews, “the whole creation” of verse 22 with the Gentiles, and the “we ourselves” possessing the firstfruits of the Spirit in verse 23 with Christians.[7] His interpretation therefore does not merely relocate the liberation of the physical creation to AD 70. It denies that the physical cosmos is the referent of Paul’s creation language in the first place.

At this point, however, Burgess’s concession must be distinguished from the interpretation I will defend in the following sections. I do not simply adopt his threefold division—Jews in verses 19–21, Gentiles in verse 22, and Christians in verse 23—as though that division had already been established by the text. In particular, Burgess must demonstrate that Paul changes the referent from “the creation” in verses 19–21 to the Gentiles when he writes “the whole creation” in verse 22. Other interpreters who understand ktisis anthropologically have divided the groups differently. John Lightfoot, for example, identifies the “whole creation” with the Gentile or heathen world and distinguishes it from Jewish believers possessing the firstfruits of the Spirit. The detailed identity of these groups therefore requires separate exegesis and will be taken up below.

For the present argument, Burgess’s larger concession is what matters. Romans 8:19–23 can be interpreted anthropologically without making the groaning creation the physical cosmos, and Burgess specifically identifies the creation subjected to futility in verses 19–21 with the Jews. That is particularly significant because verse 20 states that this creation “was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope.” If Burgess is correct about the identity of the creation in verses 19–21, then the object God subjected to futility is Israel, not the material universe. The question is no longer simply, “What happened to the planet at the fall of Adam?” The exegetical question becomes: when, how, and under what covenantal conditions was Israel subjected to the futility and bondage from which she awaited Messianic liberation?

That question fits the argument Paul has already developed in Romans 5–8 remarkably well, although I do not attribute my entire answer to Burgess. Romans 5 locates the entrance of Sin and Death in Adam. Romans 7 describes what happened when the commandment encountered that already-existing power of Sin: “when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died” (Rom. 7:9); “sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me” (v. 11); and the resulting cry is, “who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” (v. 24). Romans 8 then describes a creation subjected to futility, enslaved to corruption, groaning for liberation. If the creation of verses 19–21 is Israel, as Burgess argues, then Romans itself directs us toward Israel’s covenant history under Torah rather than toward a physical universe supposedly awaiting biological renovation. The precise relationship between Adam, Sinai, Torah, futility, and liberation will be developed below.

Burgess goes farther than Kayser in another important respect. He also treats “the redemption of our body” in verse 23 corporately rather than automatically interpreting it as the future resurrection of the individual biological bodies of Christians. Paul certainly knows how to speak distributively of the physical bodies of individual believers. Only twelve verses earlier he writes that the Spirit “shall also quicken your mortal bodies” (Rom. 8:11)—plural. Yet when he describes the object of the church’s eschatological expectation in verse 23, he writes “the redemption of our body”—singular. The singular by itself does not prove the entire corporate interpretation, but neither should it be silently converted into “our bodies” and then made to carry an individualistic biological resurrection that Paul did not express. Romans 12:4–5 shortly supplies Paul’s unmistakable corporate category: “we, being many, are one body in Christ.”

The distinction is important for my disagreement with Covenant Creation as well. An anthropological or covenantal use of “creation” in Romans 8 does not require Genesis 1 itself to describe the creation of the old covenant world. That conclusion simply does not follow. Adam accounts for the entrance of Sin and Death. Israel’s covenant formation comes later in redemptive history. Torah then encounters the already-existing Adamic power of Sin, and Paul describes the resulting bondage in Romans 7 before announcing liberation in Romans 8. The body is Mosaic in covenantal formation; the Sin and Death enslaving it are Adamic in origin. Covenant Creation collapses these stages when it pushes the later covenant-creation category backward into Genesis 1.

Nor does the anthropological interpretation provide support for Israel Only. To say that the “creation” of Romans 8 is human and covenantal does not establish that it consists only of biological Israelites. That is a separate proposition requiring separate proof. Paul’s own argument will instead move from Israel’s historical covenant creation into the nations through the Great Commission, from natural branches to wild branches grafted into the same tree, and from an elect Jewish remnant to one Jew-Gentile body. The covenantal reading therefore removes the physical-cosmos assumption without replacing it with an ethnic-Israel-only assumption.

The progression of Partial-Preterist concessions is therefore striking. Gentry acknowledges elsewhere the ordinary “about to be” force of mellō but resists its necessary AD 70 consequence here. DeMar concedes that the glory was “about to be revealed.” Kayser goes farther by accepting the imminent force of mellō, connecting that glory with the redemption of the body, and placing resurrection fulfillment in AD 70. DeMar and Burgess go farther still by recognizing the cumulative imminent expectation of Romans 8:18–23 as pointing to AD 70, interpreting the creation anthropologically rather than cosmologically, and treating “our body” corporately. I need not adopt every detail of Burgess’s division of Jews, Gentiles, and Christians in order to recognize the importance of those concessions.

Romans 8:18–23	Gentry	Kayser	DeMar/Burgess	My Full Preterist Reading
Glory “about to be revealed” (v. 18)	Resists necessary AD 70 fulfillment	Accepts “about to be” and connects the glory with AD 70 resurrection	DeMar recognizes the force of “about to be”; their broader treatment places the expectation within the AD 70 horizon	The glory was about to be revealed in the approaching AD 70 consummation
“The creation” (vv. 19–21)	Physical cosmos	Physical creation affected by Adam	Burgess identifies the creation of vv. 19–21 with Jews/Israel	Israel as God’s covenant creation under the Mosaic administration, within the already-existing Adamic reign of Sin and Death
“The whole creation” (v. 22)	Physical cosmos	Physical creation	Burgess identifies the “whole creation” with Gentiles	The widened Jew-Gentile human horizon of the apostolic gospel mission
“We ourselves” with the firstfruits (v. 23)	Christians awaiting future biological resurrection	Christians awaiting AD 70 resurrection while another resurrection remains future	Burgess distinguishes Christians from the preceding creation	Spirit-bearing believing Jews and Gentiles distinguished within the wider gospel horizon and incorporated into the one Body in Christ
Creation subjected to futility (v. 20)	Physical creation subjected to material corruption	Physical creation suffering the effects of Adam’s fall	Burgess identifies the subjected creation with Jews/Israel and God as the subjector	Israel’s covenant creation subjected under the Mosaic administration of the already-existing Adamic reign of Sin and Death
Liberation of creation (v. 21)	Future liberation of the physical cosmos	Physical liberation remains future despite an AD 70 resurrection	Human liberation within an AD 70 framework	AD 70 covenant liberation into “the freedom of the glory of the children of God”; coordinated with the saints’ glory without making creation and the Spirit-bearing Body identical populations
“The redemption of our body” (v. 23)	Future biological resurrection of individual bodies	Connects Body-redemption with AD 70 resurrection while retaining another future resurrection	Burgess reads “our body” corporately	Consummated redemption of the one Spirit-bearing covenant Body in Christ—believing Jew and Gentile—already possessing the firstfruits of Resurrection Life
Relationship of creation and Body	Physical creation and individually resurrected Christians	Physical creation remains distinct from the AD 70 resurrection	Distinguishes Jews, Gentiles, and Christians	Redemptive-historical progression: Israel’s covenant creation → wider Jew-Gentile gospel horizon → believing Jews and Gentiles receive the Spirit → one Body in Christ → approaching redemption and glory
Result	Preserves physical creation but divides Paul’s chronology	Accepts imminence and an AD 70 resurrection but divides resurrection from the final liberation of creation	Recognizes imminence, human creation, and the corporate Body more consistently	One coordinated creation-liberation, Body-redemption, resurrection, and glory complex reaching its approaching consummation in AD 70, while preserving Paul’s distinction between the wider creation and the Spirit-bearing Body

The DeMar-Burgess position is thus more damaging to the traditional Partial-Preterist division than Kayser’s concession alone. Kayser gives us the chronology and connects the approaching glory with resurrection, but his physical-creation interpretation forces him to postpone the liberation of creation. Burgess removes that physical-cosmos assumption. Indeed, by identifying the creation subjected to futility in verses 19–21 with Israel, he directs attention toward precisely the covenantal and redemptive-historical question that the physical-cosmos interpretation obscures. Burgess then interprets the singular “our body” corporately. Whatever disagreements remain over his precise division of the human groups, the usual appeal to a decaying material universe and individual biological bodies can no longer simply be assumed as the meaning of Romans 8.

The Romans 8 Consistency Syllogism

Major Premise: Romans 8:18–23 coordinates the glory about to be revealed, the manifestation of the sons of God, the liberation of creation, adoption, and the redemption of the body within one interconnected eschatological expectation.

Minor Premise: Partial Preterists themselves concede the principal elements of this reading: DeMar acknowledges that the glory was “about to be revealed”; Kayser connects that imminent glory with body redemption and an AD 70 resurrection; and DeMar and Burgess go farther by placing the cumulative expectation in the AD 70 horizon, interpreting the creation anthropologically, and interpreting “our body” corporately.

Conclusion: The burden rests upon Partial Preterism to demonstrate from Romans 8 itself why this one approaching glory-liberation-resurrection complex must nevertheless be divided between AD 70 and another consummation thousands of years later.

Burgess’s interpretation also sharpens the question we must answer next. If the glory was about to be revealed, if the creation eagerly awaited the manifestation of that glory, if its liberation belonged to “the freedom of the glory of the children of God,” and if the creation subjected to futility in verses 19–21 is Israel rather than the physical universe, then when was Israel subjected to this futility, and what was the bondage from which she needed liberation? That question cannot be answered by simply pointing to Genesis 3 and the decay of the physical world. Nor can it be answered by Covenant Creation’s attempt to push the Mosaic covenant creation backward into Genesis 1.

Paul has already supplied the categories with which the question must be answered. Adam explains the entrance and reign of Sin and Death. Torah explains the covenantal administration in which Sin seized the commandment and produced transgression, condemnation, and Death. Christ and the Spirit explain the liberation for which the creation and the first-century saints groaned. The next question, therefore, is not whether Burgess’s precise Jew-Gentile-Christian division must be adopted wholesale, but whether his central concession is correct: Paul’s groaning creation is human rather than planetary. That is the issue to which we now turn.

III. Peter Leithart and the Problem of Selective “Eager Expectation”

The difficulty becomes more pronounced when another Partial Preterist is allowed to interpret Paul’s expectation language. Peter Leithart, in his commentary on Revelation, includes 1 Corinthians 1:7–8 among the passages expressing the apostles’ expectation of an approaching first-century consummation. The Corinthians were “eagerly waiting” for the revelation of Jesus Christ, who would confirm them “unto the end” and make them blameless “in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.” After surveying New Testament statements concerning the nearness of the Lord and the approaching consummation, Leithart concludes that “the apostles eagerly expected something to happen soon in their day.” He then makes an observation directly relevant to the present discussion: “Phil. 3:20 uses the same verb.”[8]

That observation is much more significant than it may initially appear. The verb is apekdechomai, language of eager expectation. Paul uses it in 1 Corinthians 1:7 for the Corinthians eagerly awaiting Christ’s revelation. He uses it in Romans 8:19 for the creation’s earnest expectation of the revelation of the sons of God and again in Romans 8:23 for believers awaiting adoption, “the redemption of our body.” He uses it in Philippians 3:20 for believers awaiting the Savior from heaven, immediately before describing the transformation of “our vile body” into conformity with Christ’s glorious body (v. 21). Leithart himself has therefore drawn the lexical line from 1 Corinthians 1:7 to Philippians 3:20, while his interpretation recognizes the genuinely imminent expectation represented by the former.

Passage	What Is Eagerly Awaited?	Eschatological Result
1 Cor. 1:7–8	Revelation of Jesus Christ	“The end”; “the day of our Lord Jesus Christ”
Rom. 8:18–19	Revelation of the sons of God	Glory “about to be revealed”
Rom. 8:23	Adoption	“The redemption of our body”
Phil. 3:20–21	The Savior from heaven	Transformation of “our vile body”
Phil. 4:5	“The Lord is at hand”	Immediate temporal setting

Again, the argument is not that one Greek verb automatically imposes precisely the same date upon every passage in which it occurs. The argument is contextual and cumulative. If the eager expectation of Christ’s revelation in 1 Corinthians 1:7–8 belongs to the approaching AD 70 consummation, as Leithart recognizes, what exegetical feature suddenly pushes the eager expectation of bodily redemption in Romans 8 or bodily transformation in Philippians 3 thousands of years into the future? Romans 8 has already described the glory as “about to be revealed.” Philippians follows its eager expectation of the Savior and bodily transformation with “The Lord is at hand” (Phil. 4:5). The contexts strengthen the temporal connection rather than dissolving it.

This creates a problem not merely for Leithart but for the divided consummation of Partial Preterism generally. One cannot appeal to apostolic imminence when interpreting Christ’s AD 70 coming in judgment and then treat the same expectation vocabulary as temporally elastic when Paul connects it with resurrection, adoption, bodily redemption, and transformation. If Christ’s revelation was near, but the redemption associated with that revelation was not; if the Day was near, but the resurrection belonging to that Day was not; if salvation was nearer than when the Romans believed, but the redemption of their body remained thousands of years away, then the unity of Paul’s eschatology has been divided precisely where his language joins it together.

The Imminence and Eager-Expectation Syllogism

Major Premise: When Paul joins explicit imminence language with eager expectation of Christ’s revelation, salvation, adoption, bodily redemption, and bodily transformation, these events should be understood within the same approaching eschatological horizon unless the context demonstrates otherwise.

Minor Premise: Romans 8 describes glory as “about to be revealed” and believers as eagerly awaiting “the redemption of our body”; Romans 13 says salvation was nearer and the Day at hand; 1 Corinthians 1:7–8 describes believers eagerly awaiting Christ’s revelation and “the end”; Philippians 3:20–21 uses the same eager-expectation vocabulary for the Savior and bodily transformation, followed by “The Lord is at hand” in Philippians 4:5.

Conclusion: Paul’s resurrection, bodily redemption, and transformation language belongs naturally to the same approaching first-century consummation as Christ’s revelation and the Day of the Lord, rather than to a separate consummation thousands of years later.

The temporal evidence is therefore already pointing us toward the identity of the creation that groans in Romans 8. Paul is not describing a material universe that has spent thousands of years eagerly awaiting the repair of its molecules. He is describing an eschatological creation standing at the transition between bondage and liberty, possessing firstfruits while awaiting consummation, and groaning for a redemption that Paul says was approaching. The next question is therefore not whether the physical planet was getting old. It is: What creation had been subjected to this covenantal bondage, and why?

That question takes us directly to the Exodus, Sinai, Deuteronomy 32, and Isaiah 51.

IV. “The Whole Creation”: What Creation Was Awaiting Liberation?

Once the temporal horizon of Romans 8:18–23 has been established, the next question is unavoidable: what exactly is the “creation” that Paul describes as eagerly waiting, subjected to futility, groaning under bondage, and anticipating liberation? The traditional futurist interpretation generally assumes that Paul is describing the physical universe—the earth, animals, vegetation, and material order subjected to decay because of Adam’s fall. But that conclusion cannot simply be imported into ktisis, “creation.” The term must be interpreted from Paul’s argument in Romans 5–8, from the grammatical progression within Romans 8:19–23, and from the New Testament’s own use of creation language.

An anthropological interpretation of ktisis is hardly an invention of Full Preterism. John Lightfoot, Henry Hammond, and John Gill understood the “creation” as referring to Gentiles; Crellius interpreted it as regenerate Christians; Le Clerc referred it particularly to Gentile Christians; and John Locke also belongs within the history of non-cosmic interpretations of the passage.[9] These interpreters disagree over precisely which human group Paul has in view, and their disagreement should not be artificially harmonized. Their importance is narrower but substantial: they demonstrate that ktisis does not require the physical universe as its referent. Paul’s creation must therefore be identified contextually and redemptive-historically rather than by assuming that “creation” automatically means the material cosmos.

Gary DeMar and Kim Burgess provide an especially important contemporary example. Burgess identifies “the creation” of Romans 8:19–21 with the Jews, “the whole creation” of verse 22 with the Gentiles, and the “we ourselves” possessing the firstfruits of the Spirit in verse 23 with Christians.[10] I agree with Burgess that the passage concerns human rather than planetary creation, and his identification of verses 19–21 with Israel is especially significant. I do not, however, believe that Paul’s transition to “the whole creation” in verse 22 requires an exclusive identification with Gentiles. The grammatical development of the paragraph, read within the Great Commission’s movement from Israel into the nations, suggests a broader and more precise redemptive-historical progression.

“The Creation” Subjected to Futility

Paul uses the same definite expression repeatedly throughout verses 19–21. “The creation” waits for the manifestation of the sons of God (v. 19); “the creation” was subjected to futility (v. 20); and “the creation itself” will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God (v. 21). Nothing in those three verses indicates a change of referent. The same creation waits, was subjected, remains in bondage, and anticipates liberation.

If Israel is this creation, as Burgess also concludes with Full Preterism, the question changes dramatically. Paul is no longer describing what supposedly happened geologically to the planet at Adam’s fall. The question becomes what happened covenantally to Israel in redemptive history that placed her in a condition of futility, bondage, corruption, and expectation.

Romans 5–7 has already supplied the categories necessary to answer that question. Adam accounts for the entrance and reign of Sin and Death: “by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin” (Rom. 5:12). Paul can therefore say that “until the law sin was in the world” (5:13). When the commandment later came, “sin revived, and I died” (7:9), and Sin, “taking occasion by the commandment,” deceived and killed (7:11). Romans 8 follows immediately after the cry, “Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” (7:24). Paul’s discussion of futility, bondage, corruption, and liberation therefore arises from an argument already governed by Adam, Torah, Sin, Death, and the promised deliverance in Christ.

The Mosaic Law did not create the Adamic problem. It entered a world in which Sin and Death already reigned and administered God’s covenant to a people living within that condition. Paul’s point in Romans 8:20 is consequently significant: the creation “was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope.” Its subjection was neither accidental nor ultimate. God subjected it “in hope.” The Law could expose Sin, increase transgression, condemn, and administer Death, but it could not impart the resurrection Life promised in Christ (Rom. 5:20; 7:7–13; Gal. 3:21–24). The covenant administration itself therefore pointed beyond its bondage toward a promised liberation.

The distinction established earlier can now remain in the background without being re-proved in every paragraph: Israel is Mosaic in covenantal formation, while the Sin and Death enslaving her are Adamic in origin. The importance of that distinction for this section is that it gives us a category other than the two alternatives usually imposed upon Romans 8. Paul need not be describing either the physical universe of Genesis 1 or a covenant creation supposedly beginning with Adam. Israel can be the later covenant creation formed through Exodus-Sinai and subjected under Torah within the already-existing Adamic reign of Sin and Death. Sections V and VI will establish that identification more directly from Deuteronomy 32, Isaiah 51, and Paul’s treatment of Torah.

From “the Creation” to “the Whole Creation”

Paul’s wording changes in verse 22: “For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.” The connective “for” maintains continuity with verses 19–21, so Paul has not abandoned his subject and begun discussing an unrelated creation. Yet the addition of “whole” deserves attention. The question is whether it merely renames the same group, identifies the Gentiles exclusively, or broadens the horizon of the human creation already under discussion.

Burgess takes the second option, moving from Jews in verses 19–21 to Gentiles in verse 22. That recognizes a genuine development in Paul’s wording, but the Great Commission provides a better framework for explaining the expansion. Jesus commissioned His disciples to “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature”—literally, to “all creation” (Mark 16:15). Paul later declares that the gospel “was preached to every creature which is under heaven,” again, “in all creation under heaven” (Col. 1:23). In neither passage can “all creation” mean the physical cosmos. The apostles were not commissioned to preach repentance and faith to animals, vegetation, mountains, oceans, and stars. “All creation” describes the human horizon of the gospel mission.

The grammatical forms in Mark 16:15, Romans 8:22, and Colossians 1:23 differ according to their syntactical functions, so verbal similarity alone does not establish identical referents. The point is more modest and more secure: the New Testament, and Paul himself, can use “all creation” anthropologically in the context of the worldwide proclamation of the gospel. That usage must therefore be allowed into the interpretive field when Romans 8 moves from “the creation” to “the whole creation.”

This does not mean that Gentiles had always belonged to Israel’s covenant creation or that all humanity had somehow been included in the Mosaic order from Adam onward. The movement is historical and forward. Israel is formed as Yahweh’s covenant creation at the first Exodus. The Messiah comes to Israel. From Israel the gospel then moves outward into the nations. The addition of “whole” therefore need not push the covenant creation backward into primordial humanity; it can describe the widening human horizon produced by the Messianic mission.

The movement can be stated simply. Israel is the historical covenant creation from which the argument proceeds. Christ comes within Israel’s covenant history. The gospel then goes outward from Israel into the nations. “The whole creation” consequently reflects the widening apostolic horizon in which Jew and Gentile now stand together within the worldwide sphere of Messianic proclamation.

The First Exodus Already Anticipated Gentile Incorporation

That forward expansion did not arise without precedent. Israel did not leave Egypt alone: “a mixed multitude went up also with them” (Exod. 12:38). The Mosaic legislation subsequently provided for the stranger to enter Israel’s covenant life. The stranger who submitted to circumcision and kept Yahweh’s Passover could be regarded “as one that is born in the land,” under the same covenant law as the native-born Israelite (Exod. 12:48–49).

The full significance of that pattern belongs to Section VII, where the first Exodus and second Exodus will be compared directly. Here the point is narrower. Israel’s covenant identity was historical, real, and distinct from the nations, yet it was not an absolutely sealed genealogical category into which no genuine outsider could ever enter. Scripture itself provides a means by which people from the nations may join themselves to Israel’s God and covenant people.

This already creates a serious problem for Israel Only. Paul’s later incorporation of believing Gentiles does not require those Gentiles to be reclassified as hidden descendants of Jacob. The older biblical pattern allows outsiders to become covenant insiders without first becoming Israelites according to the flesh. Covenant incorporation and biological ancestry are therefore related but not identical categories.

That distinction will become decisive later when Paul describes Gentiles as wild branches grafted into Israel’s olive tree, as fellow heirs and members of “the same body,” and as those who through Christ become Abraham’s seed and heirs according to promise. The first Exodus provides the type; the second Exodus brings the pattern to its Messianic fulfillment.

“All Creation” and the Great Commission

The apostolic mission supplies the historical movement necessary to understand Romans 8:22. Jesus declared that “this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come” (Matt. 24:14). Paul later states that the faith of the Roman Christians was spoken of “throughout the whole world” (Rom. 1:8), that the gospel sound had gone “into all the earth” and “unto the ends of the world” (Rom. 10:18), and that the gospel had come “in all the world” and had been proclaimed “in all creation under heaven” (Col. 1:6, 23).

The Great Commission therefore explains how the redemptive horizon can move from Israel to “the whole creation” without making pre-Sinai Gentiles members of Israel’s Mosaic covenant world. Adam explains the entrance of Sin and Death. Sinai explains Israel’s historical covenant formation and subjection under Torah. Christ and the Great Commission explain the forward movement of Israel’s Messianic salvation into the nations.

This is where my reading differs from Burgess’s more sharply. Burgess moves from Jews in verses 19–21 to Gentiles exclusively in verse 22. I agree that Paul’s horizon has expanded beyond Israel, but “whole creation” need not mean Gentiles alone. Against the Great Commission background, it more naturally describes the broadened human horizon into which Israel’s Messiah and gospel had gone. Israel remains the historical covenant creation from which the argument begins; Jew and Gentile now stand together within the worldwide Messianic sphere.

Paul’s temporal qualification reinforces that apostolic setting: “the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now” (Rom. 8:22). The expression “until now” locates the groaning within Paul’s own eschatological present. The language is corporate and personifying; it does not require every Jew and Gentile reached by the gospel consciously to understand the covenant transition in exactly Paul’s theological terms. It describes the human world now encompassed by the apostolic mission as caught within the travail of the Messianic transition.

The old covenant creation had not yet reached its judicial consummation, while the gospel of Israel’s Messiah had already gone outward throughout the nations. Romans 8 therefore stands at precisely the historical moment in which the covenant story of Israel was becoming the Messianic story of Jew and Gentile together.

Israel Only has particular difficulty with that movement. Paul does not describe the gospel as merely circulating among scattered descendants of the northern tribes. He repeatedly distinguishes Israel from the Gentiles and describes the gospel as moving outward to the nations. The burden therefore rests upon Israel Only to demonstrate that Paul’s Gentiles are actually ethnic Israelites despite his sustained Jew-Gentile distinction and despite the Old Testament precedent of genuine foreigners entering Israel’s covenant life. A covenantal interpretation of “creation” cannot simply be converted into an ethnic restriction Paul himself does not make.

“Not Only … But We Ourselves Also”

Verse 23 then gives us the clearest grammatical distinction in the paragraph: “And not only [the whole creation], but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves.” Whatever precise boundaries are assigned to “the whole creation” of verse 22, Paul distinguishes “we ourselves” from it through the “not only . . . but also” construction.

More importantly, he tells us what distinguishes this second group: they possess “the firstfruits of the Spirit.” Paul therefore describes two simultaneous groanings without placing the two groups in the same redemptive condition. The whole creation groans and travails “until now,” while Paul and his fellow believers also groan as those who have already entered the inaugurated blessings of the New Covenant and possess the Spirit as the firstfruits of the coming consummation.

Firstfruits are neither absence nor completion. They are the initial portion that guarantees and anticipates the harvest. The Spirit-bearing saints therefore already possess resurrection Life and adoption in an inaugurated sense (Rom. 8:1–17), yet they still await the consummated “adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body” (8:23). Their groaning differs from that of the wider human creation because they already possess the eschatological pledge of the glory whose manifestation they await.

This distinction is essential. The Great Commission can widen the human horizon to “all creation” without making every person reached by the gospel part of the redeemed body. Paul has already stated that “if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his” (Rom. 8:9). The proclamation goes into all creation; the Spirit identifies those who belong to Christ within that creation.

That gives Romans 8:19–23 a clear progression. “The creation” of verses 19–21 is the covenant creation subjected and awaiting liberation. “The whole creation” of verse 22 broadens the horizon within Paul’s apostolic “now” as the Messianic gospel moves from Israel into the nations. “We ourselves” in verse 23 identifies the Spirit-bearing believing community within that wider human world. Paul is not confusing these categories; he is moving through them.

The Redemptive-Historical Progression

The progression can therefore be summarized compactly:

Stage	Pauline / Biblical Setting	Redemptive-Historical Meaning
Adam	Rom. 5:12–21	Sin and Death enter humanity before Moses
Exodus-Sinai	Rom. 8:19–21 in light of Rom. 5–7	Israel is formed as covenant creation and lives under Torah within the Adamic reign of Sin and Death
Great Commission	Rom. 8:22; Matt. 24:14; Mark 16:15; Col. 1:23	The Messianic horizon expands from Israel into the nations—“the whole creation” of the apostolic gospel world
Spirit firstfruits	Rom. 8:23	Believing Jews and Gentiles are distinguished within that wider horizon by possession of the Spirit
Consummation	Rom. 8:18, 21, 23	Approaching glory, liberation, adoption, and redemption of the covenant body

This sequence preserves the actual direction of redemptive history. It does not move covenant creation backward into Genesis 1. It does not move Paul’s approaching liberation forward into a planetary renovation thousands of years beyond his audience. And it does not take the nations reached by the gospel and redefine them backward into biological Israel.

Paul moves forward: from Adamic Sin and Death, to Israel’s covenant creation at Exodus-Sinai, to Messiah, to the Great Commission, to the nations, to Spirit-bearing Jew and Gentile together, and toward consummated liberation.

Two Groanings and One Approaching Glory

This brings the paragraph back to verse 18. The glory was “about to be revealed”; the creation subjected to futility awaited the manifestation of the sons and liberation into their glory; “the whole creation” groaned and travailed “until now”; and the Spirit-bearing firstfruits themselves groaned while awaiting adoption and “the redemption of our body.”

Paul has not introduced two eschatological horizons. The creation’s liberation and the saints’ redemption belong to the same approaching glory. Nor has he introduced two unrelated redemptive histories. The old covenant creation from which the argument emerges is moving toward liberation at precisely the time when Israel’s Messiah and gospel are reaching the nations.

The physical-cosmos interpretation obscures this progression by carrying Paul backward to a supposed material curse upon nature at Adam’s fall and then forward to a planetary transformation still future to us. Covenant Creation makes the opposite mistake by taking legitimate later covenant-creation language and pushing it backward into Genesis 1. Israel Only recognizes Israel’s central covenant role but refuses the biblical expansion of Israel’s Messianic blessings to genuine Gentiles.

Paul makes none of these moves. Covenant creation remains located in Israel’s Exodus-Sinai history. The gospel moves forward from Israel into the nations. Those nations remain genuinely Gentile by natural origin while believing Gentiles are incorporated into Israel’s Messianic blessings. The Spirit-bearing body then awaits the consummated glory Paul says was approaching.

The Creation and Great Commission Syllogism

Major Premise: Israel was the covenant creation formed in redemptive history and subjected under the Mosaic administration, while the New Testament later uses “all creation” for the human horizon into which the apostolic gospel was proclaimed (Mark 16:15; Col. 1:23).

Minor Premise: Romans 8 moves from “the creation” subjected to futility (vv. 19–21), to “the whole creation” groaning in Paul’s apostolic “now” (v. 22), and then distinguishes Spirit-bearing believers from that wider horizon (v. 23).

Conclusion: Paul’s progression is best understood forward in redemptive history: from Israel as the Sinai covenant creation, through the Great Commission’s expansion into the nations, to the Spirit-bearing Jew-Gentile body awaiting consummated adoption and redemption.

Nothing in that progression requires a physical-cosmos interpretation of Romans 8. Nothing requires Covenant Creation’s reinterpretation of Genesis 1. And nothing requires Israel Only’s redefinition of genuine Gentiles as ethnic Israelites.

The next question is therefore not whether Genesis 1 secretly describes the Mosaic covenant. It is whether Scripture itself describes Israel as a people whom God “made,” “created,” and “formed,” and whether that creation is connected with the Exodus and Sinai. Deuteronomy 32 and Isaiah 51 answer precisely those questions. They locate the covenant creation where redemptive history places it—at the first Exodus—before Paul carries that history forward through the second Exodus and the approaching liberation announced in Romans 8.

V. Israel Created and Formed: Deuteronomy 32, Isaiah 51–52, and the New Covenant Creation

If the “creation” of Romans 8:19–21 is Israel, as the preceding section has argued, Scripture should provide a basis for describing Israel as a creation without requiring us to reinterpret Genesis 1 as the Mosaic covenant. It does. The covenant-creation significance of Deuteronomy 32 and Isaiah 51 has already been examined at length in earlier Parts of this series, so there is no reason to reproduce all of that exegesis here. The conclusions relevant to Romans 8 are more focused. Deuteronomy 32 describes Israel as a people whom God made, created, and formed, while Isaiah 51 places the planting of covenant heavens and the founding of covenant earth within the Exodus-Sinai complex. Isaiah then carries that covenant people through judgment, bondage, awakening, and restoration in Isaiah 51–52, before the prophetic movement reaches the creation of new heavens, new earth, and a rejoicing Jerusalem in Isaiah 65. Our purpose here is to draw those established conclusions forward into Paul’s description of “the creation” subjected to futility and awaiting liberation.

Israel as God’s Created and Formed People

Deuteronomy 32 provides the foundational language. Moses rebukes Israel by asking, “Do ye thus requite the LORD, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?” (Deut. 32:6). As demonstrated earlier in this series, the Septuagint makes the creation and formation terminology particularly explicit in describing God as the One who acquired, made, created, and formed Israel. The subject is not the biological origin of Israelites or the original creation of mankind. Moses addresses the covenant people whom Yahweh redeemed, constituted, instructed, and established as His own.

The setting of the Song of Moses prevents us from moving this creation backward into Genesis 1. Israel has corrupted itself as a “crooked and perverse generation” against the God who is her Father and Creator (Deut. 32:5–6). Moses proceeds to rehearse Yahweh’s covenant care of Jacob: the Lord takes Israel as His portion, finds him, leads him, instructs him, keeps him, and alone guides him (vv. 9–12). The creation in view is therefore a people within redemptive history. The Israelites existed physically before Sinai; what God created and formed was their covenant identity as His peculiar people.

This point will become increasingly important when we reach the incorporation of Gentiles into Israel’s promised salvation. Scripture can speak of people who already exist physically as subsequently entering a newly created covenant identity. That fact is already present in Israel’s own history and later becomes especially significant in Jewish descriptions of the proselyte as a new creature. Paul’s “new creation” language likewise does not describe biological origination. Covenant creation concerns a changed covenant standing and identity before God. We therefore have no exegetical reason to force every biblical use of “create,” “creation,” or “new creation” back into Genesis 1.

That distinction fits the chronology already established from Romans without requiring us to repeat the argument of Sections I and IV. Adamic Sin and Death precede Moses; Israel’s covenant formation does not. Paul explicitly places the reign of Death “from Adam to Moses” (Rom. 5:14), thereby distinguishing the Adamic problem from the later Mosaic administration. Deuteronomy 32 gives us the corresponding Old Testament category: the God who created the original world later made and formed Israel as His covenant people within that world.

Isaiah 51 and the Exodus-Sinai Heavens and Earth

Isaiah 51 makes the covenant-creation connection still more explicit. The detailed exegetical questions surrounding this passage—including its Exodus imagery, garment imagery, historical setting, Hebrew and Septuagint forms, and its relationship to the passing of the old covenant heavens and earth—have already received extended treatment earlier in this series. Here we need only carry forward the portion directly relevant to Romans 8.

Isaiah recalls the first Exodus: “Art thou not it that hath cut Rahab, and wounded the dragon? Art thou not it which hath dried the sea, the waters of the great deep; that hath made the depths of the sea a way for the ransomed to pass over?” (Isa. 51:9–10).

The same historical setting remains in view when Yahweh declares, “I am the LORD thy God, that divided the sea, whose waves roared” (v. 15), and then immediately adds: “And I have put my words in thy mouth, and I have covered thee in the shadow of mine hand, that I may plant the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth, and say unto Zion, Thou art my people” (Isa. 51:16).

The sequence is decisive. Yahweh divides the sea, makes a way for the ransomed, covers His people with His hand, places His words in their mouth, plants covenant heavens, establishes covenant earth, and declares to Zion, “Thou art my people.” The physical heavens and earth obviously existed before these events. Isaiah is using creation language for God’s historical constitution of Israel’s covenant world in connection with the Exodus and Sinai.

The future restoration promised in Isaiah 51 does not require us to move the historical referent of verse 16 forward to AD 70. The first Exodus functions as the pattern and guarantee of the promised second Exodus. Yahweh can promise Zion another great deliverance precisely because He is the God who previously divided the sea, redeemed His people, gave them His words, and established their covenant world. Prophetic typology moves from the accomplished type to the promised antitype; it does not erase the historical identity of the type.

From Isaiah 51 to Isaiah 52: The Created Zion Awakens and Arises

The argument becomes even more significant when Isaiah 51:16 is allowed to remain connected to what follows. The Zion whose covenant heavens and earth were historically planted through the Exodus-Sinai order is also the Zion that comes under covenant judgment. Isaiah 51:17 addresses Jerusalem as the one who has drunk “the cup of his fury.” Her sons lie helpless under divine judgment, and the prophet describes devastation, destruction, famine, and sword (vv. 17–20). Yet the judgment is not the end of Zion’s story. Yahweh promises to remove the cup from her hand and place it into the hand of those who afflicted her (vv. 21–23).

Isaiah 52 then answers that covenant humiliation with the language of awakening, arising, release, and new clothing: “Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city. . . . Shake thyself from the dust; arise, and sit down, O Jerusalem: loose thyself from the bands of thy neck, O captive daughter of Zion” (Isa. 52:1–2).

This is precisely the kind of prophetic movement that prepares us for the resurrection and liberation language of the New Testament. Zion has been brought down under covenant judgment; Zion is commanded to awake and arise. She has been humiliated in the dust; she is told to rise and take her proper place. She has worn the condition of captivity; she is commanded to loose the bands from her neck and put on beautiful garments. The movement is from covenant death and bondage into restoration, liberty, and glory.

That sequence is especially relevant to Romans 8 because Paul likewise describes a covenant creation in bondage, groaning toward “the liberty of the glory of the children of God” (Rom. 8:21). Isaiah has already joined covenant creation, bondage, judgment, release, and glory within the story of Zion. Paul does not need a decaying material universe to supply those categories. Israel’s own prophetic Scriptures had already done so.

The imagery also reaches beyond an exclusively ethnic restoration. Isaiah 52 does not end with Zion merely recovering what she once possessed. Yahweh bares His holy arm “in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God” (v. 10). The Servant then “sprinkle[s] many nations” (v. 15). The restoration of Zion and the extension of salvation to the nations belong to the same prophetic movement. This becomes crucial when Romans 8 is read alongside the apostolic mission and Paul’s movement from Israel into the Gentile world.

Isaiah 52:1 also describes restored Jerusalem as the holy city into which “the uncircumcised and the unclean” will no longer enter in their former condition. Yet the same chapter immediately announces salvation before the nations and the Servant’s cleansing of many nations. The answer is not that Gentiles as Gentiles are eternally excluded from Zion’s salvation. The prophetic movement anticipates the transformation of covenant identity that the New Testament later describes through circumcision of the heart, circumcision “made without hands,” and incorporation into the people of God through Christ.

From Isaiah 52 to Isaiah 65: New Heavens, New Earth, and a Created Jerusalem

Isaiah’s covenant-creation argument does not stop with Zion arising from the dust. The trajectory ultimately reaches Isaiah 65, where Yahweh declares: “For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy” (Isa. 65:17–18).

The parallel language deserves careful attention. God does not merely say, “I create new heavens and a new earth.” He immediately explains the covenantal center of that new creation: “I create Jerusalem.” The new heavens and new earth and the created Jerusalem belong together. This is the prophetic trajectory that Revelation 21 follows when John sees “a new heaven and a new earth” and immediately sees “the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven” (Rev. 21:1–2).

The sequence running through Isaiah is therefore coherent. Yahweh historically plants Israel’s covenant heavens and lays the foundations of her covenant earth in connection with the first Exodus and Sinai (Isa. 51:9–16). That covenant Zion subsequently comes under judgment and drinks the cup of divine wrath (51:17–23). Zion is then commanded to awake, arise from the dust, loose the bands of captivity, and put on beautiful garments (52:1–2). Yahweh reveals His salvation before the nations and the Servant cleanses many nations (52:10, 15). The prophetic movement ultimately reaches the creation of new heavens, new earth, and a rejoicing Jerusalem (65:17–18).

That progression is exactly what Covenant Creation obscures when it moves the old covenant creation backward into Genesis. The old covenant heavens and earth have a historical covenant beginning in the Exodus-Sinai formation of Israel. They can therefore undergo covenant judgment and pass away. The new covenant heavens and earth arise through the Messianic work that brings Zion’s promises to their fulfillment and extends salvation to the nations.

Israel’s Covenant Creation and Romans 8

The Old Testament evidence can now be brought into direct relation with Paul:

Passage	Historical Setting	Creation / Formation Language	Covenant Significance
Deut. 32:5–6	Israel as Yahweh’s covenant people	God is Israel’s Father who made and established her; the LXX employs explicit creation/formation language	Israel is a people created and formed by God
Deut. 32:9–12	Yahweh’s covenant care of Jacob	God finds, instructs, keeps, and leads Israel	The created people are Israel within redemptive history, not the Genesis cosmos
Isa. 51:9–10	Recollection of the first Exodus	Sea divided; the ransomed pass through	Exodus supplies the historical setting for Israel’s covenant formation
Isa. 51:15–16	Exodus-Sinai covenant formation	God divides the sea, puts His words in His people, “plants the heavens,” and “lays the foundations of the earth”	Israel is constituted as covenant heavens and earth
Isa. 51:17–23	Covenant judgment upon Zion	Jerusalem drinks the cup of Yahweh’s fury and lies under judgment	The covenant creation can undergo covenant death/judgment
Isa. 52:1–2	Restoration of Zion	“Awake,” “arise,” leave the dust, loose the bands, put on beautiful garments	Covenant restoration is expressed in resurrection/liberation imagery
Isa. 52:10, 15	Salvation extended to the nations	All ends of earth see salvation; Servant sprinkles many nations	Zion’s restoration expands outward to the nations
Isa. 65:17–18	Promised new covenant creation	“I create new heavens and a new earth”; “I create Jerusalem”	New heavens/new earth and New Jerusalem belong to one covenantal creation
Rom. 8:19–21	Apostolic transition toward consummation	“The creation” was subjected in hope and awaits liberation	Paul describes the covenant creation approaching its Messianic liberation

The progression in the chart is important because it moves forward, not backward. Romans 8 does not force us back into Genesis 1 in search of a covenant creation. Deuteronomy 32 and Isaiah 51 have already supplied one within redemptive history. Israel was made and formed as God’s covenant people through the Exodus-Sinai complex; Paul can therefore describe that covenant creation as subjected to futility and awaiting liberation as the Mosaic age approached its consummation. The original creation remains the historical foundation of the imagery, while Israel’s covenant creation is its later redemptive-historical application.

This is precisely where Covenant Creation reverses the biblical direction. Because Scripture later employs creation language covenantally, Tim Martin reasons backward and reads the covenant creation into Genesis itself. But nothing in Deuteronomy 32, Isaiah 51–52, Isaiah 65, or Romans 8 requires that move. The biblical sequence is much simpler: God creates the original world; He later creates and forms Israel as His covenant people; that covenant creation passes through judgment and restoration; and the prophetic promise reaches the Messianic new creation and New Jerusalem. Covenantal use of creation language does not require a covenantal reinterpretation of the original creation.

Martin’s Earlier Sinai Reading

Martin’s changed interpretation of Isaiah 51 is especially relevant at this point, although the full history of that change need not be repeated here. Martin formerly understood the planting of heavens and founding of earth in Isaiah 51:16 substantially within the Exodus-Sinai framework. He later abandoned that position and relocated the language toward the AD 70 establishment of the new covenant creation. His earlier reading was substantially correct and, ironically, preserved a distinction his later Covenant Creation system obscures.

The earlier reading allowed the biblical sequence to remain intact: Genesis gives us the original creation; Exodus and Sinai give us the covenant creation of Israel; the prophets then use the first creation and first Exodus as the vocabulary and pattern for the coming new creation and second Exodus. Once Israel’s old covenant creation is moved away from Sinai, unnecessary pressure arises to locate its beginning somewhere earlier. Covenant Creation ultimately pushes that beginning all the way back into Genesis. But Isaiah 51 gives us no reason to make that move.

This does not weaken the AD 70 fulfillment of the new creation promises. It strengthens it by preserving biblical typology. The old covenant heavens and earth must exist before they can pass away. If they were historically planted and founded in the Exodus-Sinai formation of Israel, then their passing at the end of the Mosaic age and replacement by the mature new covenant creation follows a coherent redemptive sequence. The first Exodus establishes the old covenant world; the second Exodus brings that world to its appointed end and establishes the new.

Spiritual Circumcision, Resurrection, and Entrance into Restored Zion

Isaiah’s movement from the judged Zion to the restored holy city also prepares the way for a New Testament development that will become increasingly important as we move through Romans 8 and the second Exodus. If the restored Zion is holy, and if salvation simultaneously goes forth to the nations, how do those who were once strangers and uncircumcised enter the promised covenant inheritance?

Paul answers that question Christologically rather than genealogically. In Colossians 2:11–12, believers possess a circumcision “made without hands” in the putting off of the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ. They are then described as buried with Christ and “risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.” Colossians 3:1 can consequently address biologically living Christians as those already “risen with Christ,” while verse 4 still points forward to their manifestation with Him in glory.

The importance of this pattern should not be missed. Entrance into the restored people of God is not grounded in fleshly circumcision or hidden Israelite ancestry. Nor does Paul describe resurrection participation as the result of an outward rite operating independently of faith. His language is spiritual and Christological: circumcision “without hands,” union with Christ, resurrection “through faith,” and a Life already possessed in Him awaiting manifestation in glory.

First Corinthians supplies the corresponding corporate category: “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles” (1 Cor. 12:13). Paul does not erase the natural distinction between Jew and Gentile; he explicitly names it while declaring that both are incorporated by the one Spirit into the one body. Romans later states the same corporate reality: “we, being many, are one body in Christ” (Rom. 12:5). Paul’s one-body language expressly encompasses multiple members, while 1 Corinthians expressly includes Jews and Gentiles in that body.

This is the New Covenant answer to the problem Isaiah’s restored-Zion imagery anticipates. The nations do not enter because they secretly cease being Gentiles by genealogy. They enter through Israel’s Messiah, receive the Spirit, participate in His resurrection Life, and become members of the same covenant body. The prophetic movement from Zion’s awakening to salvation among the nations therefore prepares us for Paul’s movement from Israel’s covenant creation to the Jew-Gentile body awaiting consummated redemption.

From Covenant Creation to Covenant Liberation

The significance of Deuteronomy 32 and Isaiah 51 for Romans 8 can therefore be stated without redoing the extensive Old Testament exegesis already presented elsewhere in this series. Paul did not invent the idea that Israel could be described as God’s creation. Israel’s own Scriptures supplied that category. God made and formed her as His people, and Isaiah described that covenant formation through the planting of heavens and founding of earth in the Exodus-Sinai setting.

There is an additional connection that becomes particularly important for Romans 8: Israel’s creation and Israel’s Exodus belong together. Isaiah 51 does not isolate “plant the heavens” and “lay the foundations of the earth” from redemption. The same passage speaks of the sea being divided and “the ransomed” passing through it. Israel’s covenant creation emerged through liberation from Egyptian bondage. That historical pattern prepares us for Paul’s creation awaiting another liberation from bondage.

Isaiah 51–52 now allows us to sharpen the correspondence further. The covenant Zion historically formed through the first Exodus subsequently comes under judgment, drinks the cup, lies in humiliation, and is then commanded to awake, arise, leave the dust, loose her bands, and put on beautiful garments. Salvation then moves outward before the nations. The covenant-creation theme therefore already contains the movement from creation through bondage and judgment into liberation, resurrection-like restoration, glory, and Gentile inclusion. Romans 8 stands naturally within that prophetic world.

This allows the argument to advance rather than circle back. Section IV identified the creation of Romans 8:19–21 with Israel. The earlier Parts of this series established the Old Testament covenant-creation background. The present section has brought those conclusions together: the creation Paul describes as subjected to futility is the covenant creation Scripture locates in the Exodus-Sinai history, not primordial humanity extending backward into Genesis 1.

The redemptive sequence can therefore be stated without collapsing any of its stages:

ORIGINAL CREATION → ADAMIC SIN AND DEATH → EXODUS-SINAI COVENANT CREATION → COVENANT BONDAGE AND JUDGMENT → ZION AWAKENS AND ARISES → MESSIAH AND RESURRECTION LIFE → NATIONS INCORPORATED → NEW COVENANT CREATION / NEW JERUSALEM

The sequence matters. Adamic Sin and Death are not created at Sinai. Israel’s covenant creation is not Genesis 1. Zion’s resurrection-like restoration does not require the physical reconstruction of corpses. Gentile incorporation does not require Gentiles to become biological Israelites. And the new heavens and new earth do not require the destruction and replacement of the material universe. Each category must remain where Scripture places it within redemptive history.

The next question is therefore more precise. What happened to this covenant creation that allowed Paul to say it had been “subjected to futility,” remained in “the bondage of corruption,” and awaited “the liberty of the glory of the children of God” (Rom. 8:20–21)? We do not need to return again to the question of when Israel was created. Romans 8, read alongside Paul’s remarkably parallel argument in Galatians 4–5, now allows us to examine the nature of that subjection itself.

VI. “Subjected to Futility”: Sinai, Bondage, Corruption, and the Adamic Reign of Death

Having established the historical location of Israel’s covenant creation, the next question is what Paul means when he says that this creation was “subjected to futility” and awaited deliverance from “the bondage of corruption” (Rom. 8:20–21). The distinction established earlier must remain in place. Adam explains the entrance of Sin and Death into the human world; Sinai explains the later formation of Israel as a covenant creation under Torah. Israel’s subjection to futility under the Mosaic administration is therefore not another description of the original entrance of Adamic Death. Paul has already said that “until the law sin was in the world” and that Death reigned “from Adam to Moses” (Rom. 5:13–14). The issue now is how that already-existing Adamic problem operated within the covenant creation formed under Moses.

The word translated “vanity” in the KJV is mataiotēs, commonly rendered “futility.” Nothing in the term itself requires material deterioration or the decay of the physical universe. Paul uses the same noun when he commands Gentile Christians not to walk “in the vanity of their mind,” immediately describing that condition in terms of darkened understanding, alienation from the Life of God, ignorance, hardness, and sinful conduct (Eph. 4:17–19). Second Peter likewise speaks of false teachers uttering “great swelling words of vanity” (2 Pet. 2:18). Futility can therefore describe a human, moral, and redemptive condition. We cannot simply read a decaying material cosmos into Romans 8:20 because Paul uses mataiotēs.

That meaning fits the argument Paul has already developed in Romans. The Law itself was not futile in the sense of being defective: “the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good” (Rom. 7:12). The problem was Sin operating through fallen humanity. “Sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me” (v. 11). What was ordained to Life was “found to be unto death,” not because God’s commandment was evil, but because Sin worked death through that which was good (vv. 10, 13). Torah encountered the Adamic problem, exposed it, and intensified its covenantal consequences, but could not itself overcome it.

Romans 8 opens with the answer to that condition: “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death” (8:2). Paul immediately explains why the Mosaic Law could not accomplish that liberation: “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh” (v. 3). The weakness was not moral weakness in Torah but its inability, operating upon fallen humanity, to impart the resurrection Life necessary to conquer Sin and Death. What the Law could expose and condemn, God accomplished through His Son and Spirit.

This gives the creation’s “futility” a natural place in Paul’s argument. Israel existed as God’s covenant creation under a holy administration that could command righteousness but could not give the Life necessary to overcome the Adamic reign of Sin and Death. Paul states the same principle in Galatians: “if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law” (Gal. 3:21). There was no such law. The Mosaic administration could expose transgression, pronounce covenant condemnation, and direct Israel toward the promised Messiah, but it could not itself produce the resurrection Life toward which Israel’s covenant history pointed. The futility of Romans 8 is therefore thoroughly intelligible within redemptive history without making the material universe Paul’s subject.

Paul adds that the creation was subjected “not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope” (Rom. 8:20). Whatever nuances are attached to “not willingly,” the larger point is unmistakable: the subjection was purposeful and teleological. It occurred “in hope.” God did not subject His covenant creation to a meaningless cycle of frustration. The Mosaic administration itself pointed beyond itself toward Messiah. The Law “was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made” and functioned as a pedagogue leading to Christ (Gal. 3:19, 24–25). Its temporary character was built into its redemptive purpose.

This does not mean that God made Israel sinful at Sinai. Israel came to Sinai already within Adam’s world of Sin and Death. Nor does it mean that the Mosaic covenant itself was Sin, Death, corruption, or futility. Torah was holy and good. Rather, God placed His covenant creation under an administration in which the Adamic condition would be exposed, Sin would seize the commandment, transgression would abound, covenant condemnation would be pronounced, and the inability of Law to impart Life would direct Israel toward Christ. “The law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound” (Rom. 5:20). The creation was subjected “in hope” because Moses was never the terminus of Israel’s redemptive history.

Bondage, Adoption, Sonship, and Liberty

The strongest evidence for the covenantal meaning of the creation’s bondage comes from Paul’s own vocabulary immediately surrounding Romans 8:19–23. Before saying that creation would be delivered from “the bondage of corruption,” Paul tells his readers, “ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father” (v. 15). He then moves without interruption from Spirit to sonship, from sonship to inheritance, from inheritance and suffering to approaching glory, from that glory to the manifestation of the sons of God, and from the manifestation of the sons to creation’s liberation into “the liberty of the glory of the children of God” (vv. 14–21). Paul has not suddenly abandoned covenant redemption to discuss geology. Bondage, Spirit, adoption, sonship, inheritance, liberty, and glory form one developing redemptive argument.

Galatians 4–5 provides the most important Pauline control because there Paul employs virtually the same cluster of categories and explicitly connects them with Sinai and the Jerusalem of his own day. The heir, while still a child, “differeth nothing from a servant” and remains under guardians until “the time appointed of the father” (Gal. 4:1–2). Paul then applies the analogy redemptive-historically. When the fullness of time came, God sent His Son, “made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons” (vv. 4–5). God then sent “the Spirit of his Son” into their hearts, “crying, Abba, Father,” so that the slave becomes a son and heir (vv. 6–7). The verbal and conceptual correspondence with Romans 8 is striking.

Romans 8	Galatians 4–5	Redemptive Movement
“Spirit of bondage” (8:15)	Heir in the condition of a servant (4:1–3)	Bondage
Spirit of adoption (8:15)	Spirit of the Son (4:6)	Spirit
“Abba, Father” (8:15)	“Abba, Father” (4:6)	Adoption
Children and heirs (8:16–17)	Son and heir through God (4:7)	Inheritance
Creation in “bondage” (8:21)	Sinai/Jerusalem “in bondage with her children” (4:24–25)	Covenant bondage
Liberty of God’s children (8:21)	Jerusalem above “is free” (4:26)	Covenant liberty
Creation awaiting liberation (8:19–23)	“Liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free” (5:1)	Messianic freedom

The importance of this parallel is difficult to overstate. Paul does not leave the identity of the bondage in Galatians at the level of abstraction. Hagar “answereth to mount Sinai in Arabia” and corresponds to “Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children” (Gal. 4:24–25). In contrast, “Jerusalem which is above is free” (v. 26). Paul concludes, “we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free” (v. 31), followed immediately by the exhortation, “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free” (5:1). Romans 8 moves from bondage to Spirit, adoption, sonship, inheritance, liberty, and glory; Galatians 4–5 moves through the same categories and explicitly places Sinai and the Jerusalem then existing on the bondage side of the transition.

Galatians is also already preparing the way for the Gentile argument that will become explicit in the next section. Paul does not reserve the status of sons and heirs for ethnic Israelites. Earlier he has told Gentile believers, “ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus,” and concludes that “there is neither Jew nor Greek” because “ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” Therefore, “if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:26–29). The movement from bondage to adoption and inheritance in Galatians 4 cannot be detached from that immediately preceding Jew-Gentile context. Gentiles do not become heirs because Paul secretly identifies them as lost biological Israelites. They become Abraham’s seed and heirs because they belong to Christ.

This becomes especially damaging to Israel Only when Galatians reaches its conclusion. Paul does not say that circumcision finally reveals which Gentiles are really Israelites according to the flesh. He declares instead, “in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love” (Gal. 5:6), and later, “in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature [kainē ktisis]” (6:15). The significance of that “new creation” language will be developed more fully in Section VII alongside Jewish proselyte terminology. For now it is enough to observe the direction of Paul’s argument: circumcision and uncircumcision do not determine participation in the promised inheritance; union with Christ and the new creation do.

“Stand Fast”: From the First Exodus to the Second

Paul’s command, “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free” (Gal. 5:1), also carries an important Exodus resonance that strengthens the relationship between Romans 8 and Galatians without changing the argument already established. At the Red Sea, with Pharaoh’s army approaching and Israel apparently trapped, Moses declared, “Fear ye not, stand still, and see the salvation of the LORD, which he will shew to you today” (Exod. 14:13). Yahweh Himself would accomplish the deliverance. Israel was called to stand and behold His salvation. When the deliverance was completed, Israel “feared the LORD, and believed the LORD, and his servant Moses” (Exod. 14:31). When the passages says the people “believed in the LORD, and his servant Moses” the Hebrew for believe is aman which means “to stand firm.”

Paul later describes that same Exodus generation as having been “baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea” (1 Cor. 10:2). That language should not be reduced to the physical application of water. Israel passed through the sea on dry ground; the water destroyed the Egyptians. The baptism was “unto Moses”—a corporate identification with the covenant mediator through whom Yahweh was leading His people out of bondage. Exodus itself culminates the episode by emphasizing faith: they “believed the LORD, and his servant Moses.” To believe in the revelation or doctrine that comes through Moses is to stand firm being baptized into Moses.

The New Testament repeatedly takes up the language of standing in precisely the sphere of faith and covenant fidelity. “By faith ye stand” (2 Cor. 1:24). Believers have “access by faith into this grace wherein we stand” (Rom. 5:2). Paul commands the Philippians to “stand fast in the Lord” (Phil. 4:1). He reminds the Corinthians of the gospel “wherein ye stand” and “by which also ye are saved” (1 Cor. 15:1–2). And here, in the direct contrast between Sinai bondage and the liberty of the Jerusalem above, Paul commands, “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free” (Gal. 5:1).

The correspondence should not be flattened into identity, but the redemptive movement is unmistakable. In the first Exodus, the people stand and see Yahweh’s salvation, believe Yahweh and His servant Moses, are baptized unto Moses, and move toward covenant inheritance. In the greater Exodus, the people stand by faith, stand in grace, stand in the gospel, stand in the Lord, and stand in the liberty Christ has accomplished while moving toward the promised inheritance.

FIRST EXODUS: BAPTIZED UNTO MOSES → STAND AND SEE YAHWEH’S SALVATION → BELIEVE YAHWEH AND MOSES → COVENANT PEOPLE MOVING TOWARD INHERITANCE

SECOND EXODUS: BAPTIZED BY ONE SPIRIT INTO CHRIST’S ONE BODY → STAND BY FAITH / IN GRACE / IN THE GOSPEL / IN THE LORD’S LIBERTY → JEW-GENTILE COVENANT PEOPLE MOVING TOWARD RESURRECTION INHERITANCE

The second line anticipates material that will receive fuller treatment in Section VII, but its relevance here is already clear. Paul says, “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles” (1 Cor. 12:13). The greater Exodus is therefore not merely another outward passage through water. Its covenant people are identified with the greater Mediator through the Spirit. Colossians describes the same Christological reality as circumcision “made without hands,” burial with Christ, and being “risen with him through the faith of the operation of God” (Col. 2:11–12). The first Exodus supplies the pattern; Christ supplies the greater redemptive reality.

Israel was not saved because the waters of the Red Sea touched their bodies; they passed through on dry ground. Likewise, Paul’s explanation of incorporation into Christ centers upon the Spirit, faith, union with Christ, circumcision without hands, and resurrection Life. The second Exodus surpasses the first because Christ accomplishes what Moses and Torah could never accomplish.

Isaiah 51–52: From Covenant Bondage to Arising and Liberty

The Isaiah 51–52 material developed in the preceding section now strengthens this Exodus-shaped movement without requiring us to change the identification already established. The Zion whose covenant heavens and earth were planted in connection with the first Exodus and Sinai subsequently comes under covenant judgment. Jerusalem drinks the cup of Yahweh’s fury and lies helpless under His judgment (Isa. 51:17–23). Yet Yahweh promises to remove that cup, and the very next command is directed to the judged and humiliated Zion: “Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city” (Isa. 52:1).

The command continues: “Shake thyself from the dust; arise, and sit down, O Jerusalem: loose thyself from the bands of thy neck, O captive daughter of Zion” (v. 2). The imagery is covenantal, restorative, and resurrection-like. Zion is in captivity and humiliation; she is told to awake, arise from the dust, loose her bonds, and put on garments appropriate to her restored condition. Isaiah therefore supplies the prophetic movement from covenant creation through bondage and judgment into liberation and glory.

That prophetic pattern stands naturally beside Paul. Romans 8 moves from bondage to the liberty and glory of the children of God. Galatians 4 contrasts the Jerusalem then in bondage with her children against the Jerusalem above who is free. Galatians 5 commands the saints to stand fast in that liberty. Isaiah 52 commands captive Zion to arise and loose the bands from her neck. The language is not identical at every point, but the redemptive movement belongs to the same biblical world.

Nor does Isaiah permit the restored Zion to be sealed off from the nations. Yahweh bares His holy arm “in the eyes of all the nations,” and “all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God” (Isa. 52:10). The Servant then “sprinkle[s] many nations” (v. 15). The liberation of Zion and the extension of salvation to the nations are therefore joined prophetically before Paul announces that Gentiles in Christ become Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise, and members of the new creation.

This does not mean that Romans 8:21 should be paraphrased, “The creation shall be delivered from the Mosaic covenant,” as though Paul had written those words. The case is more careful and considerably stronger than such a reduction. Romans 5 distinguishes Adam from Moses. Romans 7 describes Sin taking occasion through the commandment. Romans 8 contrasts Sin and Death with the Spirit of Life, bondage with adoption, and bondage with the liberty of God’s children. Galatians 4–5 reproduces the same Spirit-adoption-sonship-liberty complex and explicitly identifies Sinai and the Jerusalem then existing with bondage. Isaiah supplies the Exodus-Zion background in which covenant bondage gives way to arising and liberation. Paul is interpreting Paul within the prophetic framework of Israel’s Scriptures.

“The Bondage of Corruption”

The word “corruption,” phthora, is also frequently treated as though it settles the question in favor of the physical universe. It does not. The term can describe physical corruption when the context demands it, but Paul also uses it within moral and redemptive contrasts. “He that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption,” he writes, “but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting” (Gal. 6:8). Flesh produces corruption; Spirit produces Life. That contrast is remarkably close to the controlling antithesis of Romans 8.

Second Peter likewise speaks of men who promise “liberty” while they themselves remain “the servants of corruption” (2 Pet. 2:19). The combination is especially significant. Peter can contrast liberty with slavery to corruption without describing the molecular deterioration of human bodies or the physical universe. The categories are ethical, covenantal, and redemptive. Romans 8 similarly contrasts “the bondage of corruption” with the liberty and glory of God’s children.

Within Romans itself, Paul has already identified the enslaving powers dominating the discussion. Sin “reigned unto death” (Rom. 5:21). The old man was crucified so that “the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin” (6:6). The Romans had been “the servants of sin” but were made free from it (vv. 17–18). Romans 7 describes Sin taking occasion through the commandment and bringing Death, and Romans 8 announces freedom through “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” from “the law of sin and death” (8:2). When Paul shortly thereafter describes the creation awaiting liberation from “the bondage of corruption,” he has already supplied the redemptive categories within which that language should be heard.

Here again the distinction between Adam and Sinai must be maintained without allowing it to dominate another section. Corruption does not originate at Sinai. Sin and Death do. Nor is Torah itself corruption. Israel’s covenant creation was formed under an administration in which the already-existing Adamic problem was exposed and intensified through the commandment. The Mosaic order could condemn Sin but could not impart the Life necessary to defeat it. The body is Mosaic in covenantal formation; the Sin and Death enslaving it are Adamic in origin.

The Creation Was Subjected “in Hope”

The words “in hope” are therefore indispensable to Paul’s argument. Israel’s covenant history under Torah was never intended to terminate in Torah. The creation was moving toward Christ. The promised Seed would come. The Spirit would be poured out. Slaves would become sons. Children would receive their inheritance. Bondage would give way to liberty. What the Law could not do, God would accomplish through His Son.

This also explains why the language of groaning and travail follows naturally in verses 22–23. As established in Section IV, Paul’s movement from “the creation” to “the whole creation” broadens the horizon into the Jew-Gentile world of the apostolic gospel, while he then sets alongside that wider groaning the “we ourselves” who possessed “the firstfruits of the Spirit.” There is no reason to reproduce that argument here. What matters at this stage is that Paul has explained the redemptive condition from which liberation was expected: the old covenant creation stood within the Adamic reign of Sin and Death, under an administration that exposed the problem but could not supply its final remedy.

This is why the physical-cosmos interpretation has difficulty accounting for the actual movement of the passage. Paul does not move from plants, animals, earthquakes, and biological decay to a prediction that matter will someday cease deteriorating. He moves from Sin and Death to Spirit and Life; from bondage to adoption; from children to heirs; from suffering to glory; from the manifestation of the sons to the liberation of creation; and from groaning to redemption. The conceptual world is redemptive from beginning to end.

Nor does Covenant Creation solve the problem by pushing this covenant creation backward into Genesis. The argument requires the opposite historical movement. Adamic Sin and Death are already present before the Law. Israel is later formed as a covenant creation at Exodus-Sinai. That creation is subjected under a temporary Mosaic administration “in hope.” Christ then enters that history, accomplishes what the Law could not do, gives the Spirit of adoption, and brings the covenant people toward the liberty and glory promised to the sons of God.

Israel Only likewise fails by confusing the historical origin of the covenant creation with the final boundaries of the redeemed people. Israel was indeed the covenant creation formed at Exodus-Sinai. But it does not follow that only Israel according to natural descent could ever participate in the promised liberation. Paul’s own movement from Abraham’s seed to Jew and Gentile in Christ, from circumcision and uncircumcision to new creation, and from bondage to a common inheritance expressly denies that inference. The historical priority of Israel establishes the source and structure of the promises; it does not exclude the Gentiles whom those promises themselves anticipated.

The additions developed above make that conclusion even stronger. The first Exodus itself will show that covenant participation was never reducible to Jacob’s physical descendants, while the greater Exodus expressly incorporates Jew and Gentile by the Spirit into one body. The new creation does not reveal that every apparent Gentile was secretly an Israelite according to the flesh. It establishes a covenant identity in Christ in which circumcision and uncircumcision cease to determine inheritance. That is why Galatians can move without contradiction from “Abraham’s seed” and “heirs according to the promise” to the declaration that what avails in Christ is “a new creature.”

The progression is therefore straightforward: Adam explains the origin of Sin and Death; Sinai explains the covenant creation subjected under Torah; Christ explains the entrance of righteousness, Spirit, and resurrection Life; the Great Commission explains the incorporation of the nations into the Messianic sphere; and the approaching consummation explains the creation’s liberation from bondage into glory. Nothing needs to be moved backward into Genesis, nothing in Paul’s argument requires the promised liberation to be moved thousands of years beyond the apostolic expectation established earlier in this article, and nothing permits the Gentiles participating in that liberation simply to be reclassified as ethnic Israelites.

The language has also become unmistakably Exodus-shaped. A covenant creation is in bondage. Its members groan. God’s children receive the Spirit. Slaves become sons. Sons are led toward inheritance. Redemption is awaited. Bondage gives way to liberty and glory. Israel’s covenant creation began through an Exodus from bondage; its final liberation would likewise take the form of a second and greater Exodus.

But there is one feature of that Exodus pattern that now requires much closer attention. The first Exodus did not consist solely of Jacob’s physical descendants. A mixed multitude came out of Egypt with Israel. The stranger could enter the covenant and become “as one born in the land.” Caleb the Kenizzite would become a striking example of covenant incorporation and inheritance. Later Jewish tradition could speak of a converted Gentile proselyte as newly born or newly created. When Paul then describes Gentiles receiving a circumcision “without hands,” passing through baptism into resurrection Life, becoming new creation, and sharing the inheritance of the saints, he is not abandoning the Exodus pattern. He is bringing it to its Christological fulfillment.

The baptismal correspondence now sharpens that transition. The first Exodus company was baptized unto Moses, stood to behold Yahweh’s salvation, believed Yahweh and His servant Moses, and moved toward the promised inheritance. In the greater Exodus, believing Jew and Gentile are baptized by one Spirit into one body, stand by faith in Christ, receive circumcision without hands, are raised with Him through faith, and move toward resurrection inheritance and glory. The type and antitype are not identical, but the direction is unmistakable: Moses gives way to Christ, bondage to liberty, fleshly covenant distinctions to the new creation, and the first inheritance to the greater inheritance of the children of God.

That is the next stage of Paul’s redemptive argument.

Conclusion: From the Groaning Creation to the Greater Exodus

The argument of Part 7A has brought us to an important point. Romans 8 does not require us to choose between Covenant Creation and a futurist renovation of the physical universe. Paul’s own redemptive chronology provides the better alternative. Adam explains the entrance of Sin and Death. Israel is subsequently made and formed as Yahweh’s covenant creation through the Exodus and Sinai. Torah enters that already Adamic world, exposes and intensifies the problem of transgression, but cannot impart the resurrection Life necessary to overcome Death. Christ accomplishes what the Law could not do, gives the Spirit of Life and adoption, and brings the covenant story toward its promised liberty and glory.

This preserves the distinctions Scripture itself gives us. The original creation remains where Genesis places it. Adamic Sin and Death remain prior to Moses. Israel’s covenant creation remains where Deuteronomy 32 and Isaiah 51 place it—in the historical formation of Zion through the Exodus-Sinai covenant. The New Covenant creation can therefore fulfill and replace that Mosaic heavens and earth without requiring us to reinterpret Genesis 1 as Sinai. Covenant Creation moves the later covenant creation backward into Genesis when Scripture moves redemptive history forward from Adam to Moses and from Moses to Christ.

At the same time, the traditional futurist interpretation of Romans 8 moves in the opposite wrong direction. Paul does not describe a material universe waiting thousands of years for its liberation. His categories throughout Romans 5–8 are Sin and Death, condemnation and righteousness, flesh and Spirit, bondage and adoption, suffering and glory, Death and resurrection Life. The glory associated with the liberation of creation was not merely certain; it was “about to be revealed” (Rom. 8:18). The creation was eagerly waiting, the whole creation was groaning “until now,” and the Spirit-bearing saints were themselves groaning as they awaited the consummation of their adoption.

The language of “the whole creation” also shows where the history was moving. The apostolic gospel was going outward from Israel into the nations. Jesus commanded the gospel to be preached to “all creation,” and Paul could declare within his own ministry that it had been proclaimed “in all creation under heaven” (Mark 16:15; Col. 1:23). The direction is not backward from Sinai into Genesis but forward from Israel into the nations. The covenant story that began with Israel was reaching its Messianic goal in the worldwide proclamation of Israel’s Messiah.

Yet Paul carefully distinguishes the whole creation from those who possess “the firstfruits of the Spirit.” The whole creation and the redeemed body are therefore related, but they are not identical. The gospel reaches the widened Jew-Gentile human creation; within that creation the Spirit identifies those who belong to Christ. This distinction becomes decisive because Paul immediately tells us what these Spirit-bearing believers were awaiting: “the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body” (Rom. 8:23).

We have therefore reached the point where the question must change. Part 7A asked, What is the creation that groans, and what is the bondage from which it awaits liberation? Part 7B must ask, What is the body that awaits redemption, and who belongs to it?

The answer begins where Israel’s covenant creation itself began—with the Exodus.

That connection is not incidental. Isaiah 51 joins covenant creation to Exodus redemption. The God who divided the sea, redeemed His people, planted the heavens, laid the foundations of the earth, and said to Zion, “Thou art my people,” established Israel’s covenant world through an Exodus from bondage. It should therefore not surprise us that Paul describes the consummation of that covenant history in equally Exodus-shaped categories: bondage, groaning, children, adoption, inheritance, redemption, liberty, and glory. The covenant creation established through the first Exodus was approaching its final liberation through the second and greater Exodus.

But the first Exodus also raises a problem that Israel Only cannot avoid. Israel did not leave Egypt as an ethnically sealed company. A mixed multitude went up with them. The stranger could enter Israel’s covenant life and share its covenant privileges. Most strikingly, Paul can address Christians at Corinth—including genuine Gentile believers—and speak of the Exodus generation as “all our fathers” (1 Cor. 10:1). Covenant ancestry is being defined through participation in the redemptive history fulfilled in Christ, not through biological descent alone.

Paul then says that these fathers were “all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea” (1 Cor. 10:2). They stood before the sea, were commanded, “Fear ye not, stand still, and see the salvation of the LORD,” passed through on dry ground, and believed Yahweh and His servant Moses (Exod. 14:13, 22, 31). Their baptism unto Moses signified identification with the covenant mediator, his leadership, and the deliverance God accomplished through him. The water itself was not the instrumental cause of their salvation; Israel passed through the sea on dry ground.

That pattern reaches its greater fulfillment in Christ. The New Covenant people are commanded to stand by faith, stand in grace, stand in the gospel, and “stand fast” in the liberty of Christ. They receive circumcision “made without hands.” They are buried and raised with Christ “through the faith of the operation of God.” And where the first Exodus generation was baptized unto Moses, Paul declares of the New Covenant people, “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles” (1 Cor. 12:13).

This is where the argument of Romans 8 begins to open into the larger Pauline doctrine of resurrection and Israel’s salvation. If Jews and genuine Gentiles are baptized by one Spirit into one body, then the “redemption of our body” cannot be interpreted independently of the Jew-Gentile composition of that body. Romans itself will carry us from “the redemption of our body” (Rom. 8:23), through the remnant and Gentile ingrafting of Romans 9–11, to “life from the dead” (Rom. 11:15), “all Israel shall be saved” (Rom. 11:26), and finally the explicit declaration, “we, being many, are one body in Christ” (Rom. 12:5).

Part 7B will therefore follow the Exodus pattern from Moses to Messiah and from Israel into the nations. We will examine the mixed multitude, the stranger, baptism into Moses, the command to stand, spiritual circumcision, Spirit baptism, genuine Gentile incorporation, and the one body in Christ. These are not side issues added to Romans 8. They answer the question Paul himself has placed before us.

The creation has been identified. Its bondage has been explained. Its liberation belonged to the glory that was “about to be revealed.”

Now we turn from the groaning creation to the redemption of the body—from the first Exodus to the greater Exodus, from baptism into Moses to baptism by the Spirit into Christ, and from “our fathers” to the one Jew-Gentile people in whom Israel’s resurrection promises reach their Messianic fulfillment.

[1] Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), 141–42.

[2] Phillip G. Kayser, “Did Jesus Really Come Soon?,” sermon on Revelation 22:12, October 28, 2018, Biblical Blueprints. Kayser specifically applies Romans 8:18 to something glorious “about to happen” and identifies a resurrection among the events of that first judgment.

[3] Kayser, “Did Jesus Really Come Soon?,” discussion of Romans 8:18 and 13:11–12.

[4] Phillip G. Kayser, “The Two Resurrections,” sermon on Revelation 20:4–6, August 12, 2018, Biblical Blueprints. Kayser explicitly distinguishes a first-century bodily resurrection from another bodily resurrection at the end of history.

[5] Phillip G. Kayser, Ransom Paid: Does the Bible Limit the Atonement? (Biblical Blueprints, 2009), 4.

[6] Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church, 4th rev. ed. (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 1999), 225.

[7] Gary DeMar and Kim Burgess, The Hope of Israel and the Nations: New Testament Eschatology Accomplished and Applied, vol. 1 (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2023), 222.

[8] Peter J. Leithart, Revelation 1–11, International Theological Commentary (New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2018), 25–26.

[9] John Lightfoot, Henry Hammond, John Gill, Crellius, Le Clerc, and John Locke represent historical non-cosmic interpretations of Romans 8:19–23; their precise identifications of the “creation” differ and should not be treated as interchangeable.

[10] Gary DeMar and Kim Burgess, The Hope of Israel and the Nations: New Testament Eschatology Accomplished and Applied, vol. 1 (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2023), 222. Burgess identifies the “creation” of Romans 8:19–21 with the Jews, “the whole creation” of verse 22 with the Gentiles, and those possessing the firstfruits of the Spirit in verse 23 with Christians.

The DeMar v. Wilson Discussion – Partial Preterism’s Fatal Flaw: How Mellō and Parousia Gave Birth to Full Preterism

Introduction

Fifteen years before Gary DeMar’s “Three Question Letter Controversy” with Doug Wilson and others, I was already answering Wilson, Gentry, and Mathison’s When Shall These Things Be? (2004) with a book-length exegetical rebuttal. Gary has repeatedly stated he is not a full preterist. I am. Yet Doug still refuses the public debate we once were planning at Westminster Theological Seminary or Reformed Theological Seminary – which is where it needs to take place.

As I predicted Gary has begun to write short article responses to Doug after their public discussion / debate Nov. 3, 2025. The first seems to address their exchange over “consistency” in Matthew 24 and 1 Corinthians 10:11. While this is instructive, it only rehashes cracks I exposed over a decade ago. Below, I respond directly to their points on mellō and parousia, quote the Greek texts in full (YLT), and let the syllogisms finish the job. The partial preterist position doesn’t just wobble—it collapses under the weight of its own concessions. Let the texts speak.

MELLO & PAROUSIA: THE WORDS THAT UNRAVEL PARTIAL PRETERISM

Mello – Gentry’s Selective Translations and Inconsistencies

Gary DeMar correctly notes Ken Gentry’s inconsistency in translating mellō (μέλλω) as “about to be” throughout Revelation to support an AD 70 fulfillment:

“For example, mellō appears 13 times in Revelation, and Ken Gentry translates it as “about to” 12 times in his two-volume commentary on Revelation The Divorce of Israel. His exception is with Revelation 1:19. Is there lexical certainty for not translating mellō as “about to” in 1:19? If there is, why do some commentators translate mellō as “about to,” and why did Gentry translate mellō in 1:19 as “about to” in the first edition of The Beast of Revelation and Before Jerusalem Fell?

There is no certainty that mellō should not be translated as “about to” in 1:19. In fact, in the way mellō is consistently used in Revelation, five times in chapters 2 and 3, the burden of proof is on those who do not translate mellō as “about to” in 1:19. It’s easy to understand non-preterist interpreters not translating mellō as “about to” but not a preterist like Gentry who translates mellō as “about to” or its equivalent 12 times and translates it once as “will take place.” “When Jesus speaks of ‘the things which will take place after these things,’” Gentry wrote, “He uses the verb mellō, which can mean ‘about to,’ in the sense of nearness in time…. Though John’s basic concern in Revelation is with the near term …, we probably should not translate the word mellō as emphasizing nearness, since it seems intentionally to be avoiding the clearer language already appearing in the context (1:1, 3).” It seems to me that translating mellō as “about to” supports what 1:1, 3; 22:6, 10 state and its 12 other uses as “about to” in Revelation.”[1]

Gentry once encouraged us to follow “literal translations” such as Young’s Literal Translation (YLT), where mellō is consistently rendered “about to be.” Consider again Revelation 1:19 (YLT):

“Write the things that thou hast seen, and the things that are, and the things that are about to come [mellō] after these things.”

This verse serves as the outline for the entire book. If mellō means “about to” here, it must mean the end of the millennium events in Rev. 20:7-15 were also “about to be” fulfilled by AD 70. Gentry’s retreat from “about to” is not exegetical; it is creedal damage control.

The deeper issue lies in Paul’s use of mellō. Young’s Literal Translation renders the following:

Romans 8:18 (YLT): “For I reckon that the sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory about to be revealed in us.”
Acts 17:31 (YLT): “Because He did set a day in which He is about to judge the inhabited world in righteousness…”
Acts 24:15 (YLT): “Having hope toward God… that there shall be a resurrection of dead men, both of righteous and unrighteous, about to be.”
2 Timothy 4:1 (YLT): “I fully testify, then, before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who is about to judge living and dead at His appearing…”

Paul addressed living audiences who expected glorification, resurrection, and judgment in their lifetime. Consistent translation of mellō as “about to” places these events in AD 70. The analogy of faith and John and Paul’s use of mello destroys Gentry and Wilson’s hyper-creedalism.

Parousia (Matthew 24:3, 27, 37 / Luke 17:24)

Gentry now insists the parousia in Matthew 24:3, 27, 37 is future, despite once teaching it was fulfilled in AD 70. Why the change? Because Paul uses parousia for the Second Coming and resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:23 and 1 Thessalonians 4:15–17 as full preterist and even his Amillennial critics have been pointing out to him for years.

Yet Gentry’s own editor Keith Mathison (WSTTB?), takes the parousia in both Matthew 24:3, 27, 37 and Luke 17:24—along with the “lightning” (better “light of day,” A Faithful Version)—as fulfilled in AD 70. Gentry’s other co-author Doug Wilson in WSTTB? agrees that parousia in Matthew 24:3, 27, 37 was fulfilled in AD 70. This is not a small “inconsistency”:

Syllogism #1

Major: The parousia or coming of the Son of Man like the light of day shining from east to west in Matthew 24:3, 27, 37 and Luke 17:24 is the Second Coming event that ushers in the resurrection and judgment of the living and dead (Gentry).

Minor: But the parousia or coming of the Son of Man like the light of day shining from east to west in Matthew 24:3, 27, 37 and Luke 17:24 was fulfilled in AD 70 (Mathison, Gentry’s and Wilson’s editor and co-author in WSTTB?).

Conclusion: The parousia or Second Coming of Christ in Matthew 24:3, 27, 37 and Luke 17:24 was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70, ushering in the resurrection and judgment of the living and dead. This is when the kingdom was realized spiritually “within” the church, and all these events were not seen with physical eyes (parousia, resurrection of the dead, or the arrival of the kingdom “within”—Luke 17:20–24; Full Preterism / Mike Sullivan, co-author of House Divided).

Syllogism #2

Major: The parousia of Matthew 24:3, 27, 37 is the same Second Coming or parousia event in Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 15:23 and 1 Thessalonians 4–5 that ushers in the resurrection (Gentry).

Minor: But the parousia of Matthew 24:3, 27, 37 was fulfilled in AD 70 (per Mathison and Wilson – Gentry’s editor and co-author in WSTTB?).

Conclusion: The parousia or Second Coming of Christ that ushers in the resurrection in Matthew 24:3, 27, 37; 1 Corinthians 15:23; and 1 Thessalonians 4–5 was fulfilled in AD 70 (Full Preterism / Mike Sullivan, co-author of House Divided).

Other signers of the anti-full-preterist letter, such as Phillip Kayser and Mike Bull, take the parousia in 1 Corinthians 15:23 and 1 Thessalonians 4:15–17 as AD 70—further collapsing the partial preterist position. These are not minor inconsistencies; they formed full preterism.

1 CORINTHIANS 10:11 – “THE ENDS OF THE AGES”

Wilson’s Exegesis Backfires

In his debate with Gary DeMar, if I recall, Doug claimed the “ages” of 1 Corinthians 10:11 reach back to Adam, Abraham, Moses, David, etc., each with its own eschatology. He admits the ends of these ages “had come upon” the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 10:11).

Syllogism #3

Major: The “ages” represent the eschatology from Adam to Moses (Wilson).

Minor: The fulfillment and end of these ages had come upon the Corinthians (Wilson / 1 Corinthians 10:11).

Conclusion: The eschatology of the “ages” from Adam to Moses—including the Adamic eschatology connected to Christ’s parousia overcoming the Mosaic “law” in 1 Corinthians 15:23–56—had come upon the Corinthians and was fulfilled in AD 70 (Wilson—if not, why not?).

Paul connects:

1 Corinthians 1:7–8 — eagerly awaiting the revelation of Christ, confirmed “to the end,” blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Corinthians 10:11 — “upon whom the ends of the ages have come.”
1 Corinthians 15:23-24, 51 — The “Parousia” and “end” were so close that “we [Paul and the Corinthians] shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed”–that is the event was expected in the lifetime of the Corinthians.

How were the Corinthians to distinguish different “ends” or “comings”? They weren’t. Only hyper-creedal eisegesis splits what Paul unified.

Wilson’s Mello Silence

Gary cites a section of Wilson’s book or co-authored book Biblical Pictures of the New Cosmos where he appeals to Hebrews 6:5 (“powers of the age about to [mellō] come”) and Ephesians 1:21 (“not only in this age but also in the one about to [mellō] come”) to argue the new covenant age arrived in AD 70—yet he refuses to strengthen his point by pointing out that mello is used in these passages. The reason for this is that the more attention Partial Preterists such as Wilson draw to mellō as meaning “about to be” fulfilled in AD 70, the more they are going to have to consistently address it in Romans 8:18 YLT, Acts 17:31 YLT, Acts 24:15 YLT, or 2 Timothy 4:1 YLT where the glorification of the Church, resurrection of the just and unjust, and the judgment of the world or of the living and dead were events that were “about to be” fulfilled in AD 70 and not at the alleged “end of world history.” Like Gentry, the more he honors mellō as “about to be,” the faster his creeds collapse. This is not mere inconsistency—it is incomplete and borderline deceptive exegesis.

Doug Wilson’s Silence on Mello again and the “Enemies” of Psalm 110 in Hebrews 10:26-27

In this section Doug also appeals to Hebrews 10:26-27 to demonstrate that God’s enemies were judged by fire in AD 70. Again, the author uses mello concerning the judgment of fire that was “about to consume” these “enemies.” The other issue here is that contextually these are the “enemies” of Psalm 110 that the author quotes in Hebrews 10:12-27! Therefore, just as we have in 1 Corinthians 15, we have an imminent coming of Christ (v. 37–He would come “in a very, very little while and would not delay”) that was “about to” “repay” and destroy the last enemies of Psalm 110.

Conclusion

The “inconsistencies” within partial preterism are not minor tensions; they are foundational fractures that produced full preterism. Mathison, Wilson’s co-authors, and men like Phillip Kayser and Mike Bull concede AD 70 fulfillments that demand full preterism by their own logic. My interaction with Doug—House Divided vs. When Shall These Things Be?—predates the DeMar-Wilson or Three Question Letter Controversy by over fifteen years. Gary is not a full preterist. I am.

Gary once held our book (HD) up at a full preterist conference and reminded everyone what Gary North once said—“the side that refuses to respond or quits responding has lost the debate.” This means that Gentry, Wilson, and Mathison have lost that written debate, and Doug keeps backing out of an oral one with me. Gary is also correct to point out that the Reformed community focused on him more than myself or other full preterists because Gary is “more of a public figure.” Wilson and the partial preterists were also very concerned because after David Chilton came over to full preterism, they couldn’t lose Gary DeMar too—so they had to make a public example of him as they did with Chilton. After all, EVERYONE knows Wilson and Gentry’s “orthodox” partial preterism leads to full preterism.

Doug, it is neither just nor righteous to continue ducking a debate with me and full preterism. Gary has clarified his position. WHEN will you do the right thing and debate me—Mike Sullivan, co-author of House Divided—at WTS or RTS, as we once began to plan? The exegetical record demands it, and everyone wants to see THAT debate. The audience deserves it.

[1] Gary DeMar, The “End of the Age” and Interpretive Changes, Nov. 11, 2025, https://americanvision.org/posts/the-end-of-the-age-and-interpretive-changes/

Response to Doug Wilson’s Hyper-Creedal Argument Against Full Preterism & Gary DeMar – Christ Coming in Glory to Judge the Living and Dead

Introduction – The Authority of the Creeds?

Gary DeMar recently visited Moscow, Idaho, where he appeared on the CrossPolitic podcast to promote his new book on Greg Bahnsen and presuppositional apologetics. During the visit, the hosts confronted DeMar with a widely discussed three-question letter, signed by several individuals, seeking clarity on his views regarding a future physical bodily return of Christ and a future physical bodily resurrection of the Church at the so-called “end of time.” Following this intense discussion, DeMar interviewed Doug Wilson about his recent CNN appearance. Wilson had originally hoped to discuss presuppositionalism and full preterism with DeMar, but since that topic was not covered during their conversation, Wilson shared his thoughts in a subsequent article. This piece responds to Wilson’s article on the matter.

As usual, Wilson’s arguments against Full Preterism are incoherent and unconvincing. In this response, I will briefly critique his recent article, which seeks to undermine the imminent AD 70 fulfillment of Christ’s coming in glory to judge the living and the dead (see his article cited below).

Wilson begins by appealing to the authority of creeds and confessions, treating them as unassailable in matters of eschatology. His stance aligns with Kenneth Gentry’s view, which regards the creeds as “infallibly certain” on this point, leaving no room for reevaluation. This presupposition is not only circular but also echoes a Roman Catholic approach, elevating human tradition above Scripture and stifling biblical inquiry. Doug Wilson and Ken Gentry replace Rome’s claimed authority with that of Reformed creeds and confessions. Rome asserts we cannot read and interpret Scripture independently—say, under a tree with just me and my Bible—without first submitting to its authority as the supposed source and interpreter of God’s Word. Similarly, Wilson and Gentry suggest we cannot interpret Scripture freely without first accepting the “infallibly certain” authority of the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) and other creeds, which they claim have already provided the definitive interpretation for us when it comes to eschatology.

Such a position reeks of hypocrisy, particularly given the significant exegetical concessions partial preterists, including Wilson, have made to Full Preterism over the years on key texts and interpretations. While we commend these shifts, I will argue they fall short of fully embracing Scripture’s consistent implications.

For example, at what point did “orthodox” theology permit texts such as Daniel 12:1–4; Matthew 13:39-43; 16:27–28, 24:27–30, 25:31; 2 Peter 3; Revelation 1–19, 21–22; Hebrews 1:10–12, 6:5 SLT, 10:37; 1 Peter 4:5–7, 17; 1 Corinthians 1:5–8, 10:11, 2 Thessalonians 1-2, among others, to be understood by partial preterism as fulfilled in AD 70? And how do these concessions align with the futurist framework of the creeds and confessions Wilson defends? These questions expose the inconsistency of partial preterism, which selectively adopts preterist interpretations while clinging to creedal futurism, creating a theological tension that demands resolution. Moreover, the Church continues to grow in recognizing the AD 70 fulfillment of imminent time texts (Preterism) but needing to employ the analogy of faith with such scriptures as Acts 1:11; 1 Thessalonians 4:15–17; 1 Corinthians 15; and Revelation 20:7–13. Wilson would have us believe these texts are isolated from those he and other partial preterists have conceded to AD 70, but this is simply not the case. Full Preterism’s strength lies in harmonizing these passages through rigorous exegesis, and the Church will increasingly embrace this position as it consistently “shows its exegetical work.”

We have reminded Wilson and Gentry that their reliance on creedal authority mirrors the circular reasoning of Roman Catholicism. Rome dismissed Martin Luther’s doctrine of forensic justification as too novel, arguing it deviated from the Church’s “infallibly certain” position and thus could not be studied or embraced. Similarly, Wilson and Gentry echo John Eck’s flawed arguments, offering little substantive engagement with Scripture beyond dogmatic assertions. They imply that one cannot interpret Scripture independently without accepting creedal authority, much like Rome’s claim that Protestants have no right to interpret Scripture without submitting to its authority—a concept the Reformation rejected. Even Wilson’s ally, James White, opposes this presupposition and circularity when debating Catholics. Yet, Wilson presupposes the creeds’ authority, suggesting full preterists must accept it before they can exegete or interpret Scripture [“under a tree”], effectively barring them from challenging the “infallibly certain” reformed creeds. Wilson seems convinced this stance is a profound insight that he was eager to share with Gary–but just never got the chance.

Here are some quotes from our chapter response to Wilson from our book, House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology, from Chapter Six, “A Creedal Objection to Wilson’s Creedalism”?

[BEGIN QUOTES] Wilson admits that the eschatological confession of the church “had not been adequately studied” when the Nicene Creed was framed (When Shall These Things Be?, page 272). He also admits that it is “quite true” that even to the present day, the church “hasn’t thoroughly debated eschatology yet” (256). Yet Wilson says that futurism is a “settled” truth (256).

Wilson’s fear and opposition to a church debate on eschatology in light of God’s word is clearly irrational. It is comparable to the statist opposition to scriptural examinations of justification in the Reformation. The Reformers’ calls for debate concerning justification by faith were met with Papist scorn and fear, and ultimately with severe persecution.

Wilson refuses to entertain the idea that if it was proper for Calvin, as a matter of conscience, to challenge the long-standing creeds and authorities, it could be, if only in principle, proper for preterists to do the same. Though Wilson stands on the theological shoulders of those who have made such historic challenges, he stands against us with a closed Bible in one hand (offering no scriptural arguments for his creedalism), and the sword of the church militant in the other. Thankfully for us, Calvin did not disport himself in the same way.

Wilson acknowledges that the creeds are fallible, and he admits that “fallibility means that the capacity for error is there . . .” (264). But then the question arises, which Wilson never addresses: If the possibility for error is there, must it not then be legitimate to test the creeds to see if error actually is there or not? If so, by what standard would we do that? By Scripture of course, had Wilson not removed that possibility from us.

Wilson says that when the church confesses the truth that Jesus is Lord in one of her creeds, the confession has value and authority and “we are called to submit to the authority.” Wilson then adds, “The ground of this authority lies in the fact that what they confessed was scriptural and resonated with God’s revelation of himself in Scripture” (266). Yet when it comes to eschatological doctrines which, according to Wilson’s own admission, have not been adequately studied or debated (256, 272), Wilson does not allow for the testing of those doctrines, making his claim of authority based on scriptural truth utterly vacuous. . . .

Wilson quotes the Roman Catholic G. K. Chesterton who said that “there are some things too old to patronize [i.e., dismiss with condescension]” (267). It is hard to imagine why this statement would be true, or how it advances Wilson’s argument. Was the Roman Catholic Church too old to patronize when Calvin spoke out? What is the magic year when something becomes too old to patronize? At what time are the church’s actions and doctrines no longer subject to the evaluation and testing of Scripture? Because Wilson, as a Reformed pastor, must agree that 1,500 years was not enough time, is it 1,700 years, 2,000 years, or just the year before someone disagreeing with Wilson’s eschatology comes forward with a challenge from Scripture? . . .

Wilson posits that a higher view of respect for authority is shown by the woman who submits to her husband knowing him to be mistaken than by the woman who submits to a husband she thinks is infallible (279-280). We absolutely agree. We respect the church and her creedal authority, and much more than Wilson, as he says above, because we know the creeds to be mistaken in the area of eschatology. . . .

At length Wilson observes, “We are not talking about differences of opinion with regard to the timing of certain end-time events. We are debating the nature of the universe and the place of man in it” (257). Amen, Doug. Do we live in a universe where Christ failed to provide the victory he promised for the kingdom of God? That is to say, do we live in a universe where the Apostles’ hope of Jesus’ Second Coming was so wrong that they thought it was imminent when it was literally thousands or millions of years in the future? Or do we live in a universe where God means what he says and keeps his promises? Yes, the nature of the universe is at stake indeed. [END QUOTES]

1. The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) Acknowledges Its Own Fallibility

The WCF explicitly subordinates itself to the authority of Scripture, undermining Wilson’s appeal to creedal authority as definitive or as Gentry says, “infallibly certain.” Consider the following:

2. The Supreme Authority of Scripture

Chapter 1, Section 10 of the WCF states:

“The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.”

This establishes Scripture as the ultimate authority, superseding all human decrees, councils, or opinions, including the WCF itself.

3. The Fallibility of Creeds and Councils

Chapter 31, Section 4 further clarifies:

“All synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore, they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.”

By affirming the fallibility of councils, which produce creeds and confessions, the WCF acknowledges that these documents are subordinate to Scripture and subject to correction. Wilson’s reliance on creedal authority over consistently applying his own hermeneutic of the imminent time texts being fulfilled in AD 70 ignores this clear principle, elevating human tradition above the Word of God.

4. Wilson’s Inconsistent Rejection of Creedal Authority – “Rules for thee and not for me”

Wilson admits in his article that he has rejected the so-called “authority” of other creeds when he believes their teachings contradict Scripture. He writes,

“They [the creeds] nevertheless have real authority, which I must recognize and submit to, unless I have plain statements from the Word which contradict the creed…” (see link below).

Yet, he denies Full Preterists the same right to challenge creeds based on biblical exegesis. This double standard reveals Wilson’s arrogance. He assumes his interpretations are inherently superior, while dismissing Full Preterist arguments as illegitimate without engaging their substance. Such hubris undermines his claim to uphold the supremacy of Scripture.

5. Wilson’s Misrepresentation of Gary DeMar’s Position?

Wilson references Gary DeMar’s appearance on a CrossPolitic podcast discussing the Nicene Creed and Reformed confessions, particularly the issue of Christ’s return in glory to judge the living and the dead. Wilson cites the Apostles’ Creed:

“From thence He will come to judge the living and the dead,”

and the Nicene Creed:

“He will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead.”

Yet, Wilson fails to acknowledge that DeMar addressed this very point on the podcast, offering a robust defense of a preterist interpretation of Matt. 16:27-28. Did Wilson even listen to the segment? His omission suggests either ignorance or deliberate avoidance, weakening his critique.

“Unless I have plain statements from the Word which contradict the creed…”

6. Wilson’s Selective Use of Scripture

Wilson lists a handful of Scriptures to support his view of Christ’s coming in glory to judge the living and the dead, but he conspicuously avoids texts that directly challenge his position. Below, I address the texts he cites and those he ignores, demonstrating his selective exegesis and inconsistency with his own partial preterist framework.

a. Matthew 16:27-28 / Matthew 24:30 (Omitted)

In Matthew 16:27-28, Jesus promises to come in glory to judge each person according to their deeds within thelifetime of those standing before Him:

“For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay eachperson according to what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste deathuntil they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

Similarly, Matthew 24:30 describes Christ’s coming in glory:

“Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and theywill see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.”

Privately, Wilson has conceded that both verses of Matthew 16:27-28 are most likely referring to Christ’s spiritual coming in glory in AD 70. Publicly Wilson admits Christ coming in glory in Matthew 24:30 was also fulfilled in AD 70judgment, aligning with Full Preterist exegesis. Yet, he refuses to acknowledge that this interpretation undermines the creedal assertion of a future coming of Christ in “glory” or in judgment, contradicting his public defense of creedal authority. He knows his editor Keith Mathison also sees Christ coming in “glory” in Matthew 25:31 as fulfilled in AD 70. His silence on these critical texts, which explicitly tie Christ’s coming in glory to the first-century generation, exposes his unwillingness to engage with Scripture that challenges his position:

Matthew 16:27-28	Matthew 24:30-31	Matthew 25:31
1) Christ comes (Grk. erchomai): “For the Son of Man is going to come” (16:27)	1) Christ comes (Grk. erchomai): “The Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven” (24:30)	1) Christ comes (Grk. erchomai): “When the Son of Man comes” (25:31)
2) Christ comes with His angels: “With His angels” (16:27)	2) Christ comes with His angels: “With His angels” (24:31)	2) Christ comes with His angels: “With all His holy angels” (25:31)
3) Christ comes in glory: “In the glory of His Father” (16:27)	3) Christ comes in glory: “With power and great glory” (24:30)	3) Christ comes in glory: “In His glory” (25:31)
4) Christ comes in judgment to reward/repay in lifetime of some: “He will repay each person according to what they have done… some standing here will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming” (16:27-28)	4) Christ comes in judgment to reward/repay in their “generation”: “The Son of Man… will send His angels to gather His elect… this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (24:30-34)	4) Christ comes in judgment to reward/repay in their “generation”: “The Son of Man… will separate the sheep from the goats,” rewarding the righteous and punishing the wicked (25:31-46; cf. 24:34 for generational timing)
5) Christ and His Kingdom come together in power and great glory: “The Son of Man coming in His kingdom” (16:28)	5) Christ and His Kingdom come together in power and great glory: “Coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” (24:30). Saints inherit “redemption” and kingdom (Lk. 21:27-32).	5) Christ and His Kingdom come together in power and great glory: “The Son of Man… sits on His glorious throne” (25:31). Saints inherit “eternal life” and the kingdom (24:30-32; 25:31-46).

b. Revelation 22:10-12 (Omitted)

Revelation 22:10-12 declares that the “appointed time” of the book’s events, including the judgment and resurrection (cf. Revelation 20:12-13; Daniel 12:2), is “near”:

“And he said to me, ‘Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book [singular], for the appointed time [of the judgment and resurrection of the dead of Dan. 12:2-4 LXX] is near. Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy. Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done.’”

Wilson takes this passage as fulfilled in AD 70, consistent with the imminent language of “soon” and “the appointed time is near.” Yet, he avoids discussing it in his critique, likely because it connects the judgment of the living and the dead to the AD 70 timeframe, supporting Full Preterism and contradicting the creeds he defends. By omitting this clear statement of Christ’s imminent return and judgment, Wilson sidesteps a text that directly challenges his position.

John’s “appointed time” being “near” is the “appointed time” for the judgment and resurrection of Daniel 12:2-4 LXX that was not near when Daniel wrote but was when John did. So clearly Doug must avoid this passage as well.

c. 2 Timothy 4:1 (Omitted)

Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, writes in 2 Timothy 4:1 (YLT/SLT):

“I solemnly charge you before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who is about to judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom.”

Wilson sidesteps this text, which explicitly uses the Greek mello (“about to”) to describe an imminent judgment of “the living and the dead” (the language of the creeds) in AD 70. His avoidance is telling: acknowledging this text would force him to admit that Scripture places the judgment within the apostolic generation, not a distant future, directly challenging his Futurist hyper-creedal loyalty.

Due to Doug’s love of the creeds over the love of Scripture and the analogy of faith connected to the imminent time texts, he can’t harmonize the imminence he sees in the Matthew 24-25 with Paul’s eschatology in 2 Timothy 4:1 YLT:

Theme	2 Timothy 4:1 (YLT)	Matt. 24-25 / Lk. 21
Imminence	“who is about to judge” (Greek: mello, indicating imminent action). The use of mello underscores the nearness of Christ’s judgment, written in the mid-60s AD, pointing to an event within the apostolic generation (circa AD 70).	“This generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (Matt. 24:34). The parable of the fig tree (Matt. 24:32–33) signals that when the signs are seen, “he is near, at the very door,” tying the events to the lifetime of Jesus’ contemporaries (circa AD 70).
Second Coming	Refers to Christ’s “appearing” (Greek: epiphaneia), a term associated with His return in glory to establish His kingdom and execute judgment.	Describes the “Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” (Matt. 24:30), a clear reference to the Second Coming, with the nearness emphasized in the fig tree parable (Matt. 24:32–33).
Judgment of the Living and the Dead	Christ “who is about to judge the living and the dead,” aligning with creedal language and pointing to a comprehensive judgment at His return, likely fulfilled in the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem.	The “gathering of the elect” (Matt. 24:31; cf. Matt. 13:39-43) and the judgment imagery of “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 24:51) imply a separation of the righteous and wicked, consistent with judging both the living and the dead at the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.
Inheritance/Coming of the Kingdom	Tied to “His kingdom,” where Christ’s appearing ushers in the full establishment of His redemptive rule, fulfilling the promises of the new covenant age (post-AD 70).	The parable of the fig tree (Matt. 24:32–33) signals the nearness of these events, culminating in the gathering of the elect (Matt. 24:31) and the inheritance of the kingdom (cf. Matt. 24:32-33 / Luke 21:30-31; Matt. 25:34; ).

d. 1 Peter 4:5-7, 17 (Omitted)

Peter states that God was “ready to judge the living and the dead” because “the end of all things is near” and it was the “appointed time” for judgment (1 Peter 4:5-7, 17). Wilson’s colleague, Kenneth Gentry, concedes this text was fulfilled in AD 70, but refuses to explain how the living and the dead were judged at that time. Where is Wilson on this key text?!? His silence betrays his inability to reconcile this passage with his hyper-creedalism, which prioritizes tradition over Scripture’s clear timing.

And again, Peter’s “appointed time” for “the judgment” of the “living and dead” being “near” is likewise the “appointed time of the end” of the judgment and resurrection of Daniel so this text must also be avoided by Wilson (Dan. 12:2-4 LXX = 1 Pet. 4:5-7, 17).

e. Revelation 11:18 (Omitted)

Revelation 11:18 links the judgment of Old Covenant Jerusalem (AD 67-70) with the “appointed time” for the judgment of the dead:

“The appointed time came for the dead to be judged.”

Wilson interprets the judgment of Jerusalem in Revelation 11 as fulfilled in AD 70, spanning the “3.5 years” between AD 67-70. Yet, in his commentary on Revelation he avoids mentioning that both Daniel and John connect this judgment to the resurrection and judgment of the dead (Daniel 12:2; Revelation 11:1-18). This omission is strategic and pathetic, as it undermines his appeal to a future judgment.

f. Acts 24:15 (Addressed, but Mishandled)

Wilson cites Acts 24:15, where Paul speaks of a resurrection of the just and unjust, but ignores the literal translations that use mello (“about to”):

Literal Standard Version: “Having hope toward God, which they themselves also wait for, [that] there is about to be a resurrection of the dead, both of righteous and unrighteous.”

Other literal translations, such as the Berean Literal Bible, Young’s Literal Translation, and Smith’s Literal Translation, consistently render mello as “about to be,” reinforcing the imminent expectation of the resurrection in Paul’s time. Strikingly, Wilson’s co-author, Kenneth Gentry, argued in early editions of Before Jerusalem Fell that mello in Revelation (e.g., Revelation 1:19, 3:10) should be translated as “about to be,” citing the precision of literal translations to support an AD 70 fulfillment. Why, then, do partial preterists like Wilson and Gentry conveniently ignore the same literal translations of mello in Acts 24:15 (YLT) and 2 Timothy 4:1 (YLT), which equally point to an imminent event? This inconsistency exposes their selective exegesis.

Moreover, Wilson fails to acknowledge that Paul’s teaching in Acts 24:15 draws directly from Daniel 12:2, which speaks of the resurrection of the just and unjust. Again, this is because he knows the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 is connected to the Tribulation of v. 1 and the “3.5 years” and “shattering” of Jerusalem between AD 67-70. And again, this same OT passage is drawn upon in Revelation 11:1-18, where John ties the “appointed time” for the judgment of the dead to the “3.5 years” AD 67-70 destruction of Jerusalem.

If, as Gentry concedes, the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 was fulfilled in AD 70, and Paul is citing Daniel 12:2 in Acts 24:15, then the literal translations’ use of mello (“about to be”) logically and exegetically demands that the resurrection in Acts 24:15 was also fulfilled in AD 70. Wilson’s refusal to engage this connection reveals a deliberate omission: he avoids the implications of Gentry’s concession, which surrenders Daniel 12:2 to an AD 70 fulfillment, undermining the creedal future judgment he defends. Yet Doug has no exegetical counter to the fact that the resurrection of Daniel 12:1-2 is fulfilled at the time of the Tribulation Doug says was fulfilled between AD 67-70. Wilson’s selective exegesis crumbles under scrutiny, as he suppresses the full weight of Scripture and his own system’s internal contradictions.

g. Matthew 11:24 (Addressed, but Miscontextualized)

Wilson cites Matthew 11:24, referencing the judgment of Chorazin, Bethsaida, Capernaum, Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom on the “day of judgment”:

“But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you [Capernaum].” (Matthew 11:24)

In this context, Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum are strictly cities in Galilee where Jesus performed His ministry (Matthew 11:20-24). Tyre and Sidon, Phoenician port cities, functioned as city-states with regional influence, sometimes representing their broader territories in biblical language (Matthew 11:21-22). Sodom, referenced as a historical city destroyed in Genesis 19, is called a “land” in Matthew 10:15 (“land of Sodom and Gomorrah”), carrying symbolic weight as a region judged for its sin. However, Wilson ignores the immediate context in Matthew 10:15-23, where Jesus connects this judgment to His coming in AD 70:

“Truly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town [which rejects the disciples’ preaching]. … You will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.” (Matthew 10:15, 23)

This “day of judgment” for the cities of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, and the city-states or symbolic regions of Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom, fulfills Daniel 7, 9:24-27, and 12:2-4, which describe the judgment and resurrection at the time of Jerusalem’s fall in AD 70. Contextually, this “day of judgment” takes place in AD 70 at the “coming” of Christ Wilson says was fulfilled in AD 70. It also aligns with the immediate context and discussion of John the Baptist’s preaching of an imminent (“about to be”) wrath against Israel (Matthew 3:7-12 SLT; cf. Malachi 3-4; Isaiah 40). By failing to address this context, Wilson obscures the clear connection between the judgment of these cities, regions, or nations and Christ’s coming in AD 70, weakening his argument and avoiding Scripture that supports Full Preterism.

h. Matthew 23:1-3 / Acts 23:1-3 (Addressed, but Misinterpreted)

Wilson oddly combines these passages, suggesting that because the Pharisees believed in a physical resurrection, Jesus endorsed their teaching. This is a non-sequitur. The Pharisees also held unbiblical views of the kingdom, yet Jesus did not endorse those. In Matthew 23, Jesus explicitly promises judgment on the Pharisees (a judgment of the “living”) and vindication for the martyrs (from Abel onward – a judgment of the “dead”) within that generation (AD 30-70), aligning with the imminent judgment texts Wilson avoids. His appeal to these passages is irrelevant and distracts from the clear eschatological teaching of Matthew 23.

i. John 11:24-27 (Addressed, but Misinterpreted)

Wilson cites Martha’s belief in a resurrection on the “last day” (John 11:24), assuming it refers to the end of world history. However, he takes the “day and hour” of Matthew 24:36 as fulfilled in AD 70, marking the end of the Old Covenant age. Why, then, does he not apply the same logic to the “last day” in John 11:24, which is also drawn from the context of the “appointed time of the end” of Daniel 12:2-13, fulfilled after the “3.5 years” of tribulation. Wilson’s inconsistent exegesis here is once again glaring.

Other Issues

Matthew 24-25 and the Eschatological Wedding

Wilson denies a division at Matthew 24:36, interpreting most of Matthew 24-25 as fulfilled in AD 70, except for Matthew 25:31-46, which he claims refers to a future Second Coming. This creates a contradiction: he takes the parable of the ten virgins (Matthew 25:1-13) as fulfilled in AD 70, yet this parable describes the same eschatological wedding or “meeting” as 1 Thessalonians 4:17 and the same “day and hour” as Matthew 24:36 (cf. Matthew 25:13). If Wilson concedes the “day and hour” is AD 70, his argument that the “last day” in John 11:24 is future collapses.

Moreover, Wilson and other partial preterists interpret the eschatological wedding in Matthew 8:10-12 and Revelation 19-21 as fulfilled in AD 70, marking the divorce of Old Covenant Israel and the marriage and feast of the New. This aligns with Isaiah 25:6-9, where the resurrection (swallowing up of death) occurs when Jerusalem becomes a “heap” (Isaiah 25:2), consistent with Revelation 11:1-18 and Daniel 12:1-7. Wilson’s failure to connect these texts further exposes his willful inconsistency.

Feature	Matthew 24–25:1–13 (Parable of the Ten Virgins)	1 Thessalonians 4:15–17	Isaiah 25:6–9
Event	Bridegroom’s arrival (parousia – Matthew 24:3, 27, 37, 39) for the wedding feast	Lord’s descent (parousia) with trumpet and gathering	Lord’s banquet on the mountain, swallowing up death
Key Term: “Meet”	Apantēsis (go out to meet the bridegroom, v. 1, 6)	Apantēsis (caught up to meet the Lord in the air, v. 17)	N/A (implied gathering for the feast)
Resurrection Connection	Implied spiritual resurrection via marriage feast (new covenant life)	Explicit resurrection of the dead and transformation of the living	Death swallowed up forever, veil removed from nations who come to Zion
Marriage Feast Imagery	Wedding feast with bridegroom, wise virgins enter	Implied union with Christ in the air	Eschatological banquet for all peoples
Timeframe	Within “this generation” (Matthew 24:34), AD 70	“We who are alive and remain,” first-century expectation	Fulfilled in AD 70 with old covenant’s end, per full preterism
Theological Significance	Divorce from old covenant Israel, marriage to the Church	Believers’ eternal union with Christ	God’s victory over death, new covenant established

2. Wilson’s Partial Preterist Colleagues Undermine His Position

Wilson’s arguments are further weakened by his partial preterist allies or co-authors, Keith Mathison and Kenneth Gentry, whose concessions align more closely with Full Preterism:

a. Keith Mathison / Gary DeMar

Mathison, Wilson’s editor in When Shall These Things Be?, admits that the “coming” of Christ in “glory” of Matthew 25:31 and 2 Thessalonians 1-2 was spiritually fulfilled in the AD 70 judgment, not a future event. This effectively concedes that the Second Coming “in glory” occurred in AD 70, undermining Wilson’s appeal to a future coming of Christ in “glory” to judge the dead per the creeds.

b. Kenneth Gentry / James Jordan

As pointed out earlier, Gentry and James Jordan concede that the resurrection of the just and unjust in Daniel 12:1-2 was fulfilled after the AD 67-70 tribulation. Jesus in fact did teach that His Second Coming and “gathering of the elect” (resurrection – same end of the age “gathering” of Matt. 13:39-43) would occur “immediately after” the Tribulation of “those days” (AD 67-70) (Matt. 24:229-31). Since Wilson cites Daniel 12:2 to support the creedal future judgment of the living and the dead, Gentry’s admission directly contradicts Wilson’s position, aligning instead with Full Preterism.

James Jordan now concedes that Christ’s coming and the “gathering of the elect” in Matthew 24:27, 30–31 occurred in AD 70, when the Old Testament saints were raised from Hades to inherit eternal life and dwell in God’s presence, aligning with his interpretation of Daniel 12:2.

These are considered reformed “orthodox” views.

c. Joel McDurmon / Peter Leithart

Partial preterist Joel McDurmon takes the “end of the age” in the parable of the wheat and tares–Matthew 13:39-43 as the old covenant age just as Doug does in Matthew 24:3. But this would mean that the judgment and resurrection of the dead of Daniel 12:2-3 was fulfilled in AD 70 (Dan. 12:2-3 = Matt. 13:39-43).

So here is a visual of how one can see partial preterism leading to full preterism with Gentry taking Dan. 12 as spiritually fulfilled in AD 70, McDurmon taking the “end of the age” in Matthew 13 as AD 70, and Mathison taking the coming of Christ in Matthew 25:31 as fulfilled spiritually in AD 70:

Daniel 12	Matthew 13	Matthew 24–25
1) Increased knowledge of the Messiah and evangelism before the end (12:3–4)	1) Evangelism and sowing of the gospel before the end of the Old Covenant age (sunteleia tou aionos), as depicted in the parable of the wheat and tares (13:24–30, 36–43)	1) Evangelism before the end of the Old Covenant age (sunteleia tou aionos), with the gospel preached to all nations (24:3, 14)
2) Unprecedented tribulation (12:1)	—	2) Great Tribulation, unmatched in history (using common hyperbole), marking the end of the age (24:21, 29)
3) Righteous rise to eternal life; wicked rise to eternal shame (12:2–3)	3) Righteous wheat gathered into the barn to shine in the kingdom; tares reaped and burned in judgment (13:30, 40–43)	3) Righteous sheep gathered and raised out of Hades by angels to inherit eternal life and the kingdom; goats face eternal punishment (24:30–31; 25:31–46)
4) Fulfillment at the appointed time of the end, when the power of the holy people is shattered for three-and-a-half years (12:4, 7; cf. Dan. 9:26–27, LXX – Jerusalem and Second Temple desolated during AD 67–70)	4) Fulfillment at the harvest, which is the end of the Old Covenant age, when the Son of Man sends His angels (13:39–40)	4) Fulfillment in Jesus’ generation, immediately after the tribulation and the “times of the Gentiles” (AD 67–70), with Jerusalem and the Second Temple desolated (24:3–34; cf. Luke 21:20–24, 32)

Doug struggled to convince Charismatic Dr. Michael Brown in their debate that the revelatory and sign gifts ceased in AD 70 at the “end of the old covenant age,” citing Matthew 24:3. Dr. Brown countered by referencing Matthew 13:39–43, arguing that Doug’s position would imply the resurrection was also fulfilled in AD 70, a point Doug did not address. However, in my debate with Dr. Brown, I maintained exegetical consistency regarding 1 Corinthians 13:8–12, demonstrating that “that which is perfect” refers to Christ’s imminent Second Coming. This event ushered in the Church’s glorification, enabling us to see His face in the new covenant age, or the new heavens and new earth, where the curse of spiritual death and separation is no more (1 Cor. 13:8–12; Rev. 21:4; 22:4–7).

d. Phillip Kayser / Mike Bull

Here is another partial preterist Pastor that signed the letter attacking DeMar who accepts that mello in Acts 24:15 YLT should be translated as “about to be” and does believe there was a resurrection in AD 70. He also believes that Christ’s parousia in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 and 1 Corinthians 15:23 was fulfilled in AD 70. This is just another example of partial preterism doing its best to be consistent with the imminent time texts and trying to follow the analogy of faith without “getting the rod from mother church” (as James Jordan once said).

e. Milton Terry / David Chilton / Gary DeMar

Milton Terry, also a partial preterist, adhered to the analogy of faith principle and interpreted all three cloud-coming passages—Matthew 24:30, Acts 1:11, and Revelation 1:7—as fulfilled in AD 70. Kenneth Gentry, seemingly unbothered by Terry’s position, sold and profited from Terry’s books. This raises a critical question: within the “orthodox” partial preterist system, where is a text supporting a future bodily Second Coming, let alone one “in glory”? Terry’s consistent exegesis of these passages as AD 70 fulfillments further undermines Wilson’s appeal to a future creedal coming, exposing the scarcity of biblical support for such a position within partial preterism’s own framework.

During a lunch with David Chilton after his hospital stay, he told me, “Mike, you were right. The Bible teaches only one Second Coming of Christ, fulfilled in AD 70.” Gary DeMar appears to be reaching the same conclusion. Yet, Kenneth Gentry and Doug Wilson’s writings continue to lead their readers toward Full Preterism. Some of their most prominent writers and theologians, like Chilton, conclude that the singular Second Coming was fulfilled in AD 70. Still, Gentry and Wilson remain in denial, refusing to acknowledge that their concessions to the imminent time texts’ fulfillment in AD 70 inevitably point to Full Preterism.

3. 2 Peter 3 and Revelation 21-22

Wilson’s partial preterist framework unravels under the weight of his own concessions and those of his allies, exposing a house divided against itself. Keith Mathison and Kenneth Gentry argue that 2 Peter 3 describes a future Second Coming and the end of world history, but Wilson interprets it as Christ’s spiritual coming in AD 70, when the Old Covenant heavens and earth passed away. Yet, all three—Wilson, Mathison, and Gentry—concede that the New Jerusalem and New Heavens and Earth of Revelation 21:1-22:5 were established in AD 70. If the New Creation arrived in AD 70, as they admit, then the Church now sees God’s face, partakes of the Tree of Life, and experiences the removal of the Adamic curse (“there will be no more death,” Revelation 21:4). This is a fatal concession: if the New Creation was inaugurated in AD 70, the resurrection and judgment it entails (Revelation 20:12-13; 21:8) must have occurred then, decisively supporting Full Preterism. Game, set, match—Wilson knows it, yet he dodges the inescapable implications.

This incoherence is further exposed by partial preterists like Joel Webbon and Andrew Isker, who correctly identify the “heavens and earth” in Hebrews 1:10-12 and 12:26-28 as the Old Covenant creation, which was “rolled up,” “shaken,” and “soon vanished” in AD 70:

“And, ‘You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.’” (Hebrews 1:10-12)

“‘Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.’ This phrase, ‘Yet once more,’ indicates the removal of things that are shaken—that is, things that have been made—in order that the things that cannot be shaken may remain. Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken.” (Hebrews 12:26-28)

These passages align with Wilson’s view of 2 Peter 3 and Revelation 21:1, where the Old Covenant system passes away to make way for the unshakable New Covenant kingdom. However, partial preterism as a system is left clinging to a single verse—Revelation 20:11—to support an alleged future, physical dissolution of the cosmos at the alleged end of world history:

“Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them.” (Revelation 20:11)

If their entire case for a future “end of world history” “passing of heaven and earth” rests on one verse, while ignoring the analogy of faith that connects Revelation 20:11 to the AD 70 fulfillments in Hebrews 1:10-12, 12:26-28, 2 Peter 3, and Revelation 21:1, their hyper-creedal system is the problem, not Full Preterism.

Passage	Partial Preterist Interpretation
Matthew 5:17–18	Old Covenant heaven and earth passed in AD 70
Matthew 24:3, 29, 35	Old Covenant heaven and earth passed in AD 70
Acts 2:20–21	Old Covenant world passed in AD 70
Romans 8:18–23 (YLT)	Creation of men groaning, liberation “about to be” fulfilled in AD 70 (Lightfoot, DeMar)
1 Corinthians 7:29–31	Old Covenant world passed in AD 70
2 Peter 3	Old Covenant heaven and earth passed in AD 70
Hebrews 1:10–12; 12:26-28	Old Covenant heaven and earth passed in AD 70 (Isker & Webbon)
1 John 2:17–18	Old Covenant world passed in AD 70
Revelation 6:14–17	Old Covenant world passed in AD 70
Revelation 16:20	Old Covenant world passed in AD 70
Revelation 21:1	Old Covenant heaven and earth passed in AD 70
Revelation 20:11	(Exception) Taken as literal end of physical universe to preserve futurist creeds?!?

Worse still, Wilson’s Amillennial co-authors in When Shall These Things Be? confront him, Gentry, and Mathison with the same “orthodox” exegetical logic Full Preterists employ: if the imminent time texts of Revelation (e.g., “soon,” “near,” Revelation 1:1, 3; 22:10) point to AD 70, as Wilson admits, then the end-of-the-millennium events in Revelation 20:7-13—including the resurrection and judgment—must also be fulfilled in AD 70. They further argue with us that Revelation’s recapitulation structure ties the end-of-the-millennium events (Revelation 20:7-13) to the judgments in chapters 1–19 and the New Creation in 21–22, that Wilson, Gentry, and Mathison all admit were fulfilled in AD 70. Moreover, their Amillennial co-authors correctly identify the coming of Christ in Matthew 24–25 as a singular Second Coming event, not a bifurcated coming as Wilson claims. By rejecting this “orthodox” exegesis from his own allies, Wilson betrays an arbitrary commitment to creedal tradition over Scripture’s clear timing and structural unity, leaving his partial preterism in shambles.

Doug’s “orthodox” Amillennial opponents also affirm with us that the coming of Christ in Matthew 24-25 is the same coming or parousia of Christ as is described in 1 Thessalonians 4-5 and 1 Corinthians 15 while Doug and Mathison argue that the coming of Christ in “glory” in Matthew 24:30-31 and 25:31 (Mathison) was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70. Both of these orthodox positions of the Church cannot be true at the same time unless Full Preterism is true:

If A (Matthew 24) = B (1 Thessalonians 4-5)

Theme	Matthew 24	1 Thessalonians 4-5
Christ returns from heaven	24:30	4:16
With voice of Arch Angel	24:31	4:16
With trumpet of God	24:31	4:16
Caught/gathered together with/to Christ	24:31	4:17
“Meet” the Lord in the clouds	24:30 & 25:6	4:17
Exact time unknown	24:36	5:1-2
Christ comes as a thief	24:43	5:2
Unbelievers caught off guard	24:37-39	5:3
Time of birth pangs	24:8	5:3
Believers not deceived	24:43	5:4-5
Believers to be watchful	24:42	5:6
Exhorted to sobriety	24:49	5:7
Son/sunlight shining from east to west / Sons of the Day	24:27, 36, & 38	5:4-8

B (1 Thessalonians 4) = C (1 Corinthians 15)

Theme	1 Thessalonians 4	1 Corinthians 15
The sleeping to be raised	4:13-14	15:12-18
The living to be caught/changed	4:15-17	15:51-52
Christ’s coming (Greek: Parousia)	4:15	15:23
At the sound of the trumpet	4:16	15:52
Encouraged to stand firm	4:18	15:58
Same contemporary “we”	4:15-17	15:51-52

A (Matthew 24 & Parallels) = C (1 Corinthians 15)

Theme	Matthew 24 & Parallels	1 Corinthians 15
Christ to come (Greek: Parousia)	24:27	15:23
His people to be gathered/changed	24:31	15:52
To come with the sound of a trumpet	24:31	15:52
To be “the end” (Greek: telos, the goal)	24:3, 14	15:24
Kingdom consummation (goal reached)	Luke 21:30-32	15:24
All prophecy fulfilled at this point	Luke 21:22	15:54-55
Victory over the Mosaic Law/temple	24:1	15:55-56
Same contemporary “you” or “we”	24:2ff	15:51-52

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

Theme	Matthew 24	1 Thess. 4	1 Corinthians 15
At His coming	24:27-31	4:16	15:23
At the trumpet	24:31	4:16	15:52
Dead raised, all gathered	24:31	4:16	15:35-44
All living gathered	24:31	4:17 (Living caught together to Him)	15:51 (Status of living changed)

Conclusion

Wilson’s retreat from a planned debate with me and his withdrawal from a fully funded documentary with myself and Don Preston v. a partial preterist partner of his choosing speak volumes. Partial preterism is losing ground to Full Preterism because its proponents, like Wilson, rely on inconsistent exegesis, arbitrary appeals to creedal “orthodoxy” / “authority,” censorship, and avoidance of direct challenges. Wilson’s selective handling of Scripture and his colleagues’ concessions reveal a house divided, as we argued in our book response, House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology. He prioritizes hyper-creedal tradition over the authority of Scripture, suppressing the clear teaching of texts like Daniel 12:2-7; Matthew 16:27-28, 24:30, 25:31; Revelation 1:3–22:10-12; 2 Timothy 4:1 YLT; Acts 24:15 YLT; and 1 Peter 4:5-7, 17.

As for why Gary DeMar entertains Wilson’s company without being in a formal debate setting, I can only assume Gary’s patience and graciousness exceed my own. In my view, Wilson’s rejection of Scripture’s clear timing for the judgment and resurrection exposes him as a theological lightweight, clinging to tradition while dodging accountability. His refusal to engage in public debate or the documentary—especially after Darren Doane criticized Kenneth Gentry for similar arrogance and cowardice—reveals hypocrisy. Doane’s defense of Wilson’s withdrawal only compounds the inconsistency and cowardice. Wilson has made his bed in hyper-creedalism; let him sleep in it. But with the light and knowledge he possesses (that previous generations did not have), he cannot claim ignorance and therefore his accountability will be greater. Prove me wrong, Doug.

As the Church continues to grapple with these eschatological questions, Full Preterism offers a coherent framework that honors the imminent time statements of Scripture without the contradictions plaguing partial preterism. For those seeking deeper exploration, I recommend reviewing the exegetical parallels in our book, House Divided, or engaging with primary sources like the Westminster Confession itself, which explicitly calls for testing all human traditions against the supreme authority of God’s Word. The Reformation’s legacy demands no less—sola Scriptura must prevail over sola creda. If Wilson or his allies truly believe in the sufficiency of Scripture, let them step forward and defend their views in open forum. The truth, after all, has nothing to fear from examination.

Link to Doug’s article: Doug Wilson, Presupp and Preterism

Presupp and Preterism

A Full Preterist Response to Kenneth Gentry’s Article “Matt. 16:27-28 and The Final Judgment (1)” – Will the REAL “Orthodox Preterist” Please Stand Up?

“For the Son of Man will (or is “about to…” YLT) come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom” (Mt. 16:27-28).

“For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has [“already” Rotherham Translation] come with power” (Mrk. 8:38—9:1).

“For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste of death until they see the kingdom of God” (Lk. 9:26-27)

Kenneth Gentry in an article on Mt. 16:27-28 is seeking to re-define what a “orthodox preterist” is on this crucial text.[1] His position is that v. 27 is the second coming of Christ to end world history when He rewards all men, and v. 28 is referring to Christ coming to manifest His kingdom reign in the fall of Jerusalem. For Gentry to interpret v. 27 as referring to AD 70, is equivalent to interpreting the passage as a “hyper-preterist” or “liberal” would.

Partial Preterist Gary DeMar quickly wrote an article responding to Gentry pointing out that plenty of commentators interpreted Christ’s coming in judgment to reward every person in Mt. 16:27 as referring to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 or see vss. 27-28 as the same AD 70 judgment including: Adam Clarke, Henry Hammond, and even Gentry’s favorite partial or “orthodox preterist” commentator John Lightfoot.[2] Ouch!

We must also point out other contemporaries of Gentry such as Keith Mathison who not only takes both Mt. 16:27-28 together as referring to Christ coming in judgment upon Jerusalem but uses the passage as a foundation to support his position that Christ came in judgment and flaming fire to give the first century Thessalonians “relief” and their persecutors “trouble” and “wrath” in AD 70 (2 Thess. 1:7-9).[3] This is interesting in that most “orthodox preterists” see this coming in fire as the Second Coming event that ends the millennium of (Rev. 20:5-15)! Is Gentry going to accuse these men and his own editor of When Shall These Things Be? A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism (WSTTB?), as giving a “hyper-preterist” or “liberal” interpretation of Mt. 16:27-28 and 2 Thess. 1:7-9?!? Well, since Gentry’s appeals to “orthodox preterism” went nowhere fast let’s look at some more important exegetical issues that Gentry also conveniently ignores.

Matthew 10:17-23 / Daniel 7:10-25 and Matthew 16:27-28

How would the disciples have understood Jesus’ teaching in Mt. 16:27-28 concerning His “coming” based upon their understanding of the OT and Jesus’ teaching on this subject in previous occasions? Many commentators correctly see Jesus’ reference to Him as the “Son of Man” “coming” and the “end” as referring to Dan. 7:13 and the “end” being (Dan. 9:26; Dan. 12:4). Indeed, in both Daniel 7 and Matthew 10 the contexts are harmonious in that there would be intense persecution before the saints would inherit the kingdom at Christ’s coming in judgment upon the clouds in the days of the fourth kingdom (Rome) and in the lifetime of the disciples in AD 70. The disciples would not have run out of cities of refuge as they fled from their persecutors before the Son of Man came upon the clouds in judgment in fulfillment of the persecutions and coming of the Son of Man prophesied in Dan. 7:13-25. And as in Dan. 7:13-25 the Messiah ruling in His kingdom and the saints inheriting the kingdom at this time is also present in the context of Mt. 10. The kingdom was “at hand” and involved a “day of judgment” (Mt. 10:7, 15).

Dan. 7:10-25 is also the OT prophecy behind the coming of the Son of Man in judgment to reward men along with the kingdom being manifested here in Mt. 16:27-28. Many Partial Preterists correctly connect the “coming of the Son of Man” in judgment in Mt. 10:22-23 and Mt. 16:27-28 as one and the same AD 70 coming of Christ event as do Full Preterists. There are good reasons Gentry skipped over Mt. 10:7-23 and Dan. 7 as the background and source for His teaching here in Mt. 16:27-28!

Matthew 3:7-12 / Isaiah 40:3-10 / Malachi 3-4 and Matthew 16:27-28

Gentry believes John’s eschatology in Mt. 3:3-12 is referring to Christ coming in AD 70. Like Jesus in Mt. 10:7 John begins his eschatology in this chapter with “the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (v. 2). The kingdom would be manifested in an “about to” come “wrath” (v. 7 Greek mello), that was so imminent God’s ax was already laid at the root of the trees (v. 10), and his winnowing fork [of the last phase of harvest] was in His hand ready to separate and reward the righteous by gathering them into the barn/kingdom (v. 12).

John was to “prepare the way” of salvation and judgment found in Isaiah 40:3-10 which would be when Messiah would come to “reward” and perform “recompense” (Isa. 40:10). Jesus is likewise drawing upon and fulfilling Isa. 40:10 in Mt. 16:27.

Another issue here is that if John’s eschatology was fulfilled in AD 70, then we must examine the other way of judgment John came to prepare the way of and that is in (Mal. 3—4:2-5) which would result in Christ coming like the “Sun of Righteousness with healing in His wings.” Gentry would affirm this coming of Christ was fulfilled in AD 70 but has recanted that Christ coming in Mt. 24:27 was fulfilled in AD 70. But when we follow a correct translation of Mt. 24:27, we can see this is the SAME AD 70 coming of Christ as the sunshine shinning from the east to the west in His generation,

“For as the sunshine comes out from the east and is seen even in the west, thus will be the coming of the Son of Man” (Mt. 24:27 Aramaic English New Testament)

Contextually, there is a contrast being made between the false prophets and Messiah’s hiding in a dark secretive “inner room” of the temple in the previous verse, with Christ being revealed openly and dramatically as the sun and daylight itself is. The events of AD 67 – AD 70 made it as clear as DAY who the true Messiah was/is!

Matthew 13:39-43 / Daniel 12:1-7 and Matthew 16:27-28

Orthodox Partial Preterists such as Joel McDurmon and Peter Leithart teach that the “end of the age” and harvest judgment found in the parable of the wheat and the tares was fulfilled in Jesus’ contemporary generation at the end of the old covenant age in AD 70.[4] Of course Jesus is citing the resurrection and judgment of the dead found in Dan. 12:2-4 to be this event. And ironically Gentry concedes the resurrection of Dan. 12:2 was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70 and has nothing to do with a physical resurrection. This is what he wrote me on Facebook concerning Dan. 12:2,

“Dan. 12 is NOT dealing with bodily resurrection but national resurrection (as does Ezek. 37). Dan. 12 sees “resurrection” of Israel in the birth of the Christian Church, which is the New Israel. Thus, it bears similarities with Ezek. 37 and the resurrection of the dry bones of Israel.”[5]

“Orthodox preterist” James Jordan agrees with Gentry on Dan. 12:2 and goes further saying this is when Daniel himself was raised from Hades / Abrahams bosom to inherit eternal life in God’s presence at the AD 70 parousia of Christ.[6] One could [and many have] easily conclude from these “orthodox preterists” such as McDurmon, Leithart, Jordan, and Gentry, that the non-physical resurrection of Daniel 12 was fulfilled at the end of the old covenant age in AD 70. To concede as an “orthodox preterist” system that the resurrection of Dan. 12:2-3 as fulfilled at the end of the old covenant age in AD 70 is no small admission since it is the resurrection of John 5-6; 1 Cor. 15; Acts 24:15YLT; and the end of the millennium judgment and resurrection of the dead in Rev. 20:5-13!

Remember, Dan. 12:1-2 is the “appointed time” of “the end” when the “books would be opened” and thus the dead raised and judged during the “3.5 years” Tribulation “when the power of the holy people would be completely shattered” (Dan. 12:1-7LXX). Along with Dan. 7:10-25 and Isa. 40:10 being the prophetic backbone of Mt. 16:27-28 we can add Dan. 12:1-7 which Gentry concedes was fulfilled by AD 70. Notice the “not yet” eschaton of Dan. 12:1-4LXX prophesies ONE “appointed time” to ONE “end” – not one in AD 70 that will be a “type” of another “appointed time” and “end” at the end of alleged “world history.” Gentry’s hyper-creedalism causes him to read things into the text that are not there, thus “adding” to the Word of God and seeking to make null and void Jesus’ teaching due to his “traditions.”

An Exegesis of Matthew 16:27-28

Christ was “about to come” (v. 27YLT)

Jesus uses the Greek word mello which Gentry used to see as primarily being translated as “about to be” and referring to AD 70. Gentry once had high praises of the Youngs Literal Translation when it came to translating mello as “about to be” in (Rev. 1:19YLT). He correctly argued that,

“When used with the aorist infinitive—as in Revelation 1:19, mello’s predominant 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 Rev. 3:10. The basic meaning in both Thayer and Abbott-Smith is: ‘to be about to.”[7]

Gentry was correct. The problem, however, is that when the word mello refers to the resurrection and judgment of the living and dead in Acts 17:31YLT; 24:15YLT and 24:25YLT, it is also used with the infinitive. Gentry noticed takingmello in Revelation and elsewhere as referring to AD 70 would lead him out of “orthodox preterism” since the end of the millennium is what was in John’s “about to be” future according to (Rev. 1:19YLT). This and other passages connected the resurrection with an AD 70 “about to be” or “at hand” time frame (cf. Acts 24:15YLT; Rms. 8:18-23YLT; 2 Tim. 4:1YLT; 1 Pet. 4:5-7, 17) and that was just too many passages to surrender to AD 70 while trying to convince and keep those “orthodox” publishing contracts that his views weren’t really leading others into “hyper-preterism.”

The YLT, DARBY, WUESTNT, and WEY translations correctly translate Jesus’ return here as “about to come” or “soon to come.” These translations are accurate since this is the consistent usage of the Greek word mello in Matthew’s gospel, let alone its predominated usage in the rest of the New Testament. Let’s briefly see how mello is used in Mathew’s gospel:

A). In Mt. 2:13 WEY, Herod is “about to” seek to kill Jesus, and therefore Joseph and Mary need to “escape.” Mello here is communicating a near imminent danger, not just a certain or general danger to be aware of.

B). As pointed out earlier, in Mt. 3:7 GNT, John was preaching to the Pharisees concerning a “wrath about to come.” The GNT of mello here as “about to” is supported by the immediate context in that John was preaching a kingdom that was “at hand” (Mt. 3:2), in which both the wrath and kingdom would be manifested imminently because God already had His ax at the root of the trees (Mt. 3:10) and His harvesting winnowing fork was already in His hand (Mt. 3:12). This “winnowing fork” was the tool used at the end of the harvest period to separate the wheat from the chaff. Jesus likewise teaches that the “end of the [Old Covenant] age” resurrection harvest gathering would be fulfilled in His contemporary generation (cf. Mt. 13:39-43/Mt. 24:3, 31-34).

C). In Mt. 17:10-13, mello is used twice. The first occurrence refers to the Jews expecting Elijah “about to” come to prepare the way for Messiah. In other words, Elijah was the one the entire nation understood to be “about to come” in their day, and the text tells us that he had already come in the person of John the Baptist. The second occurrence of melloin this passage is not referring to the general fact that Jesus was going to suffer, but that He was “about to” suffer and be mistreated as John the Baptist was.

D). In Mt. 24:6 WEY, “before long” the disciples would begin hearing of a general sign of “wars and rumors of wars,” but Jesus said the “end” (of the old covenant age) was not yet. Jesus gave general signs that they would begin hearing about in their near future, while the two specific ones (the Great Commission – Mt. 24:14) and the “armies surrounding Jerusalem” (Lk. 21:20) would mark that Christ’s Second Coming was indeed “near.”

To conclude this point, Christ’s “about to” coming (Mt. 16:27) is consistent with Christ’s coming in the lifetime of “some” of the crowd listening to him in the next verse – 28! After thousands of years of the world and Israel awaiting the Seed of the woman, or the coming of the Messiah and His kingdom, the span of some of the crowd’s lifetime was a short time for them to wait and thus it was “about to” be fulfilled.

“Verily I say unto you” (v. 28)

Every time this phrase is used by Jesus it is connecting what was said before with what will follow and is emphasizing a point. So, in v. 27 Jesus was “about to come” in the Father’s glory to judge and the obvious question would be – “how long”? And so with emphasis, Jesus says it’s so soon that some of you standing in this crown will not die before you witness it.

The coming of Christ & the kingdom (vss. 27-28)

Matthew 24-25 and Matthew 16:27-28

Jesus in the Olivet Discourse (Mt. 24-25 / Lk. 21) will connect His coming and arrival of the kingdom and His reign within the first century generation. And we should point out that Gentry’s division theory of Matthew 24-25 is completely artificial and has been debunked by other “orthodox preterists” two being Gentry’s co-authors in WSTTB? — Doug Wilson and Keith Mathison. Doug correctly teaches the “end of the age” (Mt. 24:3) is the end of the old covenant age and not the end of world history as Gentry argues. Doug does not agree with Gentry in his division theory or that Mt. 24:27 is the final second coming. All of these coming of the Son of Man passages are referring to AD 70 up to Mt. 25:31. But once we get to Mt. 25:31 then we have “orthodox preterist” Keith Mathison conceding this coming is as well referring to AD 70.[8]

The plot thickens even more for the “orthodox preterist” in that James Jordan correctly identifies the “gathering of the elect” of (Mt. 24:30-31) to be when the righteous OT dead and NT martyrs (the dead) were raised out of Hades / Abrahams bosom to inherit eternal life and God’s presence at the AD 70 parousia of Christ event which is now consistent with his interpretation of the resurrection of Daniel himself to be in AD 70 according to Dan. 12:2-3, 13.[9] Unfortunately, Mr. Jordan did not develop the “end of the age” and “gathering” of (Mt. 13:39-43) as the same “end of the age” and “gathering” of (Mt. 24:3, 30-31) to be one and the same resurrection at the end of the old covenant age. Nor did he point out the OT passage Jesus is referring to which the Jews understood to be the end of the age “harvest” “gathering” resurrection event of (Isa. 27:9-13) which inseparably connects the resurrection event to the fall of Jerusalem (the judgment upon the “fortified city”) as does Jesus in Mt. 24:3-34 and as Daniel does in Dan. 12:1-7.

Another important exegetical issue to point out here is that Mark and Luke only record ONE coming of the Son of Man to be fulfilled in AD 70. Did they not get Gentry’s memo that Jesus was teaching two – one being fulfilled in AD 70 that was a “type” of another one at the end of world history? No, Matthew appealing to a Jewish audience uses recapitulation and more parables than in Mark and Luke’s accounts. Gentry’s appeals to place the coming of the Son of Man in Mt. 24:27 as the end of world history is pure desperation along with his artificial division theory of the Olivet Discourse. Again, “orthodox preterists” such as Keith Mathison and Gary DeMar have put that theory to rest.

One can readily see how the coming of the Son of Man in both Mt. 10:17-23 and Mt. 16:27-28 form Jesus’ fuller teaching of His AD 70 coming in Mt. 24–25:

Matthew 10:17-23/16:27-28 & Parallels	Matthew 24/Mark 13/Luke 21
1. Delivered up to local councils and synagogues (Mt. 10:17)	1. Delivered up to local councils and synagogues (Mrk. 13:9)
2. Brought before governors and kings to be witnesses to the Gentiles (Mt. 10:18)	2. Brought before governors and kings to be witnesses to the Gentiles (Mrk. 13:9)
3. Holy Spirit would speak through them (Mt. 10:19-20)	3. Holy Spirit would speak through them (Mrk. 13:11)
4. Family members would betray and kill each other, all men would hate disciples, but he that would stand firm to “the end” would be “saved” (Mt. 10:22)	4. Family members would betray and kill each other, all men would hate disciples, but he that would stand firm to “the end” would be “saved” (Mrk. 13:12-13)
5. The disciples would not have run out of cities of refuge to flee to as they were being persecuted preaching the gospel to the cities of Israel before the Son of Man would come. (Mt. 10:23)	5. The disciples (and later Paul) were to preach the gospel to the then known “world” and “nations”at that time before “the end” (of the OC age) and coming of the Son of Man would take place. (Mt. 24:14/Mrk. 13:10)
6. Christ comes in glory (Lk. 9:26)	6. Christ comes in glory (Mt. 24:30)
7. Christ comes with angels (Mt. 16:27)	7. Christ comes with angels (Mt. 24:31)
8. Christ comes in judgment (Mt. 16:27)	8. Christ comes in judgment (Mt. 24:28-31;25:31-34)
9. Christ and the kingdom come in power (Mrk. 8:38)	9. Christ and the kingdom come in power (Lk. 21:27-32)
10. Some in the crowd would live (Mt. 16:28)	10. Some in the crowd would live. (Lk. 21:16-18)
11. Some in the crowd would die (Mt. 16:28)	11. Some in the crowd would die. (Lk. 21:16)
12. Christ was “about to come” and would be ashamed of some in His contemporary “this generation” (Mt. 16:27YLT/Mrk. 8:38)	12. All of this would occur and be “near” and “at the door” in His contemporary “this generation” (Mt. 24:33-34/Lk. 21:27-32)

Then we can see how Jesus’ teaching in the Olivet Discourse forms Paul’s eschatology:

If A (Matthew 24) is = B (1 Thessalonians 4-5)
Christ returns from heaven		24:30		4:16
With voice of Arch Angel		24:31		4:16
With trumpet of God		24:31		4:16
Caught/gathered together with/to Christ		24:31		4:17
“Meet” the Lord in the clouds		24:30 & 25:6		4:17
Exact time unknown		24:36		5:1-2
Christ comes as a thief		24:43		5:2
Unbelievers caught off guard		24:37-39		5:3
Time of birth pangs		24:8		5:3
Believers not deceived		24:43		5:4-5
Believers to be watchful		24:42		5:6
Exhorted to sobriety		24:49		5:7
Son/sunlight shinning from e. to w. / Sons of the Day		24:27, 36, & 38		5:4-8
And if B (1 Thessalonians 4) is = to C (1 Corinthians 15)
The sleeping to be raised		4:13-14		15:12-18
The living to be caught/changed		4:15-17		15:51-52
Christ’s coming (Greek: Parousia)		4:15		15:23
At the sound of the trumpet		4:16		15:52
Encouraged to stand firm		4:18		15:58
Same contemporary “we”		4:15-17		15:51-52
Then A (Matthew 24 & Parallels) is = to C (1 Corinthians 15)
Christ to come (Greek: parousia)		24:27		15:23
His people to be gathered/changed		24:31		15:52
To come with the sound of a trumpet		24:31		15:52
To be “the end” (Greek telos, the goal)		24:3, 14		15:24
Kingdom consummation (goal reached)		Luke 21:30-32		15:24
All prophecy fulfilled at this point		Luke 21:22		15:54-55
Victory over the Mosaic Law/temple		Mt. 24:1		15:55-56
Same contemporary “you” or “we”		Mt. 24:2ff		15:51-52
Two or More Things that are Equal to Another Thing are Also Equal to Each Other
Mt. 24	1 Thess. 4		1 Cor. 15
At His coming (24:27-31)	At His coming (4:16)		At His coming (15:23)
At the trumpet (24:31)	At the trumpet (4:16)		At the trumpet (15:52)
Dead raised, all gathered (24:31)	Dead raised (4:16)		Dead raised (15:35-44)
All living gathered (24:31)	Living caught together to Him (4:17)		Status of living changed (15:51)

Some “orthodox preterists” such as Phillip Kayser or Mike Bull follow the lead of “orthodox preterist” Milton Terry (that Gentry profits off) and see the coming or parousia of 1 Thess. 4:15-16 and 1 Cor. 15:23 as also fulfilled in AD 70. And since “orthodox preterists” such as James Jordan correctly now see the coming of Christ and the “gathering of the elect” in (Mt. 24:30-31) as the resurrection of the dead, why wouldn’t this be the SAME coming of Christ and resurrection of the dead described in 1 Thess. 4-5 and 1 Cor. 15?!? Note the parallels in the above chart. Aren’t these crucial texts also the fulfillment to the resurrection of Dan. 12:2-3 that “orthodox preterists” Gentry and Jordan teach were fulfilled spiritually in AD 70 (see chart below)?!?

If A (Mt. 24/Lk. 21) is = to B (Daniel 12:1-7, 13)
Tribulation as never before 24:21-22		Tribulation as never before 12:1
Evangelism 24:14		Leading others to righteousness 12:3
End of the [OC] age 24:3, 14		Time of the end 12:4
Resurrection & inheritance of the kingdom 24:31; 13:43; Lk. 21:31-32		Resurrection & or inheritance of the kingdom 12:2-3, 13/Mt. 13:43
Jerusalem surrounded, trodden down/times of the Gentiles (AD 67 – AD 70) Lk. 21:20, 24		Consummation – 3 ½ years when power of the holy people is shattered 12:7
And if B (Daniel 12:1-7, 13) is = to C (1 Cor. 15)
Resurrection unto eternal life 12:2		Resurrection unto incorruptibility or immortality 15:52-53
time of the end 12:4		time of the end 15:24
When the power [the Mosaic OC Law] of the holy people is completely shattered 12:7		Victory over “the [Mosaic OC] Law” 15:26
At the “end” of the OC age, OT dead would be raised at the same time the NT righteous living would shine in the kingdom 12:2-3, 13		If the dead of the OT are not raised, neither would those who died in Christ be raised & living unforgiven 15:15-18
Then A (Mt. 24/Lk. 21) is = to C (1 Cor. 15)
Christ to come (Greek: parousia) at sound of a trumpet 24:27-31		Christ to come (Greek: parousia) at sound of a trumpet 15:23, 52
“The end” (Greek telos, the goal) 24:3, 14		“The end” (Greek telos, the goal) 15:24
Kingdom (goal reached) Lk. 21:31-32		Kingdom consummation (goal reached) 15:24
All prophecy fulfilled at this point Lk. 21:22		All prophecy fulfilled at this point 15:54-55
Victory over the Mosaic Law/temple 24:1		Victory over the Mosaic Law 15:55-56
Same contemporary “you” or “we” 24:2ff.		Same contemporary “you” or “we” 15:51-52
“All” of the elect (even the dead) gathered (or raised) in the kingdom 24:31; Lk. 21:28-32		“The [OT] dead” raised with the dead “in Christ” 15:15-18
Two or more things that are equal to another thing are also equal to each other
Matthew 24/Luke 21	Daniel 12:1-7, 13		1 Corinthians 15
Gather/raise “all” (dead & living) the elect at “end” of OC age 24:3, 31	OT dead raised with NT saints at the end of OC age 12:2-4, 13/Mt. 13:43		OT dead raised with NT dead & living at “the end” of the OC age 15:15-18, 24, 51
All OT prophecy fulfilled when Jeru-salem surrounded & times of Gentiles (3 ½ yrs.) fulfilled Lk. 21:22-24 – AD 67 – AD 70	Judgment and resurrection of the dead fulfilled at the end of the OC age, in a 3 ½ year period when Israel’s power shattered		Resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3, 13; Hosea 13:14 and Isaiah 25:8 fulfilled at the end of OC age & in the lifetime of Paul’s 1^st cent. audience 15:51, 54-55

“Orthodox preterists” teach the resurrection of Dan. 12 was a progressive, covenantal, corporate bodily resurrection, that resulted in the dead ones (OT and NT saints) being raised out of Hades in AD 70. Yet others argue the resurrection of Dan. 12 is purely future and is the resurrection of 1 Cor. 15. Yet I have “bridged the gap” in this “orthodox preterist” debate by showing that 1 Cor. 15 was ALSO a progressive, covenantal, corporate bodily resurrection, that resulted in the dead ones (OT and NT saints) being raised out of Hades in AD 70.[10]

Rev. 22:10-12 / Dan. 7:10-13 / Dan. 12:1-2 and Mt. 16:27

John tells us that the “appointed time” (Greek kairos) was “near” (Rev. 1:3) to the prophecy of Dan. 12:1-4LXX [Greek kairos] in that John, unlike Daniel, was told to NOT seal up the vision because its fulfillment was “near” (cf. Dan. 12:9, 13 / Rev. 22:10). So, the “prophecy” of the resurrection of Dan. 12 that was far off from Daniel was now “near” for John and the first century church. This included Christ coming “soon” at the beginning of Revelation (chapters 2-3) to “reward” (remember Mt. 16:27!) the Churches with the “Tree of Life” and New Creation found in Rev. 20–22:7-12. Gentry being an “orthodox preterist,” concedes the New Creation is the new covenant new heavens and earth that we are currently in and that others are coming into the New Jerusalem where there is “no more the death” (Rev. 21:4). He also concedes the Church was married to Christ in AD 70 when God divorced his old covenant wife. This means we are on Mount Zion where “death has been swallowed up” (Isa. 25:6-9). The “rewarding of each person according to what they have done” at Christ’s “soon” coming in (Rev. 22:7-12) is parallel to Christ’s “about to be” coming “to reward each person for what they have done” in the lifetime of the first century church in AD 70 per (Mt. 16:27-28). This is not difficult to prove on an exegetical level. It is only “difficult” and causes one to be “unsettled” on the text because one wants to be considered a scholar in Futurist “orthodox” hyper-creedal circles and keep his “orthodox” funds coming in–with this becoming more of a priority than exegeting God’s pure Word.

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

This passage is not dealing with Jesus’ listeners sleeping with women other than their wives. It is referring to Israel being known as committing spiritual and covenantal adultery by rejecting the Messiah / Groom standing right in front of them. While Christ does not specifically mention Jerusalem’s divorce and remarriage directly in our text, it is implied in Him being “ashamed” of His contemporary “adulterous generation” at His Second Coming event, which necessitates both of these eschatological motifs., and one of Jesus’ OT sources here, addresses Him coming with His “reward” and the eschatological wedding motif (cf. Isa. 62:4-5, 11).

Under the old covenant, God was married to Israel (cf. Israel Ex. 19-24). This marriage was both pictured as a monogamous marriage (God married to a Mother/Israel) and then, after the splitting of the northern kingdom and the southern kingdoms, a polygamous marriage. The picture then becomes God taking two daughters (or sisters) as His wives: 1) Israel (Aholah / Samaria capital of Israel) and 2) Judah (Aholibah / Jerusalem capital of Judah; cf. Jer. 31:31-32; Ezek. 1:1-4; 1 Kings 11:9-13). These two sisters were notorious for their adultery and playing the prostitute (cf. Ezek. 23:3;Jer. 3).

Although God divorced Israel through the Assyrian captivity, He remained married to His other harlot wife, Judah, from which line Jesus would come. Judah/Jerusalem was judged by the Babylonian captivity but never divorced (Ezek. 23:22-45).

The book of Hosea describes God divorcing Israel through the Assyrian captivity. He divorced her and put her to death by burying her like a seed in the land of the Gentiles. Hosea also predicts Judah’s harvest divorcement / judgment in her last days. But there is hope in that Hosea also predicts a time when God will betroth her in the desert and thus re-marry Israel in those same last days.

Under the old covenant, a wife caught in adultery would be stoned and the wife of a priest would be burned. In Revelation 19 the harlot wife of Old Covenant Jerusalem was both stoned and/or burned!

Therefore, Jesus in Matthew 16:27/Mark 8:38 was describing the judgment of the “adulterous generation/wife” in an “about to be” AD 70 time frame. Concerning the phrase “be ashamed of,” the adulterous old covenant wife would be left without a wedding garment, stripped naked and left ashamed (Rev. 17:6), while His new covenant wife would be clothed in Christ’s righteousness as His New Jerusalem or “house from above” – unashamed and “further clothed” with costly gold, gems, etc… (cf. Mt. 22:1-14; Rev. 3:18; 19:8/2 Cor. 5:1-21; Rev. 21:11ff.).

Again, Gentry conceding that the eschatological divorce to old covenant wife/Jerusalem and the marriage to the new covenant wife/Jerusalem was fulfilled in AD 70 in Rev. 17-21 necessitates the resurrection of Isa. 25:6-9 being fulfilled in AD 70 – when “death would be swallowed up” which is what Paul quotes in (1 Cor. 15:54-55)!

Mrk. 8:38 is nothing more than old covenant Jerusalem being the adulterous/harlot wife of God in Rev. 17-19 [in seed form] that would be judged and divorced at Christ’s “soon” coming in AD 70. She would be “rewarded” with divorcement and judgment. Thus another exegetical connection between Mrk. 8:38–9:1 / Mt. 16:27-28 as the SAME AD 70 coming of Christ to judge and reward!

Perpetual and Uninspired Types / Anti-types

Gentry gets angry when Dispensationalists and Amillennialists try and double-fulfill or give multiple types and anti-types to his AD 70 fulfillments, but when pressed against a wall, he tries the same game with crucial texts like Mt. 16:27-28. Gentry claims (v. 28) is an AD 70 coming of Christ and judgment that is a “type” of (v. 27). I have demonstrated this is exegetically untenable and will quote Gentry’s own words that his approach here is “purse theological assertion” and has “no exegetical warrant.”[11]

While the OT did develop prophetic “types,” the NT inspired authors taught the “appointed time” for that type / anti-type fulfillment in the OT was “near” and would “all” be fulfilled within Jesus’ generation (cf. 1 Cor. 10:11; 1 Pet. 1:4-12/4:5-7, 17; Rev. 1:3; Lk. 21:22-32; Rev. 10:6-7). “Orthodox preterists” event concede the “heaven and earth” of (Mt. 5:17-18) was the old covenant system and thus “all” the “jots and tittles” of the OT Law and Prophets were fulfilled at that time as well which would include Dan. 12:2-3; Hos. 13; and Isa. 24-28. The NT is the fulfillment of the OT and does not come up with NEW and more type / anti-type prophetic material. Good try though Mr. Gentry.

Liberal and Orthodox Preterist Views on Mt. 16:27-28 / Mrk. 8:38–9:1

“…There are certain of those here standing, who shall in nowise taste of death, until they see the kingdom of God, already comein power” (Mrk. 9:1 Rotherham Translation).

In Mark’s parallel account, we learn that some within the crowd Jesus is addressing would live to see His return and His kingdom coming in power. Mark uses the perfect participle while Matthew uses the future tense. In other words, Mark is saying that some of the disciples would live to be able to look back on this event knowing that the coming of the Lord and His kingdom had already come in power. Kenneth Gentry concedes this point, citing J.A Alexander:

“Here “come” is “not, as the English words may seem to mean, in the act of coming (till they see it come), but actually or already come, the only sense that can be put upon the perfect participle here employed.”[12] Thus, His disciples were to expect its exhibition in power. It was not powerfully to evidence itself immediately, for many of His disciples would die before it acted in power. Yet it was to be within the lifetimes of others, for “some” standing there would witness it. This seems clearly to refer to the A.D. 70 destruction of the temple and removal of the Old Testament means of worship (cf. Heb. 12:25-28; Rev.1:1, 3, 9). This occurred as a direct result of Jesus’ prophecies (John 4:21-23; Mt. 21:33ff.; 23:31-34:34).”[12]

Jesus tells the disciples that some of them would live to “see” His coming and that the kingdom would have “already come” in power to bear witness of His return. The Greek word here for “see” is eido. Strong’s Concordance defines eidoas to “know how” and “perceive” as well as physical sight.

Through observing with the physical senses Christ coming through the power of the Romans to desolate the outer shell of the old covenant kingdom, temple and city in AD 70, “some” of Jesus’ contemporary audience would be able to “perceive” and “know how” Christ’s spiritual kingdom had “already come” “within” them (cf. Mrk. 8:38-9:1; Lk.17:20-37; Col.1:27; Jn. 14:2-3, 23). By connecting Mark 8:38–9:1 with Luke 17:20-37, Christians today can also experientially know and can see from reading our Lord’s words (the testimony of the Scriptures) that Christ’s Second Coming and His kingdom have “already come” and that His kingdom has been established “within” us.

Just as a sidenote, this text is one of many that refutes a literal, so-called “rapture” off the earth for the living and remaining at Christ’s return! The fact that they would remain on the earth and “know” that He had “already come” coincides with what the prophet Isaiah says, when we learn there are “survivors” of the “Day of the Lord” who continue preaching the gospel to “sinners” in the new creation (cf. Isa. 65-66).

I think Gary DeMar pretty much buried Gentry’s point that mainly it is just “hyper-preterits” and “liberals” that take the “coming” of Christ in both Mt. 16:27-28 as the same coming. But we should look at how this actually panned out in a real debate between a “liberal” and an “orthodox preterist.”

In a debate between Doug Wilson and Christopher Hitchens, Mt. 16:27-28 was brought up as an example of a failed prophecy and why Christianity is nothing more than a failed man-made religion like all the rest. Doug did not exegete this text, but deflected to the “coming” of Christ in Mt. 24 to prove this was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70. I asked Doug what his position is on Mt. 16:27 and he communicated that he is “not settled” on it but is “inclined” to take is as fulfilled in AD 70 and thus harmonizing well with v. 28.

I think Doug missed a great opportunity to exegete the text like other “orthodox preterists” have such as Lightfoot, DeMar, etc… Once that exegesis was done, THEN he should have connected it to Matthew 24. But that wouldn’t have worked out well for Doug since the “rewarding every man according to what he has done” concept of (Mt. 16:27) is not just found in the parable of the talents of Mt. 25:14-30, but is primarily found in a section that Doug takes as the alleged end of world history (Mt. 25:31-46).

Before leaving this subject, it is important to point out that the critical liberal argument as proposed by men like Bart Ehrman, is not just limited to Mt. 16:27-28 or some small section of Mt. 24, but ALL of Mt. 24–25 and that Paul was simply following Jesus’ teaching in those texts and thus likewise taught some of his contemporaries would live to witness the parousia and resurrection of the dead event in the first century appealing to 1 Thess. 4-5; 2 Thess. 1-2; and 1 Cor. 15. Gentry’s or Wilson’s form of “orthodox preterism” on the key texts such as Mt. 16:27-28 / Mt. 24–25 and how these are developed by Paul in 1 Thess. 4-5; 2 Thess. 1-2; and 1 Cor. 15 is not an adequate defense of the faith. However, Full Preterism does answer them exegetically and consistently.

Unfortunately, both the “liberal” and “orthodox preterist” share the same faulty premise–Jesus and the NT authors teach a biological resurrection event to take place at the “end” of “world history.” The liberal correctly sees these texts as also having time statements connected to them and “orthodox preterism” cherry-picks which ones they want to be fulfilled in AD 70 or to be a “type” of something else. A consistent reading and interpretation of the imminent time texts along with the analogy of faith principle of interpretation, makes “orthodox preterism” (hyper-creedalism) and inadequate apologetic or polemic against the liberal skeptic attacks upon the Word of God and Christianity in general. But as this article has demonstrated – “orthodox preterism” has formed Full Preterism which is a much more “orthodox” (meaning “straight” or “consistent”) position that does refute liberal theologians such as Ehrman and that is why he will not debate me.

Gentry is fond of showing how the Greek is different in Mark’s account – Mrk. 9:1 from Mt. 16:28. Mark emphasizes that some in the crowd would be able to look back upon His coming and the arrival of the Kingdom in AD 70 and know that it had “already come.” But what if Gentry’s “orthodox preterism” is correct that Mt. 16:27 and Mrk. 8:38 is indeed the Second Coming event, AND what if Lightfoot, DeMar, Mathison, and possibly Wilson’s “orthodox preterist” view is correct that those passages are referring to Christ’s spiritual coming in AD 70? It clearly means that Jesus was teaching His Second Coming would take place in AD 70 and the Church would be able to look back upon this event in the first century and in future generations and know that He and the Kingdom had “already come” in that historic event. Clearly Jesus was not teaching an “end to world history.”

when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste of death until they see the kingdom of God” (Lk. 9:26-27)

I should add one last point before I close out this article. Gentry tries to make a distinction between Mt. 16:27-28 because in v. 27 Christ comes in the Father’s glory while in v. 28 He comes in His kingdom reign,

“in v. 27 the Lord is said to come “in the glory of His Father with his angels.” But in v. 28 we read that he is “coming in His kingdom.” Thus, v. 27 speaks of His Father’s glory whereas v. 28 speaks of Christ’s royal authority. So the first verse emphasizes the Son’s coming in the Father’s glory, while the second emphasizes the Son’s coming in his own kingdom authority.” (ibid.)

I have already pointed out that in Lk. 21 Christ and His kingdom reign come in the AD 70 “this generation” period. But notice in the parallel in Lk. 9:26 Christ comes BOTH in “his glory and the glory of the Father.” Not only this but for Christ to come in judgment is for Him to come in His glory and power which manifest Christ’s kingdom reign. Notice other texts that connect these concepts to AD 70:

“I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is about to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom/reign…” (2 Tim. 4:1YLT)

“So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is about to be revealed” (1 Pet. 5:1YL).

“For I consider that the sufferings of this present time [or appointed time] are not worth comparing with the glory that is about to be revealed in us.” (Rms. 8:18YLT)

In Revelation 11:1-18 and chapters 18-19:6 when Christ judged old covenant Jerusalem the “Great City” is when the “dead were judged” or “rewarded” and therefore the kingdom is inherited by the saints and is when “God reigns.” This once again connects Mt. 16:27 with v. 28 as ONE event and coming of Christ to “reward” “every person” [even the dead] and thus manifest His kingdom reign.

Again, this is not difficult – when Christ would come in His glory and that of His Father’s in power to judge Jerusalem in AD 70–would be an exhibition of His kingdom reign that the saints would inherit and the glory that would come with it. Gentry is grasping at straws as usual.

Conclusion

The analogy of faith and the OT sources Jesus is drawing on for fulfillment in Mt. 16:27-28 destroys Gentry’s “orthodox preterism” and exposes it for the compromised scam it is. Gentry is not the Pope of “orthodox preterism” and one of his “good friends” Sam Frost will remind him that like Doug Wilson’s commentary on Revelation is a “gateway drug to full preterism,” so is Gentry’s writings and his new commentary on Revelation. When will Gentry debate Sam and prove he isn’t teaching “hyper-partial preterism” (Sam’s term) and that his position is “not inconsistent” as Sam charges? Time will tell. Until then Sam and Gentry (the “good friends that they are) are stuck with their “inconsistent orthodoxy” debating each other on what is REAL “orthodox preterism” and what is not.

I wait for the REAL “orthodox preterist” to stand up and debate us! Wilson has backed out of two public interactions with me. Mathison promised me he would respond to my chapter in HD that was a response to his chapter in WSTTB? but of course he lied and never did. And Gentry remains in hiding ducking debate challenges from myself and Don Preston. Don and I are willing to have a partner debate with any combination of these “orthodox preterists” such as Keith Mathison, Doug Wilson, Kenneth Gentry, Jeff Durbin, and James White. But of course they don’t respond to our challenges which tells you everything you need to know and that solidifies the power, logic, and exegesis in this article.

[1] Kenneth Gentry, Matt. 16:27-28: AD 70 and the Final Judgment: https://postmillennialworldview.com/2018/07/31/matthew-1627-28-ad-70-and-final-judgment-1/

[2] Gary DeMar, How Commentators Interpret Matthew16:27 https://americanvision.org/posts/how-commentators-interpret-matthew-16-27/?fbclid=IwY2xjawEWUWdleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHfy7eL-ioS_c-VtPJ-hBZEKCECb9t8OV_k4wVY2S-s3cbqKrbttycQM9kg_aem_D9hGO8_vbMh0Uv-mxr7JUw

[3] Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism An Eschatology of Hope, (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1999, pp. 227-228)

[4] 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); pp. 43-51; Peter Leithart, The Promise of His Appearing: An Exposition of Second Peter (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2004), p. 95

[5] See also Kenneth Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion A Postmillennial Eschatology (Draper, VA: Apologetics Group Media, 2009), pp. 538-539

[6] James B. Jordan, The Handwriting on the Wall A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, (Poweder Springs, GA: 2007), pp. 618-628

[7] Kenneth Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (Tyler, TX: Institute for Biblical Economics, 1989), 141-142, MJS

[8] Keith A. Mathison, From Age to Age: The Unfolding of Eschatology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2009), p. 380

[9] James B. Jordan, MATTHEW 23—25 A LITERARY, HISTORICAL, AND THEOLOGICAL COMMENTARY, (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2022), pp. 180-181

[10] Michael J. Sullivan, Armageddon Deception The Eschatology of Islam and Zionism A Biblical Response (Ramona, CA: 2023), pp. 280-316

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

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

A Full Preterist Response to the “Inconsistent Orthodox” Hyper-Creedal Inquisition of Gary DeMar

Introduction

(3/8/23 update – This article is still in the process of being written. I will also be providing links to Gary DeMar’s podcasts where he is responding to his critics)

Recently a public letter signed by Jason Bradfield, Uri Brito, Ardel Caneday, Jeff Durbin, John Frame, Sam Frost, Ken Gentry, Phillip Kayser, Brian Mattson, Andrew Sandlin, Keith Sherlin, Jeffery Ventrella, James White, and Doug Wilson was publicly published demanding that Gary DeMar answer their questions or face their wrath and withdrawal of support to American Vision because they “love” him. What is Gary’s crime? Gary has posted that he wants the debate between Partial and Full Preterism to continue because he feels that both sides need to hash some issues out and that he wants the freedom to “study” these issues for himself. Not to mention he has some questions for them that they aren’t answering (ex. the parallels / the analogy of faith between Mt. 24 and 1 Thess. 4-5; etc…).

Apparently, Gary is not allowed by the hyper-creedalists to “study” these issues out for himself or get answers from them publicly. It’s a one-way street. I find this odd since they claim to embrace:

“Scripture alone,”

“Reformed and always reforming,”

Believe in the “priesthood of all believers,” and

Confess and embrace what the WCF confesses and teaches about itself – that it may be in error as previous creeds and confessions have and is subject to revision based upon the exegesis and authority of the Word of God and His Spirit working through His Body.

Some claim to be public “apologists” and yet have NO “answer” or “defense” (1 Pet. 3:15) to Biblical questions we have provided to them in private and public for many years regarding their Futurist misplaced “hope.” The original context of 1-2 Peter and that of 1 Peter 3:15 is that there were “mockers” denying the truly imminent coming of the Lord – promised to take place in their generation. And thus the “salvation” and “inheritance” of the new covenant creation that was “ready to be revealed” (1 Pet. 1:4-12; 2 Pet. 3). These first century Full Preterist Christians living pre-AD 70, had to be equipped to teach anyone asking them about this imminent “hope” that was within them. Post AD 70 this is a “hope realized” (Prov. 13:12) of which we are prepared to “give and answer” and “defend” while men such as Kenneth Gentry, Doug Wilson, Jeff Durbin and James White have a “delayed” or “sick” “hope” (Prov. 13:12) or multiple unbiblical eschatological hopes that they are unable and unwilling to “defend.”

But as time goes on our book response – House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology... to When Shall These Things Be? is aging well by demonstrating the Reformed Church has forgotten its humble roots. She and Luther once stood strong against the doctrinal contradictions coming from the various Popes, creeds, confessions, and traditions of the Roman Catholic Church – but has now embraced many doctrinal and eschatological contradictions herself, and worse yet, begun imposing the same kind of hyper-tradition and hyper-creedal “argumentation” and “inquisition” tactics that the Roman Catholic Church once wielded upon her!

Short Version

Here is the short version of my response to this hypocritical public letter levied against Gary DeMar. The authors and the eschatological systems they espouse are divided on which texts teach the “glorious Second Coming” to “end world history” whereby Christ “comes” to “judge the righteous and the unrighteous” or to “judge and reward all men according to what they have done” – that is the “quick and the dead.” This is why they offered NO texts in their letter let alone any exegesis. Some of these men take the following passages as fulfilled in AD 70 and yet want Gary to concede that these eschatological CONCEPTS must be fulfilled in the future or like Full Preterists he must be punished! Texts that some of these men and or their systems believe were fulfilled in AD 70 are the following:

Daniel 12:1-7, 13 / Acts 17:31YLT / Acts 24:15YLT / Romans 8:18-23YLT / 1 Thessalonians 4-5 / Matthew 24:3, 27-31; 25:31 / 1 Corinthians 15:23 / Matthew 13:39-43 / Matthew 16:27-28 / Revelation 22:7, 10-12, 20 / 1 Peter 4:5-7, 17 / 2 Timothy 4:1YLT / Revelation 1-19; 21-22

Anyone studying this issues for a long time can see that if the above passages were imminently fulfilled in AD 70, then “the farm has been given away” to Full Preterism. And if people are allowed to embrace or EVEN study and ask questions concerning the glaring inconsistencies, that voice MUST be tarred and punished at all costs.

When, how and with what authority did these men and other Partial Preterists make most of the above texts (95% of the NT teaching) concerning the glorious return of Christ, the judgment and resurrection of “all men,” and the passing of the first creation and arrival of the new fulfilled in AD 70 “orthodox” views for the Church? And thus with what authority do they have to condemn us for either being consistent with the imminent time texts or implementing the historic Churches teaching using the analogy of faith to connect other parallels to these AD 70 fulfilled passages? If the WCF and the creeds are wrong on texts like these, are they wrong on other parallel eschatological texts that the Church sees are equivalent to them?

It appears to me that at least Gary does not seem to be willing to bow the knee to the authority of eschatological CONCEPTS allegedly fulfilled in the Future, but rather to “Scripture alone” and to “see the work” or “exegesis” of those and other texts in question. If these men truly “loved” their brother one would think they would labor with him with an open Bible? But these kind of men have a horrible track record in the un-Christian way they have treated men like Walt Hibbard of Great Christian Books, David Chilton, and the list will continue to grow – as they see these want-to-be authoritarian Emperors walk around with no clothes on.

And those signers of the letter that don’t see these passages as being imminently fulfilled in AD 70, ironically and hypocritically label the other signers of the letter to be “HYPER Partial Preterists” (that is not “orthodox” or true Partial Preterists like themselves). They also accuse them of being “inconsistent” (that is if they were “consistent” exegetically and logically their positions would lead to Full Preterism). The signers of this letter have engaged in building a hypocritical “house divided” that simply will “not stand.”

Instead of the authors of this letter gnashing their teeth at DeMar and Full Preterism, maybe they should spend more time trying to reconcile their MAJOR differences on key texts (see above) instead of trying to condemn people to hell for piecing their mess together into a consistent, logical and exegetical system? Just a thought. But attacking others and doing one-sided hit pieces on Full Preterim is much easier than debating us or doing the hard work of reformation. I get it – stay comfortable and lazy.

I will first post the letter and then we will take it a part exegetically and logically.

The Letter

“An Open Letter to Gary DeMar,

Dear Gary:

We are your brothers in the Lord, long-time friends, supporters, co-laborers in his Word, and co-promoters and defenders of the Christian worldview. We have contacted you privately twice in the last few months regarding our concerns, with the following.

We are writing to you once again with an earnest plea regarding your doctrinal transitioning that we are witnessing.

Gary, we seriously and deeply hope that you will receive this as from deeply-burdened hearts and that you will respond to us as to those who love you in the Lord and have appreciated your public ministry.

As you know from our previous correspondence, we are deeply concerned over the eschatological direction you seem to be taking of late. Andrew Sandlin heard you speak at a conference in Texas about a year ago. At that time he was surprised that you would not acknowledge whether you believe in a future final judgment and a future physical resurrection of the dead. When asked, you also stated that you would not call full preterists “heretics.”

Due to certain statements you made publicly on Facebook recently, Ken Gentry asked you if you would affirm three simple, basic doctrinal positions. These questions have intentionally been kept limited and simple in order to avoid entangling interaction with the many variations within and permutations of Full Preterism (aka Consistent Preterism; aka Covenant Preterism; aka Hyperpreterism).

Furthermore, they have also been confined to doctrines clearly declared in the American Vision Statement of Faith. Those simple yes-or-no questions are now simplified and clarified even more:

Do you believe in a future bodily, glorious return of Christ?
Do you believe in a future physical, general resurrection of the dead?
Do you believe history will end with the Final Judgment of all men?

To refuse to affirm the future, physical resurrection, the final judgment of the righteous and the unrighteous, and the tactile reality of the eternal state is to refuse to affirm critical elements of the Christian faith. To contradict these doctrines is not merely to contradict a few specific biblical texts; it is to contradict indispensable aspects of the Christian faith and the biblical worldview. As blunt as it might sound, it is to strike at crucial aspects in the very heart of the Christian faith.

This private letter of inquiry has been agreed upon by the signatories listed below. Please, Gary, receive this not as an attack upon you, but as a humble concern for your doctrinal orthodoxy and the integrity of American Vision. Please set the matter straight regarding these three fundamental issues so that we can lay this matter to rest. We love you and are continuing to pray for you.

In the love of Christ the Lord,

Jason Bradfield, Uri Brito, Ardel Caneday, Jeff Durbin, John Frame, Sam Frost, Ken Gentry, Phillip Kayser, Brian Mattson, Andrew Sandlin, Keith Sherlin, Jeffery Ventrella, James White, Doug Wilson”

Granted I don’t know all the men signing this letter and their various positions on major eschatological texts, but some I do. Let’s briefly look at what THEIR positions are, and we will quickly see why there were no Biblical passages cited in the letter and why they have avoided our questions and challenges to debate for many years!

Will history end with the Second Coming, transformation of the planet, and judgment and resurrection of all men?

Isaiah 65-66 / 2 Peter 3 / Revelation 21-22

Of course, the letter provides NO Scripture to support the Bible teaches the “end of world history.” Why is that? It’s because some signing this letter believe the coming of Christ and passing away of the first heavens and earth and arrival of the new of 2 Peter 3 and Revelation 21-22 is addressing Christ’s spiritual coming in AD 70 and the first heavens and earth that passed away was the old covenant age / world and the “new” is the new covenant age / world which replaced it in AD 70. Those teaching this who signed the letter would be Doug Wilson and Jeff Durbin. Gentry affirms the de-creation and re-creation of Revelation 21-22 was fulfilled at the “soon” coming of Christ in AD 70. Others who signed the letter would see these passages as teaching the Second Coming event which produces the “end of world history,” and entering the “tactile reality of the eternal state.” But these passages are clear enough – after this coming of the Lord and de-creation and new creation event is fulfilled imminently in AD 70, there are sinners present and evangelism taking place. There is no promise here to “end world history.” And notice that these passages only state that there is ONE passing away of the first heavens and earth and arrival of the new – not two (one in AD 70 and another at the alleged end of world history).

When we take a combined look at some of the best theologians within the Reformed and Evangelical communities, we find a Full 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 (to name just a few) teach that the passing away of heaven and earth (cf. 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. See the following works:

John Owen, The Works of John Owen, 16 vols. (London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1965–68), 9:134–135. John Lightfoot, Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica: Matthew – 1 Corinthians, 4 vols. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, [1859], 1989), 3:452, 454. John Brown, Discourses and Sayings of our Lord, 3 vols. (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, [1852] 1990), 1:170. John Locke, The Clarendon Edition of the Works of John Locke: A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St Paul Volume 2, (NY: Oxford University Press, 1987), 617–618. R.C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998). Kenneth Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion (Tyler TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1992), 363–365. Kenneth Gentry (contributing author), Four Views on the Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1998), 89. Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church (Powder Springs: GA, 1999), 68–74, 141–154, 191–192. James B. Jordan, Through New Eyes Developing a Biblical View of the World (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, 1998), 269–279. Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis (contributing author) Eschatology in Bible & Theology (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 1997), 145–169. Peter J. Leithart, The Promise of His Appearing: An Exposition of Second Peter (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2004). Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1999), 114, 157–158. N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996), 345–346. N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003), 645, n.42. Hank Hanegraaff, The Apocalypse Code (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2007), 84–86.

These interpretations are, individually considered, “orthodox.” Yet when Full Preterists consolidate the most defensible elements of Reformed and Evangelical eschatology, anti-Preterists unite in opposition to even some of their own stated views.

James White and other Reformed Baptist Pastors have falsely accused those of us who take these passages as fulfilled in AD 70 as believing “we are in the eternal state” or that somehow, we deny the existence of the eternal state or heaven because we believe they were fulfilled in AD 70. But Jeff Durbin and Doug Wilson in their treatments of 2 Peter 3 and Revelation 21-22 have clearly stated these passages are NOT a description of heaven or the eternal state! So White of course is simply using a scare tactic, and apparently isn’t even aware of what people in his own church and formers of this letter are teaching on these CRUCIAL “end of world history” texts! We believe the “eternal state” or “heaven” is where the dead are now after being raised out of Hades / Abrahams bosom in AD 70 and where we go when we die post AD 70.

Questions on Isa. 65-66 / 2 Peter 3 / Revelation 21-22 for the authors of this letter to answer:

The WCF states that the “soon” coming of Christ in the book of Revelation is the Second Coming event which would cause the first creation to pass away and ushers in the new one. When did it become “orthodox” to believe this coming of Christ is actually His spiritual coming in AD 70 and the de-creation and new creation here are the old and new covenantal worlds of Israel and the Church? Who determined its “orthodoxy”?

Sam Frost has stated this is “inconsistent” “HYPER-Partial Preterism.” He has testified that it is this exegetical “inconsistency” that brought him into “Full Preterism.” If it’s “hyper” it’s not orthodox and if it’s “inconsistent” and it were to be “consistent” then it leads to Full Preterism. Indeed, a very incoherent statement coming from one of the signers of the letter.

The Partial Preterists in this letter believe that at the “soon” coming of Christ in Revelation 22:7, 10, 20 the New Jerusalem came down from heaven to earth and that we are currently in the New Jerusalem / New Creation and we are “healing the nations” by preaching the gospel and inviting sinners to come through the gates of the City (22:17). Hebrews 13:14 confirms this City was “about to come” and did in AD 70. If this is the case, then the curse of “the death” is “no more” (Rev. 21:4) for those of us who are in the New Jerusalem / New Creation post AD 70. One of the authors of this letter Philip Kayser, believes the coming or parousia of 1 Corinthians 15:23 was fulfilled in AD 70 and yet others of the letter believe it is at this parousia event that “all” are raised and the curse of “the death” of verses 54-56 is done away and overcome for the believer. So did the “soon” coming or “parousia” of Revelation 22:7-12, 20 and 1 Corinthians 15:23 bring about the promise to “overcome” “the death” and is there “no more the death” for the believer today in the new covenant age that “was about to” come in AD 70 or not? Didn’t Jesus teach that those of us who believe in Him would “never die”? Thus the “soon” coming of Christ in Revelation and expected by the living saints in Corinthians overcame the curse of spiritual death that came through Adam. This was a promise made and a promise kept!

Will history end and the planet be transformed at the physical bodily return of Jesus to raise and judge the quick and the dead?

Daniel 12:1-7, 13 / Acts 17:31YLT / Acts 24:15YLT / Romans 8:18-23YLT / 1 Thessalonians 4-5 / Matthew 24:3, 30-31 / 1 Corinthians 15 / Matthew 13:39-43 / Matthew 16:27-28 / Revelation 22:10-12 / 1 Peter 4:5-7, 17 / 2 Timothy 4:1YLT / Revelation 1-19; 21-22

Again, since some of the signers of this letter believe the above passages were fulfilled in AD 70, it is clear as to why no Scripture references were provided in this cowardly public rebuke of Gary DeMar.

Daniel 12:1-7, 13

Kenneth Gentry and Partial Preterism as a system has been challenged by us for many years to explain why they can eisegetically cherry-pick the judgment and resurrection of the just and unjust from Daniel 12:2-3 from the other AD 70 events such as the Tribulation in verse 1. After all Daniel is told that “ALL these things” listed in verse 1-4 would be fulfilled together during a period of “three and half years” “when the power of the holy people is completely shattered” (vss. 5-7). They finally came around to admit Daniel 12:2-3 teaches a spiritual resurrection was fulfilled in AD 70. But who made and had the authority to make that an “orthodox” position? How long did it take in order to become “orthodox”?

Kenneth Gentry concedes,

“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 [like Ezek. 37] is in the “dust” (Da 12:2; cp. Ge 3:14, 19).”

“…the arising of the new Israel from out of the dead, [of] old covenant Israel in AD 70…” (Kenneth L. Gentry, JR., HE SHALL HAVE DOMINION A POSTMILLENNIAL ESCHATOLOGY THIRD EDITION REVISED AND EXPANDED, (Draper, VA: Apologetics Group Media, 2009), 538-540).

When I challenged Ken on this in the Q&A period at the Criswell Conference on the Millennium, he claimed Daniel 12 teaches a double fulfillment of the resurrection or an “already and not yet.” He claims there was a spiritual and corporate resurrection of the dead in AD 70 and yet at the same time the text is teaching there will be an end of world history physical judgment and resurrection of the dead. Of course, when you actually read Daniel 12:2-4 you can’t derive this from the text itself. It is simply read into the text (eisegesis) so that Ken can admit the resurrection and judgment would be fulfilled when the Tribulation and deliverance is fulfilled (AD 67 – AD 70), and yet at the same time make a statement that saves his creedal carrier.

The text mentions this resurrection would be fulfilled at only ONE eschatological “not yet” “end” period and not two per Gentry (the “end” of the Jewish or old covenant age and then another alleged “end” to world history). Wycliffe emphasizes the importance of kairos being used in the LXX when he translates Daniel 12:4: “Daniel, close up the words, and seal the book, until the time ordained (or the appointed time).” This “ordained” or “appointed” time of the end would be during the Roman Jewish war – during the “three and half years” war of AD 67 – AD 70 “when the power of the holy people (first century Jews) will be completely shattered.” It is the last half of the broken seven years of Daniel’s seventy-sevens in Daniel 9:24-27. All of the soteriological and eschatological events listed in Daniel 9:24-27 were fulfilled within that last and 10th Jubilee as expected by first century Judaism (cf. 11QMelch).

G.K. Beale has also shown the connection between the (OG) LXX of Daniel 12:1-4 being the “hour of the end” and this being the eschatological “not yet” “hour” of John 4-5. And yet curiously Gentry admits Jesus’ phrase in John 4 of an “hour is coming and is now here” is referring to the “already and not yet” period of AD 30 – AD 70. But when the same phrase is used by Jesus in John 5, it somehow is referring to another “already and not yet” eschatological hour spanning from AD 30 to the end of world history. But why? Gentry reasons it’s because John 5 discusses “all” coming out of their “graves” so this has to be a physical resurrection. But Gentry just got done telling us that the terminology of a resurrection coming out of the “dust” does not have to be taken literally or physically and this is a resurrection just like Ezekiel 37 were people come out of their “graves” which was likewise not referring to physical or literal graves. And of course Reformed Partial Preterist eschatology has admitted that the eschatological and soteriological coming “hour” of judgment and wrath taught by Jesus and John elsewhere was imminently fulfilled in AD 70 (cf. Mt. 24:36; 1 Jn. 2:17-18; Rev. 6:17; etc…). Hmm, nothing to see here – keep walking.

The Jews understood the “in that day” “trumpet gathering” of Isaiah 27:12-13 to be the resurrection event and then they would “worship the LORD on the holy mountain at Jerusalem.” Jesus in Matthew 24:30-31 places this “trumpet” resurrection “gathering” to be in His generation to close the old covenant age and in John 4-5 He places this time of worship and resurrection to be fulfilled in the coming eschatological “hour” of Daniel 12 – which is inseparably connected to Jerusalems salvation and judgment in the events of AD 70. The Samaritans and Jews were debating over the physicality of this place of worship, and yet Jesus and the NT authors see this to take place within the spiritual new covenant Jerusalem / Mount Zion which wold replace the physical old covenant system in AD 70.

Another exegetical issue Gentry has no good answer for is this – if he can give the resurrection and judgment of the dead event (inseparably connected to the historic events of the Tribulation AD 67 – AD 70) in Daniel 12:2-3 a double fulfillment, then why can’t other Futurist views give the Tribulation or Abomination of Desolation two fulfillments – one in AD 70 and another at the end of world history with another rebuilt Temple etc.?!? Gentry forbids this kind of double fulfillment or “already and not yet” but he sure imposes it when trying to get around the challenges of Full Preterism!

Phillip Kayser another co-signer of the letter also agrees that Daniel 12 teaches that there was an imminent resurrection of the dead that was fulfilled in AD 70. Gentry does not address how Daniel himself would be raised in this resurrection (Dan. 12:13) – he will only commit to a corporate spiritual resurrection. Kayser on the other hand believes that “many” (how many?) were physically raised from the dead in AD 70 per Daniel 12:2-3:

“Notice that the great tribulation (v. 1) immediately precedes a resurrection (vv. 2-3)

Let’s read Daniel 12:1-3. The context in chapter 11 ends with Herod the Great hearing news from the east, being troubled by the news that the wise men bring him, killing many, and then ending up dying himself. So it is a first century context. Chapter 12:1 begins,

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.

The book of Revelation has been talking about Daniel’s Great Tribulation. But notice what happens right during that time. Verse 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. Those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament, and those who turn many to righteousness like the stars forever and ever.

Notice that “many” are raised, not all (v. 2). This implies another resurrection. Yet Daniel will be raised at the end of the time period being discussed (end of Old Covenant – or AD 70).

Notice that it says “many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake.” It doesn’t say “all.” The word “many” implies that there are others who will be raised at yet another different time. So hopefully you can see that it is crystal clear that there is a resurrection in AD 70, but it is not the last one.” (Philip G. Kayser, Barley Harvest, https://kaysercommentary.com/Sermons/New%20Testament/Revelation/Revelation%2011/Revelation%2011_11-14.md?fbclid=IwAR3FVoxOgmAD5zTylIPuyGGpSLqLpTQ3LzPn5yKuTkVf7BGbS-7R19xDZfc).

Kayser, like Gentry, understands that this resurrection is inseparably connected to the Tribulation period in the events of AD 67 – AD 70. And like Gentry he attempts to get around his creedal problem by creating TWO different resurrections – one in AD 70 and another at the end of world history. His argument on the word “many” to make this distinction falls flat as David Green addressed in our book,

“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.” (House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology…, p. 178).

Unlike Gentry (and Jordan below) Kayser believes that there was a PHYSICAL resurrection of the OT dead and those who died in Christ in the events of AD 70. Amazing how Josephus and Roman historians missed this PHYSICAL event — so many decaying corpses coming out of their literal graveyards in AD 70!

James Jordan who is a Partial Preterist also writes the following on the resurrection of Daniel 12 being fulfilled by AD 70 and comes the closest to the truth:

“The resurrection of [Dan. 12:2] seems to connect to the evangelistic and teaching ministry spoken of in verse 3; thus, it is some kind of historical resurrection that is spoken of, a resurrectional event in this world, in our history.” Daniel 12:2 tells us that in the days of Jesus the nation will undergo a last spiritual resurrection…” “Thus, a resurrection of Israel is in view..”.

The death of the Church in the Great Tribulation, and her resurrection after that event,…”

“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.” (James B. Jordan, THE HANDWRITING ON THE WALL A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2007), pp. 618-21, 628).

Let’s now harmonize “Orthodox Partial Preterism” on the Resurrection and Judgment of Daniel 12:

1). There is an “already and not yet” or progressive process before the “end” “time of the end” “hour of the end” of this resurrection.

2). It is Israel’s last spiritual resurrection where her physical old covenant corporate body is transformed into or rises into the new covenant corporate spiritual body of the Church in AD 70.

3). This resurrection resulted in the OT dead one’s being raised out of Abraham’s bosom/Hades to inherit eternal life and God’s presence in AD 70.

Questions on Daniel 12 for the authors of this letter to answer:

Of course, neither Gentry nor Jordan give any kind of full exegesis of Daniel 12. We are left with such question as the following:

1). On what exegetical grounds does Gentry give this eschatological “not yet” judgment and resurrection of the dead event TWO “ends” or TWO “appointed” / “decreed” (LXX) end time periods when the text only gives it ONE?

2). Why won’t Gentry agree with Jordan that the passage says that Daniel himself would be raised at this ONE “end” event and how was he personally raised at the “end” of the Jewish age in AD 70 (v. 13)?

3). When the NT cites or refers to the resurrection of Dan. 12, how are we to determine which is the spiritual resurrection “end” time event in AD 70 and which one is the alleged physical “end” of world history event?

4). Why wasn’t there any admission here that some Jews before Jesus and in His day believed there would be a spiritual resurrection out of Hades (as Jordan is teaching) at the end of their old covenant Mosaic age and that it would be within 40 years after Messiah would be “cut off”? Seems like if you are going to come up with a view not taught in the early church fathers, you might want to develop a “historical context” for it?

5). Why didn’t Gentry and Jordan publicly confess that Full Preterism has been challenging them on their inconsistencies and cherry-picking of Daniel 12:2-3 and that they needed to respond but ducked addressing this issue for decades?

6). Why didn’t they cite or admit that the spiritual resurrection position they are giving Daniel 12 – they got from being challenged by Full Preterists and that it is actually our view? And if not, again, when and where did any church father teach Daniel 12:2-3, 13 was a spiritual resurrection fulfilled in AD 70?

7). When and who made this spiritual resurrection of Daniel 12 an “orthodox” position and with what authority did they do so? Clearly some of the authors of the letter do not believe it is “orthodox.” And some Partial Preterists won’t answer the public and private questions/challenges that verse 7 brings — which connects the “tribulation” (which they claim was fulfilled in AD 70) and “time of the end” with the resurrection (ex. Doug Wilson, Jeff Durbin, and James White – please “answer” this exegetical challenge).

Acts 17:31YLT:

Recently there has been some debate and interaction between Gary DeMar and Ken Gentry on the translation of the Greek word mello (cf. Gary DeMar, How Should the Greek Word ‘Mello’ be Translated? https://americanvision.org/posts/how-should-the-greek-word-mello-be-translated/?fbclid=IwAR0tzWk2fvZ2As8Y-u8oRejYWDjsYwn3E3YXL_GEhmbHK6Z9_sR3WX9Ohz8).

In this dispute on Facebook and elsewhere, Acts 17:31YLT has also been brought up as a creedal text and some of the authors of this letter have challenged the Full Preterist position and even Gary with “how was the Roman world ‘about to be’ judged in AD 70”? But of course, this is the very position of one of the authors of the letter! Philip G. Kayser writes this of mello in Acts 17:31,

“So where do we get the idea that there would be an imminent resurrection in AD 70? It’s implied in the word firstfruits. If the AD 30 resurrection is a firstfruits resurrection, then the rest of the barley harvest should shortly happen.

Second, the next subpoint gives a boatload of Scriptures which speaks of an imminent judgment against Jerusalem, connected with an imminent resurrection that was about to happen, and an imminent age that was about to begin. Unfortunately, the Greek word μέλλω in each of those verses is sometimes translated away [which is what Gentry has sought to do seeing the resurrection train coming – MJS]. But that Greek word always refers to something that is about to happen. How do premils handle these verses? Well, they use them to prove that the Second Coming is about to happen and has been about to happen for the last 2000 years. Well, 2000 years after those Scriptures were written is not something that is about to happen. I won’t take the time to go through the whole long list of Scriptures that have the Greek word μέλλω, but each of those references in your outline show some massive changes that would happen soon in AD 70. For now I want to focus on the verses that speak of a resurrection that was about to happen, since that is the one that so many people miss.

Acts 17:31 speaks about a resurrection. It says, “because He has appointed a day on which He will judge [And the Greek word is μέλλω – “is about to judge” the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.” Why would Christ’s resurrection be a guarantee of imminent judgment? Because Daniel connects judgment against Israel with resurrection. And we will look at the Daniel passage in a moment.

So, Christ’s resurrection was a downpayment or an assurance (a firstfruits, so to speak) that guaranteed that there was about to be a judgment day with another resurrection. In terms of the barley harvest imagery that the Jews were familiar with, that would make sense because Christ’s firstfruits resurrection was the assurance of the rest of the barley harvest.” (Philip G. Kayser, Barley Harvest, https://kaysercommentary.com/Sermons/New%20Testament/Revelation/Revelation%2011/Revelation%2011_11-14.md?fbclid=IwAR3FVoxOgmAD5zTylIPuyGGpSLqLpTQ3LzPn5yKuTkVf7BGbS-7R19xDZfc).

So, the “appointed” or “decreed” “time” of the judgment and resurrection of Daniel 12:2-4 (LXX) and Acts 17:31 was “about to be” fulfilled in the lifetime of Paul’s audience and it was fulfilled in AD 70. Daniel 12 nor the NT places TWO eschatological “appointed” or “decreed” time(s), just ONE and it is imminently to be fulfilled in AD 70 and is inseparably connected to the “hope of the twelve tribes of Israel” and to her destruction and judgment.

Questions for the signers of the letter on Acts 17:31YLT:

How many “appointed” “decreed” “hour of the end” judgments and resurrections are there in Daniel 12:1-7 and Acts 17:31YLT? Was only one “about to be” fulfilled in AD 70 or not? And if not “where is your work” to prove that? How many of you are buying that the NT is teaching TWO eschatological harvests and judgments of the living and dead – one imminent in AD 70 and one at the end of world history? Is that “creedal” and “orthodox”?

What if a combination of the authors of the letter are correct – the more classic Amillennial view is correct in that this is just ONE divinely “appointed” “end” or “end of the age” judgment and resurrection of the dead event for the righteous and unrighteous and Partial Preterism is correct in that it was “about to be” fulfilled at the divinely appointed end of the old covenant or Jewish age in AD 70? Instead of the authors of this letter gnashing their teeth at DeMar and Full Preterism, maybe they should spend more time trying to reconcile their MAJOR differences on key texts like these instead of trying to condemn people to hell for piecing their mess together into a consistent, logical and exegetical system? Just a thought.

Acts 24:15YLT:

Kayser again a co-signer of the letter writes of mello on this crucial passage,

“I have hope in God, which they themselves also accept, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust. (Acts 24:15)

The word “will be” is the Greek word μέλλω which refers to something very very near. It is more literally translated “that there is about to be a resurrection of the dead.” Well, he said that about ten years before the AD 70 resurrection, so it was literally true. Look down at verse 25 where μέλλω occurs again.

Now as he reasoned about righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come [literally, the judgment about to come], Felix was afraid and answered, “Go away for now; when I have a convenient time I will call for you.” (v. 25)

It was the very imminence of this judgment that made Felix afraid.” (Ibid.)

There are other issues in Acts 24:14-15YLT; Acts 26; and Acts 28 whereby Paul states that his resurrection “hope” only comes from the OT “Law and the Prophets” and it was the ONE “hope” of the “twelve tribes of Israel.” Post AD 70 there are no longer any ethnic, covenantal or national “twelve tribes of Israel.” Christ sent the Roman armies to burn their genealogical records in the Temple and took the Kingdom from them and gave it to the Nation of the Church which bears forth fruit today (Mt. 21:43-45). That’s why when Gary DeMar debated Zionist Jew Dr. Michael Brown and asked him what Tribe he was from he said, “I THINK I’m from Judah.” Lol. Jordan also demonstrates there are no ethnic covenantal Jews post AD 70 in his work on Romans 11 and the salvation of “all Israel.”

And the NT only knows of ONE eschatological “hope” of the parousia and resurrection. These Partial Preterists that have an eschatological “hope” and “resurrection” in AD 70 and then another one at the end of time are twisting the Scriptures as even any good Amillennialist will agree with in condemning the Partial Preterist TWO comings, TWO judgments and resurrection – TWO “hopes” nonsense.

In an article on Acts 24:15 on his site Gentry cites BDAG as support that mello should not be translated as “about to be” here but conveniently does not share with you that BDAG does translate mello as “about to be” in our next key passage – Romans 8:18-23YLT.

Questions for the signers of the letter on Acts 24:15YLT:

How many judgments and resurrections of righteous and unrighteous are there according to Daniel 12:2-7, 17 and Acts 24:15YLT? If only one at the “end of world history” please show your work! If TWO – one in AD 70 and one at the end of world history – show your work. If many of you only see ONE consummative “end” for this judgment and resurrection, then why does one of the signers teach it was “about to be” fulfilled in AD 70? Ken, since you admit there was a spiritual resurrection of the just and unjust of Daniel 12:2-3 in AD 70 PROVE without a shadow of doubt that Paul in Acts 24:15YLT is not referring to THAT AD 70 resurrection – but the alleged “end of world history” one. Contextually in Acts 24; 26 and 28 this judgment and resurrection of the dead event is connected to the ONE “hope” of the “twelve tribes of Israel” and is not referring to “the end of world history.” Again, the OT context of Daniel 12 and historical context of Acts itself limits this judgment and resurrection of the just and unjust to “about to” take place when there were ethnic and covenantal “tribes of Israel” and just before Jerusalems judgment in the events of AD 67 – AD 70. There is no Futurist “end of world history” judgment and resurrection case here either. Next.

Romans 8:18-23YLT:

The bold co-signer of this Philip Kayser again writes of mello in this key passage,

“Turn next to Romans 8:18. The whole context is the reversal of every facet of the curse, including the resurrection of our bodies, which in verse 23 Paul calls the “redemption of our bodies.” But I want you to notice the use of the word μέλλω in verse 18.

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be [literally, “which is about to be”] revealed in us. (v. 18)

In context Paul is saying that this glory is the redemption of our bodies. That glory is about to be revealed in us. Paul had already revealed that he would die prior to Christ’s coming in AD 70, so he was about to be raised in AD 70.” (Ibid.).

Here is a proper and complete exegesis of Romans 8:18-23YLT since Kayser leaves so many exegetical questions unanswered:

Why has Kenneth Gentry retracted his comments of when mello is used in the aorist infinitive it “surely means” “about to be” fulfilled in AD 70? It’s because Paul’s theology in Romans 5–8:23 describes the same resurrection and overcoming of “THE Sin,” “THE Death,” and “THE Law” of 1 Corinthians 15. It is also the “appointed time” and “redemption” of Luke 21 and the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 which both men believe were fulfilled in AD 70.

Paul’s “ALREADY” Resurrection in Romans 6:

Rms. 6:3-4YLT/NRV/MNC: “are ye ignorant that we, as many as were baptized [that is united/planted through faith not water] to Christ Jesus, to his death were baptized? With him through the baptism to the death [spiritual], that even as Christ was raised up out of the dead through the glory of the Father, so also, we in newness of life might walk [or proceed in a new state of life – MNC]. The PROCESS of resurrection & overcoming Adamic “THE Death” had begun. The uniting into Christ’s “death” was spiritual and “also” being raised with Him and walking in the newness of His resurrection had begun and was spiritual.

Paul’s “Not Yet” Resurrection in Romans 6:

Rms. 6:5: “For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will [future] certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.”

Rms. 6:8: “And if we died with Christ [to THE sin of Adam], we believe that we also shall [future] live with him [that is be accepted & enjoy His presence forever at His coming],”

Rms. 6:10YLT/AB/GNT: “for in that he [Christ] died, to THE sin he died once, and in that he liveth, He lives to God [in unbroken fellowship w/ Him].

A uniting into the death and resurrection of Christ in these texts are spiritual and have to do with being in or living in unbroken fellowship with God.

Rms. 7: “when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.” “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death [the body of Adam/Moses].”

Here Paul is portraying himself as being under Torah “in the flesh” before his conversion or is personifying himself as being in the corporate body of Adam and or Israel being under “THE Law.” For those in this corporate body, the Law of Moses only served to stir up or magnify the presence of “THE sin” and produced spiritual death or the awareness of being in the state of spiritual death.

Rms. 8:18-22YLT: For I reckon that the sufferings of the present time [are] not worthy [to be compared] with the glory about to be revealed in us; for the earnest looking out of the creation doth expect the revelation of the sons of God; for to vanity was the creation made subject — not of its will, but because of Him who did subject [it] — in hope, that also the creation itself shall be set free from the servitude of the corruption to the liberty of the glory of the children of God; for we have known that all the creation doth groan together, and doth travail in pain together till now. And not only [so], but also we ourselves, having the first-fruit of the Spirit, we also ourselves in ourselves do groan, adoption expecting — the redemption [resurrection] of our body;”

1). What time is it?—”…the sufferings of this present time (Greek kairos) or should be understood or translated – “the [now eschatological] appointed time…” man has been waiting for and the Prophets predicted has arrive (similarly 1 Pet. 1:1-12).

This is not kronos which means a duration of chronological time, but rather kairos meaning God’s “appointed time” “when things come to a head, a crisis or consummation.” How and where does Jesus use kairios that is related to Paul’s eschatology here in Romans?

Luke 21:8, 27-28: “For many will come in my name, saying, “I am he!’ and, “The [kairios or appointed time of “redemption” v. 28] is at hand!’ Do not go after them.” Why? Because…

Mrk. 13:10/16:15: “The gospel MUST FIRST be preached to “ALL NATIONS” or “TO THE WHOLE CREATION (Greek kitisis = Rms. 8:19-23).

How does Paul use kairos elsewhere in Romans?

Rms. 13:11-12: Besides this you know the [kairos or appointed] time, that the hour [that is “the hour/time of the end” of Dan. 12:1-4 OG LXX] has come…for you to wake from sleep [that is to “wake from the sleep” or enter into the fulfillment of the resurrection of Dan. 12:2-3]. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed. The night [of the OC age] is far gone; the day [of the NC age of resurrection] is at hand.

Since the Gentile and Jewish “creation” had all heard the gospel, they and Paul knew they had entered into the eschatological “appointed time” of “redemption” or “to awake from the sleep” Jesus and Daniel prophesied. Therefore, Paul taught with inspired certainty that this “appointed time” was “at hand” or “about to be” or “soon to be” fulfilled by AD 70.

2). Contextually, what is the “glory” “about to be revealed” (v. 18)?

A). The immediate and previous context in (v. 17) makes it clear– “…in order that we may also be glorified with Him.”

This is what Paul taught earlier in Rms. 6:5 – “if we have been united with Him in a death like His, we shall be united with Him in a resurrection like His.” The resurrection of Christ here results in unbroken fellowship with the Father (v. 10) and so they too would “live with Him” (v.8). Resurrection = Presence of God restored. The context following our verse also makes it clear (vss. 19-23): They are waiting for the revealing of the adoption as sons or the glory of the children of God, the liberation of the creation, and the “redemption of the body” (vss. 19-23).

3). Where is this glory to be revealed (v. 18) and what is this unseen hope of (v. 24)? “…in us.”

Paul writes elsewhere:

Cols. 1:27: “to whom God has willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory,”

Lk. 17:20-37/Lk. 21:27-32: When Christ would come from heaven in His contemporary “this generation” He and the kingdom would come in GLORY and power and be “WITHIN” His people and no one would be able to say “see here” or “see there.”

This was a “hope” “about to be” realized in AD 70 not the “sick” and 2,000 plus years and counting physical “hope” of Futurism (Prov. 13:12).

4). When would this eschatological “waiting” in (vss. 19-23) for the “glory” in them to be revealed (v. 18)? It was “about to be revealed” or “soon to be revealed” in AD 70.

Paul here uses the Greek word mello in the aorist infinitive. Gentry writes of John’s use of mello in the aorist infinitive in Rev. 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. …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. Unfortunately, none of the major translators cited above translates Revelation 1:19 in a literal fashion. (Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., The Beast of Revelation, (First Edition, Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), pp. 23–24, 141-142, emphasis MJS).

John Lightfoot is Gentry and DeMar’s favorite Partial Preterist theologian and yet he understands Rms. 8:18-23 in the following Full Preterist manner:

John Lightfoot on “creation”:

He identifies the “creation” of Rms. 8 with the gospel having been preached to “every creature” by AD 70 according to Mrk. 16:15 and Cols. 1:23. He points out the Jews understood the term to be, “…applied to the Gentiles…,” and that the OT prophets predicted the “…gathering together and adopting sons to himself among the Gentiles…”

John Lightfoot on vanity, bondage & corruption:

After citing Rms. 1:21; Ephs. 4:17; and 1 Cor. 3:20; 2 Pet. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:3; 1 Cor. 15:33 where these terms are referring to the inner sin of man he writes,

“. . . [T]his vanity [or futility] is improperly applied to the [physical] creation. For vanity, doth not so much denote the vanishing condition of the outward state [of the planet], as it doth the inward vanity and emptiness of the mind.” The Gentile world shall in time be delivered from the bondage of their sinful corruption, that is, the bondage of their lusts and vile affections, (under which it hath lain for so long a time) into a noble liberty, such as the sons of God enjoy. If it be inquired how the Gentile world groaned and travailed in pain, let them who expound this of the fabric of the material world tell us how that groaneth and travaileth. They must needs own it to be a borrowed and allusive phrase.” (John Lightfoot, Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, Volume 4 (Hendrickson publications), 157, 158-159)

John Lightfoot on the “Redemption of the Body”:

“And of the same body [in context he is referring to the corporate Jew/Gentile mystical body of Christ just mentioned in Eph. 4:13] is his meaning in that obscure and much-mistaken place (Rom. viii.23; “And not only they,” i.e. ‘the whole creation,’ or πασα κτισις, ‘every creature,’ which means no other thing, than ‘the Gentile or heathen world’: not only they groan to come into the evangelical liberty of the children of God, but we, also, of the Jewish nation, who have the first-fruits of the Spirit, groan within ourselves, waiting for the redemption, to wit, the adoption of our [corporate] body:” we wait for the redeeming and adopting of the Gentiles, to make up our [corporate] mystical [Jew / Gentile] body. (John Lightfoot, Sermon on “Many Mansions,” cf. https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/lightfoot/vol06.pdf… pp. 322-323).

Major Premise: The context makes it clear that the eschatological appointed time of the liberation of creation, the glory of the children of God, the adoption of the sons of God and the resurrection of Daniel or redemption of the body would all be fulfilled together when the glory would be revealed in Rms. 8:18.

Minor Premise: Since Paul uses the Greek word mello in the aorist infinitive, the glory was “about to be revealed in” the Church in AD 70 [Gary DeMar / Philip Kayser / Gentry’s appeals to BDAG  ]. The creation here is the creation of men being delivered from the effects of inner sin and has nothing to do with the planet earth being transformed or redeemed [John Lightfoot].

Conclusion: The liberation of creation, the adoption and revealing of the sons in glory, and the redemption of the body was “about to be” fulfilled in AD 70. At Christ’s “at hand” parousia to close the dark OC age in AD 70, the corporate Body of the Church has been set free or has arisen from the condemning corporate body of Adam / Moses and thus from The Sin, The Death & The Law. In short, the resurrection & deliverance of Rms. 5–8:23YLT is the resurrection & deliverance of 1 Cor. 15 from The Sin, The Death & The Law—-but in Romans it was “about to be” fulfilled in AD 70 and was (Rms. 8:18-23YLT)! And in 1 Cor. 15 Paul expected it to take place within the lifetime of those in Corinth – “we shall not all sleep…”.

There are many parallels between Romans 8 and Luke 17:20-37 and the Olivet Discourse. Not only that, but the eschatological second exodus theme is present. This is powerful when considering the “historical Jewish context” of some of the Jewish who believed there would be another 40 years “generation” “second exodus” between their old covenant “this age” and the Messianic or new covenant “age about to come”:

The New or Second Exodus Motif in Romans 8:18-23YLT was “About to be” Fulfilled in AD 70
1). Israel – God’s “children” or “sons” (Deut. 32:5, 19-20)	1). Church – God’s “children” or “sons” (8:14, 16, 21)
2). God “created/made” Israel through the exodus event (Deut. 32:6; Isa. 51:15-16)	2). The “creation” of believing Gentiles and Jews the focus & not physical creation (8:22)
3). God “led” Israel (Deut. 32:12)	3). Church “led” by the Spirit (8:14)
4). Israel was “groaning” to be “set free” and “redeemed” from Egyptian slavery/bondage (Ex. 6:2-9)	4). The Jew/Gentile Church/Creation were “groaning” to be “set free” & “redeemed” from the inner “bondage,” vanity, and corruption of Adamic sin (8:20-22)
The Appointed Time of Fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse & Lk. 17 was “At Hand” & “About to be” Fulfilled in Romans 8—13:11-12 by AD 70
1). Suffering & eschatological birth pains coming (Mt. 24:8-9)	1). Suffering & eschatological birth pains currently taking place (8:17-18, 22)
2). Kingdom to be realized “within” a person at Christ’s Second Coming (Lk. 17:20-37/Lk. 21:27-32)	2). Christ’s “glory” would be “revealed IN” the Church at Christ’s Second Coming (8:18; 13:11-12; cf. Cols. 1:27)
3). Called to “straighten up / lift heads” because “redemption” would be “drawing near” in their contemporary “this generation” (Lk. 21:27-28)	3). Look for with “eager expectation” (Gk. apekdechomai & apokaradokia– “to eagerly wait for fulfillment with an outstretched neck and head lifted forward”) (8:19-23)
4). Second Coming & “gathering” (resurrection) at the end of the Old Covenant age described “…as sunshine comes out from the east and is seen even in the west…” or “shining like the sun in the Kingdom” (Mt. 24:27-31 Aramaic English NT; Mt. 13:39-43 fulfillment of Dan. 12:2-3)	4). Second Coming & “awaking from sleep” (resurrection) described as the arrival of “the [eschatological New Covenant age] Day” (13:11-12 fulfillment of Dan. 12:2-3)
5). The “time” (Gk. “kairos” better translated as the eschatological “appointed time of fulfillment or consummation”) would be “near” in the first century “generation” or by AD 70 (Lk. 21:8, 32 “the time ordained” of Dan. 12:4 Wycliffe Translation)	5). The “time” (Gk. kairos better translated as the eschatological “appointed time of fulfillment or consummation”) was “near” and “about to be” fulfilled in AD 70 (8:18YLT; 13:11-12)

Questions for the signers of the letter on Romans 8:18-23YLT / Romans 13:11-12:

Here we have the same exegetical issues as with Daniel 12:1-4 and its connection with Acts 17:31YLT and Acts 24:15YLT. For Paul there was only ONE “hope” “appointed” or “decreed” time of fulfillment of the judgment and resurrection of Daniel 12 and it was “at hand” and “about to be” fulfilled in AD 70. Is Lightfoot’s view that the “creation” of Romans 8 is the “creation of men” and not referring to the planet “orthodox” to believe? If not, why not?

1 Thessalonians 1:10:

Like in Acts 17:31YLT, Philip Kayser interprets Paul discussing Christ coming from heaven as something to be fulfilled “soon” in AD 70 and the “wrath” associated with His coming was about to fall upon “Israel and Rome” just as he took the judgment “about to” come upon the “world” of the Jews and Rome in Acts 17:31YLT:

“The last verse of chapter 1 introduces a theme that will be repeated throughout the book – that these saints were eagerly waiting for Jesus to come and to do something soon. He isn’t talking about people 2000 years later. He is talking about these newly converted Thessalonians whom he has taught “to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.” Which wrath to come? Well, let’s jump ahead to 2:16. Speaking of the Jews who killed Jesus and persecuted Paul, it says, “forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost.” It was about to fall. Though Paul had instructed these Christians that they would have to endure the Great Tribulation, none of them would have to endure God’s great wrath that was about to be poured out upon both Israel and Rome. But more on that when we get to chapter 4. He is not talking here (in chapter 1:10) about Christ’s coming at the end of history. He is talking about the imminent coming Jesus had promised in Matthew 24 that would happen within that generation. It was something to wait expectantly for during the first century. Mounce says that that word “wait” means to expect it. It is a waiting with an expectation that it is about to happen. It’s imminent. They will experience it.” (Kayser, 1 Thessalonians).

1 Thessalonians 4-5 / Matthew 24:3, 27-31 / 1 Corinthians 15:23:

We must continue with the wonderful admissions that Mr. Philip Kayser has provided for us to answer these three questions the authors of this letter have challenged Mr. DeMar with and indirectly have challenged Full Preterism with over the years. Let’s be clear – the authors of this letter and their Partial Preterist system has conceded that the coming or parousia of Christ in Mt. 24:27-31; 25:31; 1 Thess. 4-5; and 1 Cor. 15:23 WAS fulfilled in AD 70 and everyone is supposed to just look the other way as they want to hypocritically declare we are “damanable heretics” for agreeing with these statements and then trying to harmonize them with the work of the Spirit or the “analogy of faith” principle of interpretation that has been performed through the rest of the Reformed Church (the classic Amillennial position) — and how they have interpreted these texts and the “parallels” they acknowledge. Nothing to see here folks – keep moving!

1 Thess. 4:16-17:

Kayser teaches that,

“…verse 16 tells us what happens to the bodies of those who died prior to AD 70 – that body and soul they go to heaven, while verse 17 tells us what happens to the souls of those who die after AD 70, and that he doesn’t deal with their bodies till a brief statement in chapter 5.” (Ibid.)

And,

“…I believe this particular passage speaks of the very visible appearing of Christ with His angelic armies and chariots that came against Jerusalem. This is the coming referred to in the first half of Matthew 24, where Jesus said that He would come before that generation passed away. This is the perfect answer to liberals.” (Ibid.)

While we appreciate the honesty that this parousia of Christ was fulfilled in AD 70, the rest of Kayser’s exegesis and comments are an epic historical train wreck that every school of eschatology can destroy let alone “liberals.” Here is a Partial Preterist that believes the OT dead ones and those who died in Christ prior to AD 70 were physically and biologically raised in AD 70 and everyone missed it and didn’t record such an event?!? Now he claims he disagrees with other Preterists on a physical “rapture” of the living in AD 70 such as Ed Stevens, Milton Terry, Stuart Russell, Mike Bull, etc… (all of whom I see as defending Partial Preterism – a physical fulfillment – Full Preterism is “defined on BOTH the timing and NATURE [spiritual] of fulfillment”). But if you add in the physical rapture view of the Partial Preterists in AD 70, then you have the dead and the living OT and NT saints coming out of graveyards and flying into the sky and no one noticed and recorded it?!? No, I’m afraid this is not the “perfect solution to the liberals.” Lol.

But the Full Preterist view does answer the skeptics argument perfectly because Jesus taught that when He was revealed from heaven at His coming and arrival of the Kingdom, one would not be able to say, “see here or see there” because the Kingdom would be revealed spiritually “within” the heart of a person (Lk. 17:20-37/Lk. 21:27-32). Since Jesus taught one wouldn’t be able to physically see the event because it would be spiritually fulfilled within a person, and the resurrection involved souls/spirits being raised out of Hades in AD 70, then the liberal argument – “Jesus and the NT authors promised it would be physically fulfilled “soon” in their generation BUT it didn’t happen, so Jesus is a false prophet and the Bible is not inspired” — has no validity!

Another problem for Philip Kayser is that he takes the coming of Christ in Matthew 24:27-30 / 1 Thessalonians 4-5 / 1 Corinthians 15:23 / Revelation 1:7 / Acts 1:11 as a physically and bodily seen – that is a five foot eight Jesus coming on a physical cloud. If Paul had taught the Thessalonians and other churches that Christ’s coming on the clouds was going to be physically seen and the resurrection of the dead ones and their beloved brethren in Christ whom had died would be raised physically and biologically – then this makes no sense of how Paul argued in 2 Thessalonians 2:2-3 and 2 Timothy 2:17-18 concerning those that were teaching that the coming of Christ and resurrection had “already” been fulfilled. If these were physically seen events all Paul would have ad to say to refute these errors would have been, “how could you believe our Lord’s coming and the resurrection of the dead event has already been fulfilled – did you physically see Christ bodily on a cloud and have the graveyards been emptied”? But since orthodox Partial Preterism admits Paul was teaching there was a spiritual coming of Christ and a spiritual resurrection of the dead event that would imminently occur in AD 70, Paul’s response to this error in not correcting the nature of it and only the timing – makes perfect sense.

Additional problems for Kayser is that he says the coming of the Lord will only affect and raise the dead. The living are only “caught up” at their deaths. This is not consistent with 1 Corinthians 15 in that it is at the coming of the Lord or “at the last trumpet sound” that both the dead and the living will be raised and “changed” at “the twinkling of an eye” (vss. 51-52). So while we do agree that the living that experience Christ’s coming in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 will be alive on earth post AD 70 [not physically “raptured” off the planet], both 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 and 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 being in harmony with each other and Luke 17:20-27/Lk. 21:27-32 – teach there will be an inner and spiritual transformation of being “caught away” or “changed” the living undergo in inheriting the Kingdom at His parousia.

Since this is an important passage let me briefly exegete it.

“For the Lord himself will come down from heaven…” (v. 16)

How had God described His “coming down from heaven” to “reveal Himself” (2 Thess. 2:7) and “rescue” (1 Thess. 1:10) His people being persecuted in the past? Notice how David describes God coming down from heaven to rescue him from his enemies:

“In my distress I called to the LORD; I cried to my God for help. From his temple he heard my voice; my cry came before him, into his ears. The earth trembled and quaked (literally?), and the foundations of the mountains shook (literally?); they trembled because he was angry. Smoke rose from his nostrils (literally?); consuming fire came from his mouth (remember 2 Thess. 1:7 – Jesus is “revealed from heaven in blazing fire…”), burning coals blazed out of it. He parted the heavens and came down (literally?); dark clouds were under his feet. He mounted the cherubim and flew; he soared on the wings of the wind. He made darkness his covering, his canopy around him— the dark rain clouds of the sky. Out of the brightness of his presence clouds advanced (literally?), with hailstones and bolts of lightning. The LORD thundered from heaven; the voice of the Most High resounded (a literal voice?). He shot his arrows and scattered the enemy, with great bolts of lightning he routed them. The valleys of the sea were exposed and the foundations of the earth laid bare (literally?) at your rebuke, LORD, at the blast of breath from your nostrils. He reached down from on high and took hold of me; he drew me out of deep waters. He rescued me from my powerful enemy, from my foes, who were too strong for me” (Ps. 18:6-17).

Christ is coming here in 1 Thessalonains 4:16-17 as God had come from heaven and on the clouds in the OT, as we discussed in our exegesis of the Olivet Discourse. If the Church is willing to admit that the coming of Christ in Matthew 24-25 was fulfilled spiritually with Jesus, describing His coming using common apocalyptic language of the prophets, and the Church is willing to admit that Paul’s teaching of Christ’s coming here in 1 Thessalonians 4-5 is the same event as described by Jesus in Matthew 24-25, THEN it is no stretch to understand that Paul likewise is using common apocalyptic language of the prophets and that 1 Thessalonians 4-5 was also fulfilled in AD 70 just as Matthew 24-25 was.

In fact, NT Wright comes very close to admitting that all of the language of 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 is common apocalyptic language:

“Unfortunately, it [the language of 1 Thess. 4:16] is also a highly contentious passage, being used with astonishing literalness in popular fundamentalism and critical scholarship alike to suggest that Paul envisaged Christians flying around in mid-air on clouds. The multiple apocalyptic resonances of the passage on the one hand, and its glorious mixed metaphors on the other, make this interpretation highly unlikely.” (N.T. Wright, THE RESURRECTION OF THE SON OF GOD Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 3 (Minneapolis, MN: 2003), 215, emphasis MJS)

We couldn’t agree more with Mr. Wright in that Paul is using common apocalyptic language. Yet it is not figurative language of a physical resurrection at the end of world history, but rather figurative language of a spiritual resurrection by which souls are raised out of Hades into God’s presence, and of God’s presence “meeting” the living within their hearts while on earth (cf. Lk. 17:20-37). If it is agreed by the Partial Preterist that the language of Jesus in Matthew 24:30-31 is describing Christ’s non-literal coming, on non-literal clouds, with a non-literal trumpet sound, and that the “gathering” is an inward resurrection of giving eternal life that the gospel produces (no biological change), while others correctly see Matthew 24:30-31 and 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 to be the same event, then we suggest the “catching away” for the living is not into physical clouds (as Wright admits), but is God producing the consummative giving of His presence and of eternal life to His saints while here on earth.

OT Echo to 1 Thessalonians 4:16

Other than the trumpet gathering and resurrection of Isaiah 27:12-13 (which I have addressed already), G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson connect this coming of the Lord “from heaven” with Isaiah 2:10-12’s “in that day”, “Day of the Lord” judgment:

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

But they also connect 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 with Isaiah 2, which reads:

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

On this passage, Beale and Carson write,

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

So, since both 1 Thessalonians 4:16 and 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 fulfill the coming of the Lord “from heaven” in the judgment found in Isaiah 2, let me remind the reader that Jesus appeals to this same OT passage and understands it to be fulfilled by AD 70:

“And there followed him a great multitude of the people and of women who were mourning and lamenting for him. But turning to them Jesus said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For behold, the days are coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren and the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!’ Then they will begin to say to the mountains, ‘Fall on us,’ and to the hills, ‘Cover us” (from Isa. 2:19 and Hos. 10:8) (Lk. 23:27-30).

There’s a consensus among the commentators that this passage was fulfilled in God’s judgment upon Jerusalem in AD 70. We have found plenty of exegetical evidence that Paul too identifies the Lord coming in the judgment of Isaiah 2 to be fulfilled by AD 70. Even John in Revelation 6:15-17 appeals to the coming of the Lord in His wrath in Isaiah 2 to be fulfilled “in a very little while” to avenge the first century martyrs in AD 70 (cf. Rev. 6:11-17).

Did Christ come from heaven to deliver and give “relief” to the first century Thessalonians from their persecutors and did God render wrath upon those persecutors in AD 70 or not (2 Thess. 1:7-9)? The answer is clearly “yes.” Notice the promise was NOT – “someday thousands of years in the future I will give you relief [at a time you won’t need it] when I come from heaven and destroy your enemies.”

Another important point to make on 1 Thess. 1:7-10 is that one of the signers of this letter just came up with a completely NEW (never before seen in the history of the church) exegesis of 2 Thess. 1. Sam Frost claims the “coming” or “parousia” here is actually Christ’s ascension event!

“…with the trumpet call of God and the dead in Christ will rise first.” (v. 16)

There is definitely a chronological order, with the dead rising first and then the gathering, catching away or change for the living taking place second. Even Jesus addresses the dead first in John 11:

“I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die [OT worthies like Abraham or Daniel, along with those who recently died prior to AD 70], yet shall he live [be raised out of Abraham’s bosom or Hades to inherit God’s presence and eternal life], and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die [that is not that they would never see biological death, but rather inherit God’s “within” kingdom and presence of eternal life]. Do you believe this (John 11:25-26)?”

We agree with the scholarship of G.K. Beale who correctly understands the gathering of the elect at the end of the age in Matthew 24:3, 30-31 in his commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians as the resurrection event:

“Paul’s particular combination of references from Matthew 24 shows that he interprets the whole of the Matthean text as referring to woes preceding the final coming of Christ (and though Matthew does not explicitly mention the idea of resurrection, he implies it in the phrase “gather his elect” in 24:31, which implies the gathering of all believers, both living and dead).” (Beale, Ibid., 1-2 Thessalonians, 138, emphasis MJS)

However, this creates a “thorny problem” for Beale when he begins leaning in the direction of a Partial Preterism in a more recent work where he writes:

“…it is likely better to see [Matt. 24:30]…fulfilled not at the very end of history but rather in AD 70 at the destruction of Jerusalem, in which the Son of Man’s coming would be understood as an invisible coming in judgment, using the Roman armies as his agent.” (Beale, Ibid., A New Testament Biblical Theology the Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New, 369)

Beale admits, at least indirectly, that holding to both of these views he has defended creates a “thorny problem” for him that deserves “further study” to resolve. I gave him a copy of our second edition of HD and told him we did the “further study” and our exegesis of 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 solves the “thorny problem” that he has created for himself. But Beale’s “thorny problem” is simply a microcosm of the problem that the Futurist Church has as a whole.

“Gathered up” (Greek Harpazo) (v. 17)

The NCV translates harpazo as “gathered up,” thus giving it a theological and parallel connection to the eschatological gathering of Matthew 13:39-43, Matthew 24:30-31 & 2 Thessalonians 2:1. Other translations render it “snatched away” or “will be seized.”

Harpazo means to “take one’s plunder openly and violently, catch or snatch away.” Sometimes it is addressing someone being pulled, snatched away or rescued by someone from an enemy. But is 1 Thessalonians 4:17 discussing an inward spiritual rescuing into Christ’s glory cloud presence, or an outward and upward catching away into physical clouds in the sky and a biological change?

Here are some very clear uses of harpazo being an inward spiritual event:

1). Matthew 12:29 – Satan was “bound” and Christ was “carrying away” (harpazo) his plunder, which were people that were rightfully His who were held captive by Satan and demons. But how was He doing this? It was by casting out demons (an inward spiritual reality), and in some cases actually giving faith to these individuals to follow him (again an inward spiritual reality).

2). Matthew 11:12 – “the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing (Christ casting out demons openly and publicly taking Satan’s plunder), and (in return) the forceful men (believers) lay hold of it” (harpazo – through faith, vigor, power, and determination in light of present persecution – such as in the case of John). People were violently laying hold of the kingdom through having faith (a spiritual and inward reality).

3). Matthew 13:19 – In the parable of the sower, the wicked one comes and snatches away (harpazo) what was sown in his heart (again, an inner spiritual reality).

4). John 10:12 – The wolf (Pharisees, sons of Satan) sought to snatch (harpazo) and scatter the sheep/ people of Israel. How did the Pharisees seek to “snatch” and “scatter” the Jews from following Jesus? The first phase involved seeking to deceive them in their hearts and minds (an inward snatching) by convincing them that He was not the Christ by perverting the Scriptures and accusing Him of having a demon, etc. The second phase was a physical excommunication or scattering of Christians from their synagogues.

5). John 10:28-29 – Anyone who has faith in Jesus cannot be “snatched” (harpazo) out of the Father’s hand. That is, he cannot be influenced (snatched inwardly) in his or her mind and heart to leave God. Like Peter, “Where else can we go, Lord? You alone have the words to eternal life.” The gift of faith is spiritually preserved in the heart and soul of the believer. He cannot be deceived to the point of committing the sin unto death (1 Jn. 3:9). Again, this is an inner spiritual reality of the heart/mind/soul of man.

6). Acts 8:39 – This simply means that the Holy Spirit directed Philip in His heart and mind (inwardly) to go elsewhere and the Eunuch did not see him again. There’s nothing in the text to support the idea that Philip was “raptured” into the atmosphere and was then instantly dropped off miles and miles away from where he was.

The eschatological “already” of the inward kingdom gathering and catching away was spiritual, and the eschatological “gathering” and “catching away” in the kingdom at Christ’s return would also be a spiritual event in AD 70. As we noted in our exegesis of Luke 17:20-37/Lk. 21:27-32, Jesus said when that the kingdom would come at His return (to gather all His elect Mt. 24:31), it would be an experience to occur “within” an individual and not something that could be seen with the physical eyes.

The inward realm of redemption or catching away is further evident from a study of the next two words, “clouds” and “air.”

“…in the clouds…” (v. 17)

As I have demonstrated thus far in our study of Christ coming on the clouds in the Olivet Discourse and God coming on the clouds in the OT, this is common apocalyptic language and not referring to physical clouds we see in the sky.

To “meet” the Lord… (v. 17)

This Greek word, to “meet,” is wedding language and is only used twice in the NT – here and also in the wedding motif that Jesus develops in Matthew 25:1-13 (which Partial Preterists correctly teach was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70).

In Jewish betrothals and weddings, the groomsmen would go ahead of the groom and blow a trumpet at a time the virgin and her bridesmaids were not expecting. Once at the virgin’s father’s house, it was customary for the groom to consummate his marriage sexually there before taking her to his father’s house where they would continue consummating the union for seven days and having the wedding feast.

This Greek word for “meet” was also often used of a king or dignitary coming to make his home in a city which his empire or kingdom had conquered or was about to conquer. On the news of the imminent coming of the king or dignitary, at the sound of a trumpet the members of the city would go out of the city and “meet” him and escort him back to their home/town. The king’s presence was established WHERE the people already lived. Again, the imagery does not support a literal “rapture” of people off of planet earth, but rather of God coming to rule and reign in the hearts of His people where they are – living on planet earth.

It is at the wedding feast that the resurrection and overcoming of death is fulfilled per Isaiah 25:6-9 and yet Partial Preterists such as Gentry, Wilson, Durbin, and now White tell us that the eschatological divorce of old covenant Israel was fulfilled in AD 70 and the eschatological marriage to the Church was also fulfilled by AD 70. You can’t have the feast without the wedding and you can’t have the resurrection and overcoming of “the death” without the wedding and feast. If the “in that day” wedding and feast of Isaiah 25:6-9 was fulfilled in AD 70 per Partial Preterism and if the parousia of 1 Corinthians 15:23 was imminently fulfilled in the lifetime of some of the Corinthians as Partial Preterism maintains, then the resurrection event and overcoming of “the death” of 1 Corinthians 15:54-56 was fulfilled in AD 70. This is not complicated. But you can begin to see WHY these men have to shut DeMar up from encouraging others to simply “study” and ask questions. When people start asking them questions – they look bad and that can’t be tolerated.

“…in the air” (v. 17)

But what of this meeting the Lord in the “air” (Greek eros)? The Strong’s Greek Dictionary defines it as: “From ‘aemi,” to breath unconsciously, to respire. By analogy, to blow. The air, particularly the lower and denser air as distinguished from the higher and rarer air.”

So the point is that this is the air “in” or “within” us.

The Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains lists Eph 2:2, 1 Thess. 4:17, and Rev. 16:17 in its definition of eros as meaning “the space inhabited and controlled by [spiritual] powers.”

The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament says of the “air” in Ephesians 2:2 – “…Jewish conceptions, according to which, among other things, the air is the abode of demons.”

Ephesians 2 refers to Satan as the “prince and power of the AER.” He dwelt in the spiritual realm which extended to the souls of men. The war we see Christ and Satan fighting in the NT is for the spiritual condition of men – within their hearts and minds. Paul goes on to say that Satan “now works in the children of disobedience.” And consistently Jesus defines His kingdom as something that He is setting up “in” and “within” men, and transforming them into His image spiritually.

Prior to AD 70, Satan used his demonic legions to “possess” individuals within the realm of their minds and the spiritual realm of their being. Satan used the old covenant Mosaic law to blind their spiritual eyes, hearts and minds in the realm of the “air” – within their souls, hearts, and minds to produce an arrogant and zealous selfrighteousness which apart from Christ could only lead to utter despair (cf. 2 Cor. 3; Gal. 4:17-18; Rom. 7). Christ “bound the strong man” and was raising and delivering Christians from the darkness and death of this spiritual kingdom realm into His own realm (cf. Eph. 2:1-10). Christ snatched away His beloved and spoke peace and joy into the “air” of her heart, soul, and mind when He said, “It is finished” (Rev. 16:17/Heb. 9-10/1 Cor. 15)!

The powers of Satan, demons, the condemnation of the law, and the spiritual death Adam brought upon men were all conquered by Christ at His parousia in AD 70 for those who put their faith in Him.

Had Paul meant to clearly communicate that believers would physically fly off the planet into the sky and atmosphere above, he would have used the Greek word “ouranos,” which clearly states this as its meaning.

The picture of the “rapture” is that Christ came down from heaven in / on a cloud to earth where He gathered the living into His presence, “within” us where we function as His Most Holy Place dwelling and throne through which He rules the nations. This is what we also see in Revelation where the New Jerusalem comes down from heaven to earth and God establishes His presence within His Church here.

Let me give further evidence not only that there will not be an end-of-world-history physical rapture of Christians off the planet, but likewise there was not a biological rapture or change of the living in AD 70.

1). Paul could have easily rebuked the false teachers and Christians that were tempted to believe the Lord had “already come” (2 Thess. 2:2) by simply saying, “Aren’t you still here and the dead still in their graves? Obviously, He has not come!” But since Paul did not hold to the physical rapture view or a literal resurrection attended by Christ’s Parousia, he did not argue this way. Obviously, Paul understood the Lord’s coming to be a spiritual and unseen event as our Lord taught (Lk. 17:20-37/21:27-32), which was consistent with the “Day of the Lord” language of the prophets in the OT.

2). The coming of Christ in 2 Thessalonians 1:9 is the coming of the Lord in Isaiah 66:5, 15, where Isaiah describes Christian survivors (66:19) who are found alive on planet earth continuing to preach the gospel in the new creation / new covenant age.

3). As we have seen in our exegesis of Mark 8:38-9:1, the Greek is different than Matthew 16:27-28 and actually teaches that those who were alive to witness Christ’s coming would be able to look back (while still alive on earth) on the historical events of Him coming in power and great glory in the destruction of Jerusalem and thus know that He and His kingdom had “already come.”

4). After Christ and the Father come and make their home (dwelling – mone – John 14:2, 23) within the believer, they were told, “I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe” (14:29). If they were literally raptured, I don’t think they would need to be reminded or exhorted to believe that it had been fulfilled! These words make more sense if it was a spiritual fulfillment that could not be seen with the physical eyes, and therefore it would take faith to believe that the Father and the Son had set up their presence within them.

5). Jesus of course directly promised to not remove the Church off of planet earth (John 17:15). Church history tells us that Christians were not raptured, but that they instead fled to Pella (in modern day Jordan). Historically, Pella is one of the first known Christian churches. Church history tells us that the Apostle John was still alive during Domitian’s reign in the mid-AD 90’s and that Timothy, Titus, and Luke lived beyond AD 70.

There is simply no exegetical evidence of a physical rapture at Christ’s coming in AD 70 or some imagined one at the end of world history. The physical rapture view is probably one of the greatest scams perpetrated upon the Church. It makes the sleeping giant of the Evangelical Church numb to getting involved in our culture and politics because they expect things to simply get worse so that they can get “raptured” just before it gets really bad. After all, “you don’t polish brass on a sinking ship.” We MUST get involved in our politics and be the salt and light of this great country and that of the world!

Gary DeMar and Kenneth Gentry on Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 4-5

Gary posted a parallel chart of Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 4-5 by Amillennialist G.K. Beale on his Facebook wall and wrote the following:

“If you believe like I do that at least Matthew 24:1-34 was fulfilled in the leadup to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (see my book ‘Last Days Madness’ where I argue that all of Matt. 24 was fulfilled), what do you think of 1 Thess. 4:13-18? Were those events also fulfilled in the same way and at the same time? I suspect most people would say no. They would argue that the events are not concurrent. Among amils and postmils, the Thessalonian verses refer to the Second Coming while dispensationalists apply them to the “rapture of the church.” The agreement is they consider 1 Thess. 4:13-18 to be an unfulfilled prophecy.

G.K. Beale in his commentary on 1 and 2 Thessalonians in The IVP New Testament Commentary Series (2003) argues that they are parallel accounts (page 137). This creates a dilemma for some preterists. If Beale is right, then 1 Thess. 4 is not a reference to the Second Coming. Beale is not a preterist. He believes both accounts are still future.

Should we believe a well-respected Bible teacher and commentator like Beale that they are parallel and refer to the same time or declare him to be incompetent and just plain wrong?” It’s interpretations like Beale’s that mess up “all-our-ducks-in-a-row” interpretation systems that lead people to ask questions.”

Notice how Partial Preterist Ken Gentry and Keith Mathison admit Matthew 24 is a source for Paul’s eschatology in 1-2 Thessalonians because of “parallels”:

Since Kenneth Gentry has to get rid of the apostasy in order to prop up Postmillennialism, he has to have 2 Thessalonians 2 fulfilled in AD 70. However, in order to do this, he has to appeal to the OD and recognize that Paul is drawing from material Jesus says would be fulfilled in the AD 70 “this generation.” Therefore, Gentry admits that,

“Most commentators agree that the Olivet Discourse is undoubtedly a source of the Thessalonian Epistles.” (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 1and 2 Thessalonians, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 18:2 (June 1975); 105–113.

Yet, Gentry’s sources of authority end up “proving too much” in that both D.A. Carson and G. Henry Waterman make virtually the same parallels between Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 4–5 that we do (big “oops”) and that DeMar is now challenging his readers to at least “study” more carefully than before. But before we get to those parallels, let’s continue to examine the “parallel” hermeneutic of Postmillennialism. Keith Mathison following Gary DeMar believes 2 Thessalonians 2 was fulfilled in AD 70 and Paul was following Jesus’ eschatology in Mt. 24 because of “these parallels”:

1). a coming of our Lord (2 Thess. 2:1; cf. Matt. 24:27, 30),

2). a gathering together to Him (2 Thess. 2:1; cf. Mattt. 24:31),

3). apostasy (2 Thess. 2:3; cf. Matt. 24:5, 10-12),

4). the mystery of lawlessness (2 Thess. 2:7; Matt. 24:12),

5). satanic signs and wonders (2 Thess. 2:9-10; cf. Matt. 24:24),

6). a deluding influence on unbelievers (2 Thess. 2:11; cf. Matt. 24:5, 24).” (Mathison, From Age to Age, 515).

And of course, DeMar and Mathison make the AD 70 “parallels” between Mt. 24 and 1 Thess. 5 as well. Thus, Mt. 24 is no less of Paul’s “source” for his eschatology in 2 Thess. 2 and 1 Thess. 5 than it is for his teaching in 1 Thess. 4:15-17 — and that is what Gary is now open to consider and what is making Gentry and the others so nervous. But since Gentry and Jordan have conceded that Daniel 12:2-3 teaches there was a spiritual resurrection in AD 70, why isn’t 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 that same resurrection?!?

Let’s not only look at the parallels between Mt. 24 and 1 Thess. 4 that Gary wants his Partial Preterists to re-consider as possibly being fulfilled in AD 70. But don’t forget that one of the authors of this letter attacking Gary ACTUALLY publicly states the coming / parousia of 1 Thess. 4:16-17 was fulfilled in AD 70! Pot call kettle black! But let’s look at how Paul is drawing on the Olivet Discourse throughout all of 1 Thessalonians not just 4:16-17:

Paul’s eschatology in 1 Thessalonians is Jesus’ eschatology in Matthew 23-24 / Luke 21
1 Thessalonians 1–5	Matthew 23–24 / Luke 21
1). Present persecution & suffering (1:6; 2:14)	1). Persecution, suffering & death (Mt. 23:34)
2). First century audience “you” “us” to experience Second Coming (1:9-10)	2) First century audience “you” to experience the Second Coming (Mt. 23-24 / Lk. 21)
3). Imminence – “eagerly wait” (1:9-10)	3). Imminence – “raise your heads” because fulfillment will be “near” in their “this generation” (Lk. 21:27-32)
4). Christ “comes/parousia” (2:19)	4). Christ “comes/parousia” (Mt. 24:27)
5). Comes “from heaven” (1:10)	5). Comes “on clouds of heaven” (Mt. 24:30)
6). To “snatch” from wrath to Christ (1:10)	6). To “gather” to Christ (Mt. 24:30-31)
7). Delivers believers from “wrath” but first century Jew’s experience “wrath” (1:10; 2:16)	7). Exhorted to flee from the Roman armies and the coming “wrath” upon Jews (Lk. 21:20-23)
8). Jews killed prophets, Jesus & persecuting the Thessalonians (2:14-15 / Acts 17)	8). Jews killed the OT prophets and NT prophets Jesus sends in that generation (Mt. 23:29-36)
9). Jews “filling up” sin of blood guilt (2:14-15)	9). Jews “filling up” sin of blood guilt (Mt. 23)
10). Coming of the Lord and wrath poured out to the “end/telos” (1:10–2:16)	10). Coming of the Lord and wrath poured out by the “end/telos” of the old covenant age (Mt. 24:3-30/Lk. 21:20-23)
11). Wedding terminology – Thessalonians exhorted to be “spotless” and a “blameless” [bride] as Christ “comes” for her [as the Groom] (3:13)	11). Wedding terminology – Only Father knows the time of the wedding (not even the Son), at the “shout of a trumpet,” be “wise” and “watch” (Mt. 24:30-31, 36; 25:1-13)
*12). Christ “comes/parousia” (4:15-17)*	*12). Christ “comes/parousia” (Mt. 24:27)*
13). “Descends from heaven” (4:16)	13). “Upon the clouds of heaven” (Mt. 24:30)
14). Accompanied by “Archangel” (4:16)	14). Accompanied by “angels” (Mt. 24:31)
15). At the sound of a “trumpet” (4:16)	15). At the sound of a “trumpet” (Mt. 24:31)
16). Believers “caught” to Christ (4:17)	16). Believers “gathered” to Christ (Mt. 24:31)
17). Wedding terminology – “MEET” the Lord in the clouds at His “trumpet” coming (4:16-17)	17). Wedding terminology – only Father knows the time of the wedding (not even the Son), at the “shout of a trumpet” Christ comes as Groom to “MEET” the bride (Mt. 24:30-31, 36; 25:1-13)
18). Exact time unknown (5:1-2)	18). Exact time unknown (Mt. 24:36)
19). Christ comes as a “thief” (5:2, 4)	19). Christ comes as a “thief” (Mt. 24:43)
20). Unbelievers caught off guard (5:3)	20). Unbelievers caught off guard (24:37-39)
21). Time of eschatological “birth pains” (5:3)	21). Time of eschatological “birth pains” (24:8)
22). Believers not deceived (5:4-5)	22). Believers not deceived (24:43)
23). Believers to be “watchful” (5:6)	23). Believers to be “watchful” (24:42)
24). Warning against “drunkenness” (5:7)	24). Warning against “drunkenness” (24:49)
25). “Sons of the DAY” (5:4-8)	25). Comes as “SUNSHINE” from the east to the west (24:27 Aramaic NT). Jesus previously taught – the “gathering” at the “end of the age” causes believers to “shine like the SUN” (Mt. 13)

Again, we are thankful that a Partial Preterist in this letter agrees that the parallels of Christ’s coming between Mt. 24:30-31 and 1 Thess. 4:15-17 are the same event and were fulfilled in AD 70 while other authors of the letter (and within the Reformed community) see these texts describing Christ’s “glorious Second Coming” event. We agree with BOTH “orthodox” positions – and so this makes us “damnable heretics”?!?

But since Philip Kayser is correct that both Matthew 24:30-31 and 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 are the same event and that both were fulfilled in AD 70, but wrong in interpreting the resurrection as a physical one, we should now consider Partial Preterist James Jordan’s admission that Matthew 24:30-31 is referring to a spiritual resurrection in AD 70,

“Let us summarize Matthew 24:29-31. Immediately after the great affliction, the great persecution and martyrdom of the apostolic church, the world will be changed from the Old to the New Creation. No longer will sun and moon determine liturgy and worship; the former covenant with its lunar liturgy will be broken forever. No longer will angelic stars and heavenly powers govern humanity, for in Jesus, mankind has at last come of age. No longer will angels rule the world. They will vacate their heavenly thrones.

At that time, the promised sign will be given, a sign that shows that Jesus, a man, is truly enthroned in heaven. That sign is the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. The Jews will mourn over Jerusalem, and they will realize that the Church, which they had hoped to destroy, has now ascended to the Ancient of Days and has been given the Kingdom promised in Daniel 7. Those saints have been gathered by the angels in connection with the seventh and last trumpet described in the book of Revelation, their souls gathered from all the heavenly places in Paradise where they had been waiting for this day. The saints are gathered before the Throne in the highest heavens, and shortly will sit down on thrones with their Lord and Master. They will be the new stars and moon and will sit where the angels formerly sat in heaven.” (James B. Jordan MATTHEW 23-25 A LITERARY, HISTORICAL, AND THEOLOGICAL COMMENTARY, (Powder Springs, GA: The American Vision Inc., – this book is currently at the printer to be published), p. 180).

So now we have an admission from a major Partial Preterist theologian – James Jordan that BOTH Daniel 12:2-3 and Matthew 24:30-31 are addressing a spiritual resurrection for the dead ones at Christ’s parousia in AD 70 while other Partial Preterists are admitting the coming of Christ in Matthew 24:30-31 and 1 Thessalonians 4-5 are the same event and fulfilled in AD 70. Now we are getting somewhere – that is if we are open to being honest in that the creeds and our Futurist traditions have been in error just as they have been on a host of issues that the Protestant Reformation had to take head-on.

As you can see Partial Preterism and Futurism without Full Preterism to “bridge the gap” has been a “House Divided” and falling apart for a long time. But the hyper-creedalists in this letter just don’t want to address their own inconsistencies let alone someone like Gary (who has a large following) asking others to “study” for themselves and then having them go and ask these men the tough questions and asking them to “show the exegetical work”! Kenneth Gentry and Doug Wilson have been able to censor Full Preterists and duck debates with us for a very long time. They don’t want Gary asking the tough questions publicly demonstrating that the creedal Emperor may not have his clothes on!

Major Premise: The coming of Christ and gathering of the elect in Matthew 24:30-31 is the Second Coming and resurrection event – with Paul describing this same event in 1 Thessalonians 4-5. And Christ being revealed from to render wrath upon His enemies in 1 Thessalonians 4-5 and 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10 are the same event – being the “last days” “in that day” judgment of Isaiah 2 (classic Amillennial view).

Minor Premise: But the coming of Christ in Matthew 24:30-31 is descriptive of a spiritual resurrection event for the dead to experience and was fulfilled in AD 70 (ex. Partial Preterist James Jordan). And the Thessalonians did receive “relief” by fleeing to Pella and their persecutors did receive “trouble” and “wrath” when Christ was revealed from heaven in the events of AD 67 – AD 70. The “last days” judgment of Isaiah 2 is a NT term referring to the last days of old covenant Israel and went from AD 30 – AD 70 (Partial Preterism).

Conclusion: Therefore, the ONE Second Coming and resurrection event described by Jesus and the Apostle Paul in Matthew 24:30-31; 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 and 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10 was fulfilled in the “last days” of old covenant Israel (AD 30 – AD 70) and specifically in the events of AD 67 – AD 70 (Full Preterism – “reformed and always reforming”).

1 Corinthians 15:

It is also astounding that one of the critics of DeMar in this letter (again Philip Kayser) also believes the coming or parousia of Christ in 1 Corinthians 15:23 is the same coming or parousia of Matthew 24:27 and 1 Thessalonians 4:16 that was fulfilled in AD 70! Kayser writes of Christ’s AD 70 coming / parousia in 1 Corinthians 15:23,

“So, when Paul speaks of bodies being raised each in his own order, he is listing the AD 30 firstfruits resurrection, then the resurrection at Christ’s coming in AD 70, then the resurrection at the end of time. The word for coming is παρουσία (parousia) and refers to the visible appearance in the sky that we saw was recorded by first century historians…” (Ibid.).

While we appreciate Gary asking his readers and followers to look at the parallels between Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 4-5 in order to “study” to see if 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 was also fulfilled in AD 70, we should point out that Gary is wanting to do an “in-depth study of 1 Cor. 15.” Once we see that Paul’s eschatology in 1-2 Thessalonians is Jesus’ eschatology in Matthew 24, we need to consider if Paul’s eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15 is Jesus’ eschatology in Matthew 24 as well. After all, In the Reformed Study Bible edited by Postmillennial Partial Preterists R.C. Sproul and Keith Mathison, we learn this of Matt. 24:30-31:

“But the language of Matt. 24:31 is parallel to passages like 13:41; 16:27; and 25:31 [passages which Partial Preterist Postmillennialists say were fulfilled in AD 70], 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.”

I believe even Sam Frost (one of the signers of the letter to DeMar) would agree with the above statement. But of course, the problem is that “orthodox” Partial Preterists trying to honor NT imminence and apocalyptic language, have correctly surrendered the coming or parousia of Christ in all the above passages to AD 70. Sam realizes that if the resurrection and “end” of Daniel 12 was spiritually fulfilled in AD 70 to close out the “end of the OC or Jewish age” and the coming of Christ and resurrection of Matthew 24:30-31 and 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 are the same event and were also fulfilled spiritually in AD 70, then 1 Corinthians 15 is the next domino to fall and is naturally fulfilled in AD 70 as well. This is why he refers to the other Partial Preterist signers of the letter as “HYPER-Partial Preterists” and “inconsistent.” So I’m a “damnable heretic” for making the classic Amillennial view and the Partial Preterist views exegetically consistent? I’m a “damnable heretic” for believing TWO “orthodox” views of the Reformed Church? Go figure – nothing to see here, keep walking folks!

Let’s looks at those “parallels” between Jesus’ eschatology in the Olivet Discourse and Paul’s eschatology in 1 Thessalonians 4-5 and 1 Corinthians 15:

And since we have Partial Preterists (some attacking Gary DeMar) that are admitting either the resurrection or coming/parousia of Daniel 12:1-7, 13 / Matthew 24:27-31 / 1 Corinthians 15:23 was fulfilled in AD 70, let’s get a visual of those connections – many of which any good classic Amillennialist would make as well:

If A (Mt. 24/Lk. 21) is = to B (Daniel 12:1-7)
Tribulation as never before 24:21-22		Tribulation as never before 12:1
Evangelism 24:14		Leading others to righteousness 12:3
End of the [OC] age 24:3, 14		Time of the end 12:4
Resurrection & or inheritance of the Kingdom 24:31; 13:43; Lk. 21:31-32		Resurrection & inheritance of the Kingdom 12:2-3, 13
Jerusalem surrounded, trodden down = times of the Gentiles (AD 67 – AD 70) Lk. 21:20, 24		Consummation – 3 ½ years when power of the holy people is shattered 12:7
And if B (Daniel 12:1-7) is = to C (1 Cor. 15)
Resurrection unto eternal life 12:2		Resurrection unto incorruptibility or immortality 15:52-53
time of the end of OC age 12:4		time of the end of OC age 15:24
When the power [the Mosaic OC Law] of the Holy people is completely shattered 12:7		Victory over “the [Mosaic OC] Law” 15:26
At the “end” of the OC age, OT dead would be raised at the same time the NT righteous living would shine in the Kingdom 12:2-3, 13		If the dead of the OT are not raised, neither would those who died in Christ be raised 15:15-18
Then A (Mt. 24/Lk. 21) is = to C (1 Cor. 15)
Christ to come (Greek: parousia) at sound of a trumpet 24:27-31		Christ to come (Greek: parousia) at sound of a trumpet 15:23, 52
“The end” (Greek telos, the goal) 24:3, 14		“The end” (Greek telos, the goal) 15:24
Kingdom (goal reached) Lk. 21:31-32		Kingdom consummation (goal reached) 15:24
All prophecy fulfilled Lk. 21:22		All prophecy fulfilled 15:54-55
Victory over the Mosaic Law/Temple 24:1		Victory over the Mosaic Law 15:55-56
Contemporary “you” or “we” 24:2ff.		Contemporary “you” or “we” 15:51-52
“All” of the elect (dead & living) gathered (or raised) in the Kingdom 24:31; Lk. 21:28-32		“The [OT] dead” raised with the dead “in Christ” 15:15-18
Two or more things that are equal to another thing are also equal to each other
Matthew 24/Luke 21	Daniel 12:1-7		1 Corinthians 15
Gather/Raise “all” (dead & living) the elect at “end” of OC age 24:3, 31	OT dead raised with NT saints at the end of OC age 12:2-4, 13		OT dead raised with NT dead & living at “the end” of the OC age 15:15-18, 24
All OT fulfilled when Jerusalem surrounded, trodden down & times of Gentiles (3 ½ yrs.) fulfilled Lk. 21:22-24 – AD 67 – AD 70	Judgment and resurrection of the dead fulfilled at the end of the OC age, in a 3 ½ years period & Israel’s power shattered		Resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3, 13; Hosea 13:14 and Isaiah 25:8 fulfilled at the end of OC age & in the lifetime of Paul’s 1^st cent. audience 15:51, 54-55

Now let’s form some basic and logical arguments from what we have gathered from the positions of those writing this letter attacking Gary DeMar.

Major Premise: The resurrection and coming / parousia of Christ in Daniel 12:2-3, 13 / Matthew 24:3, 27-31 / 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 / 1 Corinthians 15:23 is the consummative ONE Second Coming and “end” of world history creedal resurrection and judgment of the dead event (classic Reformed Amillennialist authors and contributors to the letter).

Minor Premise: BUT there was a resurrection and coming / parousia of Christ in AD 70 to close out the “end” of the Jewish or old covenant age in AD 70 according to Daniel 12:2-3, 13 / Matthew 24:3, 27-31 / 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 / 1 Corinthians 15:23 (Reformed Partial Preterism and author(s) or contributors to the letter).

Conclusion: The resurrection and coming / parousia of Christ in Daniel 12:2-3, 13 / Matthew 24:3, 27-31 / 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 / 1 Corinthians 15:23 is the consummative ONE Second Coming and “end” of the old covenant age and was thus fulfilled in AD 70 (Sovereign Grace Full Preterism – “Reformed and always reforming”).

Questions for the signers of the letter on Matthew 24-25 / 1 Thess. 4-5 / 1 Corinthians 15:

Some of the signers of this letter (like DeMar, Mathison, Terry, etc…) do not see Matthew 24-25 divided into TWO sections with TWO comings. And some of you take the “end of the age” (Mt. 24:3) as referring to the old covenant age in AD 70. Therefore, what is your exegetical evidence that the OD is referring to the end of world history? And if the coming of Christ in Matthew 24 is the SAME coming of Christ in 1 Thessalonians 4-5 and 1 Corinthians 15 and yet that coming / parousia was fulfilled in AD 70, then obviously your hyper-creedal “Futurist” case against DeMar and Full Preterism has no case in these texts as well. Next.

Matthew 13:39-43:

As we have seen the classic Amillennial Reformed position is to equate the “end” or “end of the age” “gathering” in Matthew 13:39-43 and Matthew 24:3, 30-31 to be the ONE Second Coming and resurrection event of Daniel 12:2-3, 13. We agree! And yet the Partial Preterists claim the “end of the age” resurrection in these texts were fulfilled in AD 70! We agree. Once again, the authors of this letter are pressing Gary on a resurrection and judgment of the dead to take place at the “end” of world history and yet some of their best theologians are correctly seeing this as taking place at the “end” of the old covenant age in AD 70!

Jesus of course cites the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 in Matthew 13:39-43 and places it’s fulfillment at the “end” of that current old covenant age. Jesus’ “end” and “shining like the sun or stars” in the resurrection is the “end” and “shining like the stars” predicted by Daniel 12. And yet Partial Preterist Joel McDurmon, commenting on the end of the age harvest judgment of Matthew 13:39-43, concedes it is the end of the old covenant age that is in view and not the end of world history:

“It is clear that Jesus did not have in mind the end of the world, nor did He mean the final judgment. Rather, Matthew 13:2430, 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).” (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).

McDurmon even develops Jesus’ two age model (“this age” = old covenant age) and “age to come” or “age about to come” (the new covenant age) in Pauline eschatology to be one and the same. After making his case in Ephesians 1:21; 2:1-7; 3:8-11; Colossians 1:26; 1 Corinthians 10:11; Hebrews 9:26, he concludes:

“So, from the teaching of Jesus, Paul and the author of Hebrews, we get a very clear picture of the two primary ages: one that endured up until the time of Christ, and another that began around that same period. I believe these two periods, being hinged upon the coming and work of Christ, pertain obviously to the Old and New Covenant administrations.” (Ibid.)

Let’s get a visual and make the argument based upon the analogy of faith and the admission of these eschatological systems attacking DeMar.

Since A (Daniel 12) is = to B (Matthew 13):
Tribulation on National Israel as never before	12:1	13:40-42
Time of the end / end of “this” OC age separation	12:1, 4, 9, 13	13:39-41
Saints rise and shine in the eternal kingdom	12:2-3	13:43
Wicked rise to shame in eternal condemnation	12:2	13:39-42
And if B (Matthew 13) is = to C (Matthew 24-25):
Pre-kingdom evangelism by Jesus’ evangelism	13:37-38	24:14
Tribulation on National Israel as never before	13:40-42	24:21-22
End of “this” age / end of the age separation	13:39-41	24:30-31; 25:31-41
Sons of the day / hour shine with the Son	13:43	24:27, 30-31, 36
Inheritance of and entrance into the kingdom	13:43	25:34/Luke 21:30-32
Then A (Daniel 12) is = to C (Matthew 24-25)
Tribulation and sanctification / Great Tribulation	12:1, 10	24:21-22
Hour / day / time of the judgment (aka separation)	12:1-2, 4 (OG) LXX	24:36; 25:31-33
Fulfillment at the time of the end / end of the age / the shattering of Israel’s world/power or her “heaven and earth” (the Temple etc…) / during the “3 ½ years” or “time of the Gentiles” treading down Jerusalem (AD 67 – AD 70)	12:4, 7, 9, 13	24:3, 13-14, 28-29, 34-35; Lk. 21:24
Inheritance of and entrance into the kingdom	12:2-3, 13	25:34/Luke 21:30-32
The sons of the day / hour shine with the Son of life	12:3	24:27, 30-31, 36
Kingdom age evangelism via God’s shining ones	12:3	24:14, 25:29
Two or more things that are equal to another thing are also equal to each other
Kingdom age evangelism	Dan. 12 = Mt. 13 = Mt. 24-25
Tribulation like never before	Dan. 12 = Mt. 13 = Mt. 24-25
Time of the end (shattering of Israel’s power) / end of the Old Covenant age (destruction of OC Israel’s Temple)	Dan. 12 = Mt. 13 = Mt. 24-25
Chosen ones raised and shine to eternal life and wicked raised to eternal condemnation / the righteous raised to shine and tares burn / sheep inherit eternal life goats to eternal punishment	Dan. 12 = Mt. 13 = Mt. 24-25

Once again, we can see how the two main orthodox Reformed positions on the end of the age resurrection of Matthew 13:39-43; Matthew 24:3, 30-31; and Daniel 12:1-7 has formed the Sovereign Grace Full Preterist position:

Major Premise: The “end of the age” “gathering” of Matthew 13:39-43 and Matthew 24:3, 31 as predicted in Daniel 12:2-3 is the ONE consummative resurrection event inseparably connected to the ONE Second Coming event of Matthew 24:27, 30-31 – classic Amillennialism.

Minor Premise: But the “end of the age” “gathering” of Matthew 13:39-43 and Matthew 24:3, 31 was fulfilled spiritually at Christ’s spiritual coming in Matthew 24:27-30 to close and bring an end to the old covenant age in AD 70. In AD 70 God raised and gathered the souls/spirits of men such as Daniel out of Hades or Abraham’s bosom into God’s presence to inherit eternal life – Partial Preterism.

Conclusion/Synthesis/Reformed and Always Reforming: Therefore, the ONE consummative Second Coming and “end of the age” “gathering” resurrection event of Matthew 13:39-43 and Matthew 24:3, 27-31 and Daniel 12:1-7 was fulfilled during the 3 ½ years of AD 67 – AD 70 to close the old covenant age in AD 70 – at which time souls/spirits where raised out of Hades and into God’s presence or thrown into “everlasting punishment” – Sovereign Grace Full Preterism.

Questions for the signers of the letter on Matthew 13:39-43 / Daniel 12:2-3, 7:

Some of you claim the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 and Matthew 13:39-43 is ONE consummative “end of the age” event while others see TWO. Please show your work and bring a consistent non-divided case or drop it. If Jeff Durbin takes the “end of the age” in Matthew 24:3 why would the “end of the age” of Matthew 13:39-43 be a different “end of the age”?

Matthew 16:27-28 / Revelation 22:10-12:

Here we come up against another problem for the authors of this letter. Do these passages teach Christ’s “glorious Second Coming” at the “general resurrection and judgment” of “all men” at “the end of world history”? Not according to the Partial Preterists in this letter! “Each person” / “every man” / “all people” / “each one” / “everyone” etc… were “rewarded for what he has done” within the lifetime of those standing next to Jesus and thus at His “soon” coming in AD 70 according to Matthew 16:27-28 and Revelation 22:7-12.

These are creedal texts which allegedly teach this “glorious Second Coming” / “end of world history” / “general resurrection and judgment of all men” that the letter want’s Gary to submit to, but many of them take as fulfilled in AD 70. Is it no wonder there were no Scripture reference let alone any exegesis of them to back their eschatological Futurist CONCEPTS.

Questions for the signers of the letter on Matthew 16:27-28 / Revelation 22:10-12:

Are you guys “creedal” or not? Does not the WCF and other creeds refer to these texts as the Second Coming event and general judgment to “reward all men according to what they have done” and this is true OR were they fulfilled within the lifetime of Jesus’ contemporaries and thus “soon” in the events of Jerusalem’s fall in AD 70? “Show your work.”

When and who made these texts fulfilled in AD 70 to be an “orthodox” view? If we can change the creeds on these texts can other texts that are seen to be “parallel” with them also wrong and can they also be revised and seen to be fulfilled in AD 70? Who has the authority to have done this or can do it with more passages “parallel” to these?

1 Peter 4:5-7, 17 / 2 Timothy 4:1YLT:

Once again, we have creedal passages which allegedly teach the “glorious Second Coming” at which time God is going to judge all men – the “quick (alive) and the dead” and yet some of the Partial Preterists that penned this letter see them as fulfilled in an AD 70 “at hand” and “about to be” time frame!

Gentry believes the “living and the dead” of 1 Peter 4:5-7 were judged in an “at hand” time frame in AD 70 but will never explain to us how the “dead” were judged without them being raised at the same time! Philip Kyser concedes that 2 Timothy 4:1YLT is referring to Christ’s glorious coming and kingdom that was “about to judge the living and the dead” in AD 70.

Questions for the signers of the letter on 1 Peter 4:5-7, 17 / 2 Timothy 4:1YLT:

Ken Gentry – how were the dead judged in AD 70 without them being raised? Again, these are creedal texts and the authors of this letter state they were fulfilled in AD 70 and thus are not referring to the judgment and resurrection of “all men” at the end of “world history.” Who made and when were these AD 70 fulfillments of these passages determined to be “orthodox” or are they not “orthodox”? No consistent case here – Futurist and Hyper-creedal case thrown out!

Revelation 11 & Revelation 20 / Daniel 12:

The Partial Preterism of Gentry, Wilson, Durbin and White are once again challenged with just how many general judgments of the dead does the OT and NT teach? Revelation picks up where the book of Daniel leaves off. Daniel is told that the judgment and resurrection of the dead of 12:2-3 will take place during a period of “three and a half years” “when the power of the holy people is completely shattered and Revelation 11 picks up stating Jerusalem (where the Lord was slain) would be trodden down under the feet of the nations for that same prophesied “three and a half years” period (i.e. AD 67 – AD 70) and that this would result in the judgment of the dead and the opening up of God’s presence (Rev. 11:1-18).

Please consider the following seven exegetical, orthodox, and historical points which prove that the millennium was roughly a forty years period from AD 27 – AD 67 or AD 30 – AD 70.

1). Imminence

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). Therefore, there is no exegetical evidence that Revelation 20 does not fall within these inspired parameters. The millennium was still future when John wrote, and therefore the end of the millennium falls within those things that were “about to be” fulfilled. As Vern Poythress and Simon Kistemaker (also contributors to The Reformation Study Bible) have pointed out in their works, if the imminent time texts in Revelation 1:1 and 22:20 are to be taken literally and refer to AD 70, and since they function as brackets or bookends, then the millennium of Revelation 20 would have also been fulfilled by AD 70.

Therefore, both of these views teach that the end of the millennium resurrection and judgment of the dead were fulfilled “shortly” in AD 70. Why would I be considered a “heretic” for agreeing with both?

2). The symbolic nature of the thousand years

As G.K. Beale (the NT editor to The Reformation Study Bible) has taught in his commentary on Revelation, the symbol of the thousand years does not have to be taken as describing a long period of time (i.e., thousands or millions of years).

Therefore, the thousand year millennium can be a symbolic depiction of a relatively short period of time – 40 years.

3) Rabbinic typology of a forty year millennial period –historical argument

It has also been acknowledged by Reformed theologians such as Beale that many Rabbis believed that the period of Messiah was to be a transitional stage between “this age/world” and “the age/world to come.” These Rabbis (such as R. Adiba) understood this transition period to be 40 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).

But we are also told by Amillennialists that the millennium of Revelation 20 is the period between the NT’s “this age” and the “age to come.”

We of course agree with all of the above propositions, which when combined, place the millennial period to be a period of roughly 40 years between the old covenant age (which was passing away and ready to vanish) and the new covenant age which was “about to” come in its mature form in AD 70.

4). Recapitulation

Reformed Postmillennial Partial Preterists, such as Kenneth Gentry and James Jordan, are correct to teach that the content of Revelation 1-19 and 21-22 was fulfilled by AD 70, at which time there was a judgment and spiritual resurrection of the dead and arrival of a spiritual new creation or spiritual new heavens and new earth. And Amillennialists, such as Simon Kistemaker and Robert Strimple, are correct to teach that Revelation 20:5–15 recapitulates the same judgment and consummation scenes that are depicted in chapters 1–19 and 21–22.

Revelation 1-19 & 20-22 Partial Preterism – fulfilled by AD 70	Revelation 20 Classic Amillennialism – these are the same events or judgments in the other chapters (recapitulation)
1). Past persecution w/ more persecution to come and vindication of martyr’s motif. (Rev. 6 and 12)	1). Past persecution w/ more persecution to come and vindication of martyr’s motif
2). Future persecution to last for a “little while” and Satan has “a little while” longer (Rev. 6 and 12)	2). More persecution to come and Satan loosed for “a little while”
3). “Every mountain and island were removed from their places” / “every island fled (Greek pheugo), and the mountains were not found” “…for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away” (Rev. 6; 16; 21-22)	3). “The earth and the heaven fled (Greek pheugo), and a place was not found for them” (this implies the “new” creation of 21-22 took its place).
4). Judgment of the dead (Rev. 11)	4). Judgment of the dead
5). The last days “the war” of Ezek.38-39 fulfilled (Rev. 16 and 19)	5). The last days “the war” of Ezek. 38-39 fulfilled
6). Enemies of the Church (beast, harlot, false prophet) thrown in fire (Rev. 17 and 19)	6). Devil thrown in fire (see also “crushed”“shortly” (Rom. 16:20/Gen. 3:15)

Therefore, since Full Preterists hold to both of these reformed and “orthodox” positions in interpreting the book of Revelation, and the end of the millennium resurrection and judgment event was fulfilled in AD 70, why would I be considered a “heretic” for agreeing with both of these “orthodox” and common sense views?

5). Is Revelation 20 an isolated event? The “already and not yet”, “this age and the age to come” and the “last days” millennial period

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 I have shown thus far, 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.

Therefore, since the period between “this age and the age to come” is the millennial period, and it was the transition period between the old covenant age and the new covenant age (AD 30 – AD 70), and the “last days” is also the transition and millennial period of Revelation 20 but was also from AD 30 – AD 70, the end of the millennial resurrection and judgment of the dead was fulfilled when the old covenant age passed away and the last days ended in AD 70. Why would I be considered a “heretic” for agreeing with both common sense “orthodox” views?

6). The Second Coming in Matthew 24-25 ends the millennium of Revelation 20

If it is true that a) the coming of Christ in Matthew 24 and 25 is referring to the AD 70 judgment, as Partial Preterists are teaching, 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 – 25:31ff. is descriptive of the one end-of-the-age Second Coming, judgment, and resurrection event (the creedal position), then d) the Reformed community has 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
1). Resurrection and judgment – Mt.24:30-31 (cf. Mt. 13:39-43/Dan. 12:23); Mt. 25:31-46	1). Resurrection and judgment – Rev. 20:5-15
2). De-creation heaven and earth pass/flee – Mt. 24:29, 35 (cf. Mt.5:17-18)	2). De-creation heaven and earth pass/ flee- Rev. 20:11 (cf. Rev. 6:14; 16:20; 21:1)
3). Christ on throne to judge – Mt.25:31	3). God on throne to judge – Rev. 20:11
4). Wicked along with devil eternally punished – Mt. 25:41-46	4). Wicked along with devil eternally punished – Rev. 20:10, 14-15

7). The analogy of faith between Daniel 12:1-13 and Revelation 20

And if it is also true that a) the judgment and resurrection of the dead in Daniel 12:14, 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 Reformed community has 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
1). Only those whose names are written in the book would be delivered/saved from eternal condemnation (Dan. 12:1-2)	1). Only those whose names are written in the book would be delivered/saved from the lake of fire (Rev. 20:12-15)
2). This is the time for the resurrection and judgment of the dead (Dan. 12:1-2)	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, AD 27 – AD 67 or AD 30 – AD 70, “this generation” millennial view:

A). is consistent with the teaching of Revelation itself when it comes to imminence and recapitulation…

B). falls within the “orthodox” views of the Reformed church…

C). is in line with the analogy of Scripture and…

D). offers historical support from many Rabbis who promoted a 40 year 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.

And just as we don’t see Revelation 20 discussing the Premillennial Zionist position – Jesus sitting on an earthly throne in Jerusalem with a re-built temple where a priesthood is once again performing animal sacrifices, it also doesn’t teach a biological corpse resurrection which all Futurists hold to. The resurrection in Revelation 20 involves the souls of men being released from Hades to inherit God’s presence and eternal life or eternal punishment. This fits with Jewish concepts of the resurrection prior to NT times, during Jesus’ day and the kind of spiritual resurrection some orthodox Partial Preterists have taught.

Questions for the signers of the letter on Revelation 11 & Revelation 20 / Daniel 12:

Both Daniel 12 and Revelation 11 connect the resurrection and judgment of the dead with the historical event of Jerusalem’s judgment for “three and a half years” (AD 67 – AD 70). How were the dead judged in Revelation 11 during this period without the resurrection of the dead being fulfilled (this is for Ken Gentry, Doug Wilson, Jeff Durbin and James White)? And since the book of Revelation is laid out in recapitulation, wouldn’t the judgment of the dead of Revelation 11 be the end of the millennium judgment of the dead in Revelation 20:5-15 – like most classic Amillennialists point out? If not, why not? And if it is true (per at least two of the writers of this letter Gentry and Kayser) that there was a spiritual resurrection and judgment of the “just and unjust” in Daniel 12:2 in AD 70, why wouldn’t Revelation 11 and Revelation 20:5-15 be that AD 70 spiritual judgment and resurrection of the dead event? If not, why not?

Major Premise: it is true and “orthodox” to believe there is only ONE consummative resurrection and judgment of the dead event of Daniel 12:2-3 and Revelation 11 and it is the end of the millennium judgment and resurrection of the dead event of Revelation 20:5-15. This ONE “soon” Second and Glorious Coming of Jesus throughout Revelation ends the millennium of Revelation 20 and fulfills this judgment and resurrection event (Reformed Classic Amillennialism).

Minor Premise: BUT it is also true and “orthodox” to believe the judgment and resurrection of the dead event of Daniel 12:2-3 and Revelation 11 were spiritually fulfilled in AD 70 at the “soon” and spiritual coming of Christ to close out the Jewish or old covenant age (Partial Preterism).

Conclusion: THEREFORE, it is also true and “orthodox” to believe the ONE end of the age divinely “appointed” time for the judgment and resurrection of the dead event of Daniel 12:2-3; Revelation 11; and Revelation 20:5-15 were spiritually fulfilled at the ONE “soon” Second and Glorious Coming of our Lord in AD 70 to close the Jewish or old covenant age and bring an end to the millennium.

Major Premise: The consummative end of the millennium events listed in Revelation 20:5-15 have been recapitulated or are elsewhere described in Revelation 1-19 and Revelation 21-22 (classic Amillennialism).

Minor Premise: But the consummative events of Revelation 1-19 and Revelation 21-22 were fulfilled in AD 70. Christ came “soon” spiritually to establish the New Heavens and New Earth and to judge and raise the dead (Partial Preterism).

Conclusion: THEREFORE, since the consummative end of the millennium events listed in Revelation 20:5-15 are the same events that have been recapitulated in chapters 1-19 and 21-22, and since the events listed in chapters 1-19 and 21-22 were fulfilled in AD 70, then so were the events listed in chapter 20:5-15.

And since we have seen how 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10 was fulfilled in AD 70, we can now connect this coming / parousia of Christ which ends the millennium of Revelation 20:

Acts 1:11:

I previously heard that Philip Kayser taught Acts 1:11 was also fulfilled in AD 70. He has corrected that for me and stated he has never taken that position. I sincerely apologize for making that error.

Like the coming of Christ in Matthew 24:27-31 / 1 Thessalonians 4-5 / 1 Corinthians 15:23 / Revelation 1:7 – some Partial Preterists such as Milton Terry or say Mike Bull see these passages and Acts 1:11 as fulfilled in AD 70.

If Gentry feels so strongly about Acts 1:11 being fulfilled in the future and to deny this is damnable heresy, then why does he publish and profit off of Milton Terry who took Acts 1:11 as fulfilled in AD 70?!?

Unlike Gentry, Wilson and Durbin, Partial Preterists such as Milton Terry and Mike Bull took/take a lucid, biblical approach, seeing the cloud comings of Jesus in Matthew 24:30–31, 34; Acts 1:11; and Revelation 1:7 as all being fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem at the end of the Jewish or old covenant age. Milton Terry writes the following of Acts 1:11:

“Whatever the real nature of the parousia, as contemplated in this prophetic discourse, our Lord unmistakably associates it with the destruction of the temple and city, which he represents as the signal termination of the pre-Messianic age. The coming on clouds, the darkening of the heavens, the collapse of elements, are, as we have shown above, familiar forms of apocalyptic language, appropriated from the Hebrew prophets.

Acts i, 11, is often cited to show that Christ’s coming must needs be spectacular, “in like manner as ye beheld him going into the heaven.” But (1) in the only other three places where [“in like manner”] occurs, it points to a general concept rather than the particular form of its actuality. Thus, in Acts vii, 28, it is not some particular manner in which Moses killed the Egyptian that is notable, but rather the certain fact of it. In 2 Tim. iii, 8, it is likewise the fact of strenuous opposition rather than the special manner in which Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses. And in Matt. xxiii, 37, and Luke xiii, 34, it is the general thought of protection rather than the visible manner of a mother bird that is intended. Again (2), if Jesus did not come in that generation, and immediately after the great tribulation that attended the fall of Jerusalem, his words in Matt. xvi, 27, 28, xxiv, 29, and parallel passages are in the highest degree misleading. (3) To make the one statement of the angel in Acts i, 11, override all the sayings of Jesus on the same subject and control their meaning is a very one-sided method of biblical interpretation. But all the angel’s words necessarily mean is that as Jesus has ascended into heaven so he will come from heaven. And this main thought agrees with the language of Jesus and the prophets.” (Milton S. Terry, A Study of the Most Notable Revelations of God and of Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988), 246-247).

Partial Preterist Keith A. Mathison has suggested that the coming of Christ in Acts 1:11 would be fulfilled when the Great Commission of Acts 1:8 is fulfilled. Thus, according to this point, it is rather easy to demonstrate throughout the book of Acts itself and Paul’s other writings that Acts 1:8-11 was fulfilled by AD:

Major Premise: The Great Commission and or cloud coming of Christ in Matthew 24:14, 30 / Acts 1:8-11 / Revelation 1:7 is the same event and describe the “glorious Second Coming” of Jesus (classic Reformed Amillennial view).

Minor Premise: But the Great Commission and or cloud coming of Christ in Matthew 24:14, 30, Revelation 1:7 was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70, and the coming of Christ in Acts 1:11 was fulfilled in AD 70 (Partial Preterist authors – Milton Terry, Mike Bull, etc…).

Conclusion: The Great Commission and or cloud coming of Christ in Matthew 24:14, 30 / Acts 1:8-11 / Revelation 1:7 is the same event and describes the “glorious Second Coming” of Jesus fulfilled spiritually in AD 70 (Sovereign Grace Full Preterism – “Reformed and always reforming”).

Questions for the signers of the letter on Acts 1:11:

The signers of this letter and books and authors they promote are “divided” on this text as well. Are we allowed to hold to the “Reformed” “orthodox” position and that of the analogy of faith believing the cloud coming of Christ in Acts 1:11 / Matthew 24:30 / Revelation 1:7 is the same event and the Reformed “orthodox” Partial Preterist view that they were all fulfilled in AD 70 or not? When and who made it “orthodox” to take the cloud coming of Christ in Matthew 24:30 / Revelation 1:7 as fulfilled in AD 70? If Partial Preterists such as Gentry and Wilson have the authority to make those AD 70 cloud comings “orthodox” and correct the creeds and early church fathers, then why can’t Partial Preterist Milton Terry and other Partal Preterists and Full Preterists make our AD 70 exegesis of Acts 1:11 “orthodox” for everyone to follow?

Conclusion:

As we have seen the classic Amillennialist and authors of this letter to Gary DeMar do NOT see TWO “comings,” “ends,” “resurrections,” “judgments” of “all men” and that of the “living and the dead.” Nor do they see the passing away or consummations of TWO heavens and earths or two arrivals of the new at TWO “comings”/parousia(s) of Christ in all of these texts — while the Partial Preterist system and that of some of the men in this letter – do see these events as fulfilled in AD 70. That’s not a small disagreement – that’s a contradiction and bringing forth a hypocritical judgment against the brethren as far as I’m concerned. Let’s expound upon this visually and see how the Holy Spirit has been working through the Classic Amillennial view and the Partial Preterist view to form the consistent orthodox/true view of Full Preterism:

Why have I put Ken Gentry, Phillip Kayser, and Milton Terry to represent the Partial Preterist view in the chart? Because Gentry and Kayser signed the letter attacking DeMar and Ken sells and promotes the writings of Partial Preterist Milton Terry.

This is why I believe Gary DeMar requested to see their exegetical and historical “work” on “specific texts” and this is why the threat of this public letter offers no texts let alone exegetical work or proof! Therefore, in my humble opinion the authors of this letter (just like the divided authors of WSTTB?) offered a “house divided” approach that did “not stand” and had no teeth. They offered no Scriptural support or evidence for their claims to support an “end of world history” “judgment and resurrection of the dead of the just and unjust” or that of “the living and the dead.” “Case dismissed” or “thrown out” as far as I can see.

Here is how I would answer the three questions:

Do you believe in a future bodily, glorious return of Christ? No, the analogy of faith principle of interpretation would require Acts 1:11 to be fulfilled when Matthew 24:30 and Revelation 1:7 are fulfilled and the Partial Preterists of this letter correctly see Matthew 24:30 and Revelation 1:7 as spiritually fulfilled in AD 70. And Partial Preterist authors of whom you publish and sell such as Milton Terry took Acts 1:11 as fulfilled in AD 70.

Do you believe in a future physical, general resurrection of the dead? No, the general resurrection and judgment of the dead according to Daniel 12:2-3, 7, 13 teaches that the righteous and the unrighteous dead would be judged during a “three and a half years” period “when” Jerusalem was judged between AD 67 – AD 70 or “when the power of the holy people is / was completely shattered.” This is why Paul taught this “appointed” or “decreed” time of judgment and resurrection for the dead was “about to be” fulfilled in the lifetime of his contemporaries (Acts 17:31YLT and Acts 24:14-15YLT). And according to Acts 24; 26; and 28 this judgment and resurrection is once again tied to first century Jerusalem in that it was the “hope of the twelve tribes of Israel” – which do not exist today. The Bible only teaches ONE eschatological “hope” of the “end” of the age resurrection event and it was fulfilled at the end of the old covenant age in AD 70 and is a “hope realized” for us to experience now (Prov. 13:12) and when we die and enter the heavenly realm. And further more at least two of the authors of this letter (Gentry and Kayser) believe Daniel 12:2-3 teaches there was a resurrection and judgment of the dead in AD 70 with one (Kayser) conceding there was a judgment and resurrection of the dead in Acts 17:31 / Acts 24:15 / 1 Thess. 4-5 / 1 Cor. 15 / Rms. 8:18 that was fulfilled in AD 70. Your Partial Preterist theologians cannot agree on if the resurrection of Daniel 12 and say that of Matthew 24:31 was fulfilled spiritually or physically in AD 70 but the Scriptures are clear it was a spiritual resurrection that was fulfilled.

Do you believe history will end with the Final Judgment of all men? Per “orthodox” Partial Preterism, the typical “end of the world” or “end of world history” type passages such as 2 Peter 3 and Revelation 21-22 were fulfilled imminently in AD 70. And the Bible teaches that after the first heavens and earth of Isa. 65-66 / 2 Pet. 3 / Rev. 21-22 pass away and the new arrives, there will be evangelism continuing to take place. The Bible does not predict “the end of world history” but rather the “end of the [old covenant] age” / the “time of the end [of the old covenant age]” / “hour of the end” in AD 70. I do not seek to “go beyond what is written” and speculate that it teaches the “end of world history.” The judgment of “all men” or the “quick and the dead” was fulfilled at Christ’s coming in judgment in the lifetime of the first century church (Mt. 16:27-28), “soon” at the Second Coming event in AD 70 (Rev. 22:7, 10-12) and thus was “about to be” fulfilled or “at hand” in the first century (2 Tim. 4:1YLT; 1 Pet. 4:5-7, 17). “All men” however must die and be judged (Heb. 9:27). Thus no man that ever lives will not be judged by a Righteous and Holy God.

Debate Challenges: Myself and Don Preston have requested a one-on-one debate or partner debate with some of the men listed in this letter – Kenneth Gentry, Doug Wilson, Jeff Durbin or James White. It’s been many years for these men in not answering public biblical questions or even responding to challenges to debate. So, it’s kind of ironic that they are demanding that Gary DeMar answer their questions / challenges in a public forum. Again – hypocrites. Sam has yet to be able to convince Gentry, Wilson, Durbin or White to be his partner in debating me and Preston so as to refute his chapter in the first edition of “House Divided” where he discussed “Inconsistent Orthodoxy.” Maybe it’s because he refers to them as “HYPER Partial Preterists” (that is “unorthodox preterists”) and “inconsistent” (that is if they were “consistent” they would be Full Preterists). Selah.

Gary DeMar begins his response:

What Does the Bible Teach?: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-gary-demar-podcast/id1500969161?i=1000602952969

Things We Know and Things We Don’t: https://garydemar.libsyn.com/things-we-know-and-things-we-dont

Gary’s Third Response – “But It’s All So Simple!” https://garydemar.libsyn.com/but-its-all-so-simple

My Second Lecture at the PPW 2017 Conference Part 2: The Problems With Postmillennialism – “In Fulfillment of ALL that has been Written” (Lk. 21:22)

Introduction:

As we saw in my first lecture and study of Postmillennialism’s treatment of the eschatological wedding and wedding feast found in Matthew 8:10-12; 22:1-14; 25:1-13 and Revelation 19-22, there is a clear avoidance of the OT fulfillment of this event found in Isaiah 25:6-9, because when the wedding feast is fulfilled (“in that day”) is when “death is swallowed up” or the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15:54/Isaiah 25:6-8 is fulfilled! Since Jesus came to fulfill all the law and prophets (cf. Mt. 5:17-18) Jesus in Matthew 24:30-31; 25:31ff. came to fulfill Isaiah’s little apocalypse and the trumpet gathering and resurrection of (Isa. 25—27:12-13; Dan. 7:9-14; Dan. 12:2-3, 13). As we now deal with the OD, Postmillennialism’s clear avoidance of which OT texts Jesus came to fulfill continues to be an exegetical thorn in the side of this eschatological system which brings it tumbling down. They mostly and arbitrarily only appeal to OT passages when they want to establish apocalyptic language being used by Jesus in the OD.

“For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written.” (Lk. 21:22)

Gentry writes of this text,

“Jesus is referring to all things written in the Old Testament.” (Postmillennialism, Third Edition, 544).

But in the same book he affirms the resurrection and judgment of Daniel 12:1-7 was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70 when the tribulation took place and OC Israel came to her “end” (Ibid., 538-540).

Gentry and other Postmillennialists simply assume what they have never proven (to Full Preterists and other Reformed Futurists) when they claim the coming of the Christ at the trumpet call to gather the elect is not the actual Second Coming and resurrection event even though Luther, Calvin and the Reformed creeds see Matthew 24:30-31/Luke 21:27-28 as that very event (as do Full Preterists). For further proof that the coming of Christ to gather the elect and give redemption in Matthew 24:30-31 and Luke 21:27-28 is the Second Coming and Resurrection of the dead event, we can go to many passages, but let’s stick with two they have already conceded were fulfilled in AD 70 (Daniel 7 and 12).

The Olivet Discourse

Daniel 7 and 12

1. Tribulation and abomination of desolation (Mt. 24:15/Lk. 21:20-23)

1. Tribulation and abomination of desolation (Dan. 9:27; 12:1-2, 11)

2. Time of judgment and deliverance (Mt. 24:13/Lk. 21:18-22)

2. Time of Judgment and deliverance (Dan. 7 and 12:1).

3. Coming of the Son of Man (Mt. 24-25)

3. Coming of the Son of Man (Dan. 7:13)

4. The kingdom would be inherited “within” at Christ’s coming (Lk. 17:20-37; Lk. 21:27-32).

4. The kingdom would be spiritual, eternal and inherited when the coming of the Son of Man was fulfilled (Dan. 7:13-14 22, 27).

5. The judgment and resurrection of the dead or gathering of the elect at the end of the age or “time of the end” is the time of the resurrection (Mt. 13:36-43/Dan. 12:2-3/Mt. 24:3, 30-31; 25:31-46)

5. The judgment and resurrection of the dead takes place at the “time (or hour) of the end” or when the Son of Man comes “as the Ancient of Days” and the books are opened (Dan. 7:9-14 (OG) LXX; 12:2-7). The trumpet gathering is the resurrection event of Isaiah’s little apocalypse (Isa. 25:6-9—27:12-13).

6. This would all be fulfilled in Jesus’ contemporary “this generation” (Mt. 24:34).

6. This would all be fulfilled when Jerusalem would be destroyed or when the “power of the holy people would be completely shattered” in AD 70 (Dan. 12:2-3, 7).

I should also briefly include the fact that Jesus not only came to fulfill “all” of Daniel’s prophecies that included the resurrection and judgment of the dead (cf. Dan. 7:9-14; 12:1-7, 13) and Isaiah’s little apocalypse and New Creation promises (cf. Isa. 24-28; 65-66), but the block of Zechariah 12-14 as well (Mt. 24:30/Zech. 12:11-12).

A gathering and siege of Jerusalem by the surrounding nations takes place (Zech. 12:2-3 = Lk. 21:20-22).

Judgment of the nations takes place while Jerusalem (the remnant or New Jerusalem) is saved (Zech. 12:7-9 = Lk. 21:27-28; Mt. 25:31-46).

They look upon Jesus whom the Jews had pierced and mourn (Zech. 12:11-12 = Mt. 24:30).

The false prophets and demons are cleansed and judged from the land (Zech. 12:2-3 = Mt. 23—25:31-46).

In that day the Lord would prepare a way of escape for the righteous remnant (Zech. 14:4 = Lk. 21:20-22).

This day is only known by the LORD (Zech. 14:6 = Mt. 24:36).

There is always light (Zech. 14:7=Mt. 24:27/Lk. 21:30-32/Rev. 21:25; 22:5-7) —Christ comes as the Sun/Son and His light shines from east to west and is the light of the New Jerusalem that never ceases in the kingdom.

Living waters flow from the New Jerusalem when the King and the Kingdom arrives (Zech. 14:8-9=Lk. 21:27-32/Rev. 11; 21-22).

While Zechariah does not mention the resurrection directly, he does mention the arrival of the King and His kingdom and the living waters flowing from the New Creation. In the book of Revelation the end of the millennium resurrection (Rev. 20) takes place before and or is synonymous with the arrival of the New Creation and access to the living water and Tree of Life (Rev. 21-22). In Matthew 24, the end of the age resurrection gathering (24:31/Mt. 13:39-43) takes place before or is synonymous with the time when the OC “heaven and earth” pass away (Mt. 24:35 – which implies the NC takes its place at this time).

Revelation

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

Paul

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

Peter

Peter’s eschatology is in line with Jesus’, John’s, and Paul’s. Per Peter his contemporaries were living in Israel’s “last days” “crooked and perverse generation” that Moses said would witness the “near” “end” of Israel, and that is why Peter said “the end of all things is near” (Deut. 32=Acts 2:40=1 Pet. 4:5-7; 2 Pet. 3). They were going to going to witness the fulfillment of the eschatological inheritance of the glories of the New Creation coming (1 Peter 1).

What About a Double Fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse?

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

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

Ken Gentry teaches that the time texts of the New Testament “demand” a fulfillment in AD 70, and that the theory of “double fulfilling” Revelation, for example, is “pure theological assertion” that has “no exegetical warrant.” (Kenneth Gentry, Four Views on the Book of Revelation, ed. C. Marvin Pate (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 43–44.

Another partial preterist colleague of Mathison, Gary DeMar, rejects openness to the double fulfillment theory in the Olivet Discourse:

“Either the Olivet Discourse applies to a generation located in the distant future from the time the gospel writers composed the Olivet Discourse or to the generation to whomJesus 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.” (Gary DeMar, The Olivet Discourse: The Test of Truth, http://www.americanvision.org/blog/?p=190).

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

Premise #1: Since it is true that Jesus came to fulfill “all” the law and the prophets and this took place when the “heaven and earth” of the OC system passed away in AD 70 (Gary DeMar/Postmillennialism and Full Preterism agree).

Premise #2: And since it is also true that Jesus is teaching “all things written” (Lk. 21:22) is referring to “all OT prophecy” (Gentry, DeMar/Postmillennialism & Full Preterism agree).

Premise #3: And since it is also true that Jesus comes upon the clouds in His Second Advent to fulfill the judgment and resurrection events of the OT in Daniel 7:9-14, 9:24-27, 12:1-7, 13 and Isaiah 25-27 in Matthew 24:30-31; 25:31-46 (Amillennialism, Premillennialism and Full Preterism agree).

Premise #4: And since it is true that the coming of the Son of Man upon the clouds in Matthew 24:30-31; 25:31-46 was fulfilled spiritually in the AD 30-AD 70 “generation” to close the OC age (DeMar/Postmillennialism and Full Preterism agree).

Premise #5: And since the coming of the Son of Man upon the clouds in judgment (Dan. 7:9-14) to bring about the resurrection of Daniel 12:1-7, 13 was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70 (Jordan, Gentry and DeMar/Postmillennialism agrees with Full Preterism).

Premise #6: And since it is true that Matthew 24-25 cannot have a double fulfillment because Matthew 24:34 “won’t allow it.”

Premise #7: And since it is also true that the trumpet call and gathering of the coming of the Son of Man upon the clouds in judgment of Isaiah 27:12-13 and Daniel 7:9-14 brings about the resurrection of Isaiah 25-26 and Daniel 12:1-7, 13 and this ONE coming of Christ, judgment and resurrection of the dead cannot have a “double” or “multiple” fulfillments (Amillennialism, Premillennialism, some Postmillennialists agree [some still see the resurrection of Dan. 12:2-3 to be ONE event that cannot be double fulfilled] with Full Preterism)

Conclusion: Then it is also true that Jesus fulfilled “all” the OT prophecies concerning His ONE spiritual (that cannot be double fulfilled) Second Advent, judgment and resurrection of the dead event found in Isaiah 25-27; Daniel 7:9-14; Daniel 12:1-7, 13 and Matthew 24:30-31; 25:31-46 to close the OC age in the AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation” (Full Preterism – “Reformed and always reforming”).

Edenic Eschatology and Luke 21:22

Postmillennialists have tried to divide Israel’s eschatology with Edenic or Adamic eschatology. Yet, Luke 21:22 reaches back to the early chapters of Genesis. Jesus in Matthew 23 goes as far back as to avenge the blood of Abel and judge Cain at Christ’s coming in AD 70. And Gentry believes Matthew 25:31-46 is the actual Second Coming event at which time God will judge and finally crush Satan according to Genesis 3:15. Yet DeMar and other Postmillennialists such as Keith Mathison believe the coming of Christ in Matthew 25:31ff. was fulfilled in AD 70.

Premise #1: Matthew 25:31-46 describes the Second Coming and final judgment of Satan that was promised in Genesis 3:15 (Gentry agrees with Full Preterism).

Premise #2: But the coming of Christ in Matthew 25:31-46 was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70 to close the OC age (DeMar agrees with Full Preterism).

Premise #3: The promise of God to “crush” Satan “shortly” is the promise of Genesis 3:15 (most agree with Full Preterism).

Premise #4: The imminent time texts in the NT “demand” their fulfillment to be in AD 70 (Gentry agrees with Full Preterism).

Conclusion: The final crushing of Satan (Edenic eschatology) was fulfilled in the AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation” at Christ’s “actual” Second Coming and therefore Paul was correct to say it would be fulfilled “shortly” as that generation was ending (cf. Mt. 24:34–25:31-46; Rms. 16:20).

One cannot separate the vindication of the martyrs and the final crushing and judging of Satan in the Second Coming event found in Matthew 23 and 25:31-46 from the time of His coming, resurrection and the overcoming of “the [spiritual] death” that came through Adam (cf. 1 Cor. 15/Rev. 20:5-15). This is not complicated.

Conclusion

As we have seen in our study thus far Postmillennialism stands as a “House Divided” among its own theologians and under the umbrella or roof of Reformed Amillennialism in general and therefore “breaks apart.” But as their inconsistent and contradictory system is breaking apart, Full Preterism is emerging and “Bridging the Gap” between the two. “All OT prophecy” (Mt. 5:17-18/Lk. 21:22) was fulfilled in AD 70 — when Christ came upon the clouds at the sound of a trumpet to gather and raise the dead spiritually and close the OC age according to (Isa. 25:6-9—27:12-13; Dan. 7:9-14; 12:1-7, 13; Mt. 24:30-31–25:31-46). We will continue to watch Postmillennialism “break-up” when we get to Matthew 24:30-31—25:31-46 and compare these resurrection and judgment of the dead passages with NT texts such as 1 Thessalonians 4-5; 1 Corinthians 15 and Revelation 20:5-15.

If “all” of the “jots and tittles” of the OC law and prophets (which included the judgment and resurrection of the dead of Isa. 25-27 and Dan. 12) were not fulfilled in AD 70 when her “heaven and earth” passed away, then “all” of them (including the sacrificial system) are present today and to be obeyed per Matthew 5:17-19. Before AD 70 the OC law was still “imposed” and had a [legal] “standing” (Heb. 9). Paul performed vows and sacrifices in the Temple to demonstrate he was not teaching the Jews to forsake the law of Moses in accordance to Jesus’ teaching (cf. Acts 21/Mt. 5:19).

To Watch these Lectures or Read this Series go to:

1). First Lecture at the PPW 2017 Conference Part 1: Problems for Postmillennial Partial Preterism – My Approach and Methodology (the Analogy of Faith) http://fullpreterism.com/my-lecture-on-the-problems-of-postmillennialism-at-the-2017-ppw-conference-the-wedding-and-resurrection-motif/

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

3). First Lecture at the 2017 PPW Conference Part 3: Problems for Postmillennial Partial Preterism – Wedding and Resurrection (Jn. 3-5) http://fullpreterism.com/my-2017-ppw-lecture-on-the-problems-with-postmillennialism-wedding-resurrection-part-3-john-3-5-and-nt-betrothal-and-marriage/

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

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

6). Second Lecture at the 2017 PPW Conference Part 1: Problems for Postmillennial Partial Preterism in the Olivet Discourse – Structure, Context, the Disciples Question(s), the end of the age and the Great Commission (Mt. 23-24; Mt. 24:3, 14 = Acts 1:8-11) http://fullpreterism.com/lecture-2-at-the-2017-ppw-problems-for-postmillennialism-in-the-olivet-discourse-house-divided-the-break-up-of-postmillennialism-and-the-formation-of-full-preterism-taking-its-place/

7). Second Lecture at the PPW 2017 Conference Part 2: Problems for Postmillennial Partial Preterism in the Olivet Discourse – “In Fulfillment of ALL that has been Written” (Lk. 21:22 = Dan. 7:9-14; 12:1-7, 13; Isa. 25:6-9—27:12-13) http://fullpreterism.com/2804-2/

8). Second Lecture at the PPW 2017 Conference Part 3: Problems for Postmillennial Partial Preterism in the Olivet Discourse (Resurrection Cont.) – the Trumpet Gathering of Matthew 24:30-31 = the Trumpet Catching Away of 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 http://fullpreterism.com/my-ppw-conference-lecture-2-the-problems-for-postmillennialism-in-the-olivet-discourse-matthew-2430-31-1-thessalonians-415-17/

9). Second Lecture at the PPW 2017 Conference Part 4: Problems for Postmillennial Partial Preterism in the Olivet Discourse (Resurrection Cont.) – the Trumpet Gathering of Matthew 24:30-31 = the Trumpet Change of 1 Corinthians 15 http://fullpreterism.com/ppw-2017-the-problems-for-postmillennialism-the-olivet-discourse-matthew-24-25-and-the-resurrection-of-1-corinthians-15/

10). My Second Lecture at the PPW 2017 Conference Part 5: Problems for Postmillennial Partial Preterism in the Olivet Discourse (Resurrection Cont.) Redemption and Redemption of the Body Luke 21:27-28 = Romans 8:18-23YLT/11:15-27/13:11-12 http://fullpreterism.com/my-ppw-conference-lecture-2-problems-for-postmillennialism-in-the-olivet-discourse-part-4-resurrection-cont-the-redemption-and-redemption-of-the-body-luke-2127-28-romans-818-23ylt/

11). My Second Lecture at the PPW 2017 Conference Part 6: Problems for Postmillennial Partial Preterism in the Olivet Discourse – Bringing Healing and Bridging the Gap between Gentry and DeMar’s Eschatological Madness and House Divided Approach to Matthew 24:35—25:31-46 and Revelation 20:5-15 http://fullpreterism.com/my-ppw-lecture-2-problems-for-postmillennialism-in-the-olivet-discourse-part-6-the-eschatological-madness-of-gentry-and-demar-in-matthew-24-25-and-revelation-205-15/

MY TESTIMONY ON HOW I BECAME A FULL PRETERIST – MICHAEL J. SULLIVAN

Here is the short version: The Lord providentially guided me and opened my eyes to Full Preterism by allowing me to first experience the frustration, confusion and errors of Dispensationalism and then later seeing that a synthesis between the classic Amillennial view and the Partial Preterist view seemed more exegetical and Biblical (ie. Full Preterism – which for a brief season I didn’t know even existed).
Now the slightly longer and more detailed version.
Dispensationalism
As an aspiring young man seeking the ministry shortly after my conversion to Christ, I attended Calvary Chapel Bible College (CCBC – affiliated with Pastor Chuck Smith) and graduated in the late 80’s. There I was indoctrinated in the confusing Dispensational system with all of its two programs and comings (for the Church & Israel) – 1. a secret “rapture” coming for the Church and 2. The second coming designed to establish an earthly 1000 years millennium for Israel separated by two resurrection etc… . And who can forget all of those very confusing colorful charts as well, trying to make sense of it all along with 3. this alleged “gap theory” between Daniel’s 69^th “week/seven” and the 70^th etc… . What a mess!
After I graduated CCBC, I went back to my home Church – Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa and I began getting involved in the Jr. H.S. and H.S. programs. I remember one New Year’s Eve – Pastor Chuck Smith was giving one of his famous “Prophecy Updates.” His approach just didn’t sit well with me after being trained in hermeneutics and expository preaching – he simply read select passages out of Matthew 24 and assumed that everything that was happening at that time in the Middle East (and other current events “signs”) were for our generation and that he was “convinced” that the “Lord was coming soon to rapture” the Church.
Classic Amillennialism
After a brief stay at my home church I decided to further my theological training and attended another Dispensational Bible College – The Master’s College (affiliated with Pastor John MacArthur). It was there that I was doing a report on “the kingdom of God” and had read several books – but this time a great deal of Amillennial or Covenant Theology material mixed in with Dispensational sources. I quickly was converted to Amillennialism in that I saw no Biblical support for these Dispensational doctrinal distinctions such as:
1. Jesus allegedly offered a literal earthly kingdom to Israel.
2. This kingdom allegedly got “postponed.”
3. There wasn’t this major distinction between the Church and Israel – in particularly noticing that the Apostles hermeneutic in interpreting the OT was vastly different than Dispensationalism’s – applying OT promises to the Church (the very thing Dispensationalism said couldn’t be done etc…).
4. The Amillennial hermeneutic and its use of the analogy of Scripture was so much simpler and better in that there was only ONE coming of Christ, attended with one judgment and resurrection of the dead at the end of the age. I thought all of my eschatological wows had ended! But…
Partial Preterism
On a spring break from The Master’s College I met a former student in Post Falls ID, that was Reformed. We had so much to talk about and he gave me one of his Pastor’s articles that he had written for a local News Paper. The article was on how Dispensationalism was false teaching and he simply went through Matthew 24 demonstrating how all of the signs were fulfilled by AD 70 and that exegetically “this generation” was the AD 30 – AD 70 one. He briefly touched upon NT imminence as well I believe. Well, this just seemed so “exegetical” and simple too! I began getting a hold of every Partial Preterist book I could – David Chilton, Kenneth Gentry, Gary DeMar, Marcellus Kik, Greg Bahnsen, etc….
It wasn’t too long that the uneasiness I felt about Dispensationalism began coming back. The “double vision” hermeneutics and confusion that I had left behind in Dispensational came back this time “seven fold” in the form of: 1. two comings of Christ – one in AD 70 to end Israel’s eschaton and the second (third?) coming to end history and end the Churches eschaton. 2. Two Great Commissions to bring an end to… 3. Two end of the age(s) to… 4. judge the dead (one spiritual in AD 70 and an alleged literal one at the end of world history)… that would 5. Usher in two New Heavens and Earth(s) (one spiritual in AD 70 and an alleged physical one at the end of world history) etc….
Another source of uneasiness was that in all of the Partial Preterist material I had (to that date) gave a lot of exegesis of Matthew 24:1-34, but really none beyond verses 35-36 which were practically assumed to be referring to another coming of Jesus thousands of years removed from the one in the previous verses. These two issues brought much uneasiness.
I remember giving a “persuasive speech” in my speech class and it was designed to convince the class (virtually all Dispensationalists) that the Great Tribulation is past, all the signs were fulfilled by AD 70, and that “a” parousia/coming of Christ took place at that time as well. I thought it went well until the Q & A session kicked in. Virtually every question or comment came out, “Aren’t you saying that the second coming took place then too if these other events were fulfilled in AD 70”? I of course had to remind them that there were two comings in the NT which was followed by comments such as, “Yeah, but that doesn’t make much sense etc…” I was thinking to myself that this two coming theory didn’t make much sense to me either – but I couldn’t let them know that!
Synthesis of Classic Amillennialism & Partial Preterism
I remember doing a study on Christ coming as a thief in my dorm room at The Master’s College and looking at the various conflicting views on this subject and the NT texts which developed it. It was in that study I stumbled upon David Chilton’s comments that he took the coming of Christ as a thief in Matthew 24:43 as being fulfilled in AD 70:
“This interpretation [on the New Heavens and Earth of Rev. 21 and 2 Peter 3 arriving in AD 70] is confirmed by St. Peter’s further information: In this imminent “Day of the Lord” which is about to come upon the first-century world “like a thief” (cf. Matt. 24:42-43; 1 Thess. 5:2; Rev. 3:3), “the elements will be destroyed with intense heat” (v. 10; cf. v. 12).” (David Chilton, Days of Vengeance, p. 542, emphasis mine).
I thought to myself, “finally, someone that actually goes beyond verse 34 in Matthew 24, and sees what I’m seeing!” When it was confirmed to me that there was only ONE coming of Christ in Matthew 24-25, it became clear that the rest of the NT follows that pattern and that the ONE Second Coming event was fulfilled in AD 70. First let me provide you with a chart that gives you a visual of what I was looking at when it came to the conflicted nature of the Church on Christ coming as a thief, then I will provide another chart that shows once Matthew 24-25 is not divided, the rest of Pauline eschatology follows suit.

Christ comes “as a thief” Passage	Partial Preterism D. Chilton	Partial Preterism K. Gentry	Pre-Trib. Rapture J. MacArthur	Amill & Hist. Premill.
Matt. 24:43	AD 70	Future Second Coming	Future Rapture	Future Second Coming
2 Peter 3:10	AD 70	Future Second Coming	Future Second Coming	Future Second Coming
1 Thess. 5:2, 4	AD 70	Future Second Coming	Future Rapture	Future Second Coming
Rev. 3:3	AD 70	AD 70	Future Rapture	Future Second Coming
Rev. 16:15	AD 70	AD 70	Future Second Coming	Future Second Coming

This is what was going through my mind at this point:
Premise #1 – If it is true that the coming of Christ as a thief is both the Second Coming and Rapture event (Matt. 24=1 Thess. 4-5=2 Pet. 3=Rev. 3; 16),…
Premise #2 – …and if it is also true that Christ coming as a thief was imminently and spiritually fulfilled in AD 70,…
Conclusion – …then it necessarily follows that when Christ came as a thief spiritually in AD 70, that is when the Second Coming and Rapture event was fulfilled.
I said to myself, “Really, is this someone [David Chilton] who sees what I’m seeing? There isn’t this “two sections” or “two comings” of Jesus in Matthew 24?!?” Well, providentially I was coming up on another break from college and my roommate invited me to stay at his house (in Sacramento, CA) so I tagged along with him. I noticed that David Chilton didn’t live far away from this area and so I set up a lunch appointment with him. When we met, I almost immediately brought up what he had written and asked, “If you take Christ coming as a thief in Matthew 24 to be AD 70, then you don’t divide Matthew 24 into two sections or comings – do you? And if you don’t, perhaps you are seeing what I am, in that there is only one second coming of Jesus mentioned in the NT and it happened in AD 70?” His response was priceless – he simply smiled at me and said, “Mike, there is a book you need to read by James Stuart Russell, The Parousia. From there he invited me over to his house for a while and he just wanted to have small talk.
It was dawning on me- “What if the Amillennial view is correct in that there is only one second coming being discussed throughout Matthew 24-25 and the Partial Preterist view is correct that the Son of Man coming on the clouds and or “the parousia” happened in AD 70 (ie. that the second coming of Jesus happened in AD 70 and has already been fulfilled)? This was followed with me doing my own study comparing Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 4-5 and charting out the parallels and noting that these were one and the same coming of Christ! It became very obvious to me that the Amillennial view which taught Matthew 24=1 Thessalonians 4-5 was accurate (ie. a correct use of the Analogy of Scripture hermeneutic), while at the same time the Partial Preterist view was accurate in that the coming of the Son of Man on the clouds – at the sound of a trumpet, happened within the AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation” (ie. an exegetical approach to the use of apocalyptic language and NT imminence). The following chart expresses what was going through my mind at this point.
If A (Matt. 24) was fulfilled in AD 70 and yet is = to B (1 Thess. 4-5) and B (1 Thess. 4) is = to C (1 Cor. 15) then A (Matt. 24) is = to C (1 Cor. 15). And therefore, both B (1 Thess. 4) and C (1 Cor. 15) were also fulfilled in AD 70 just as A (Matt. 24) was. Two or More Things that Are Equal to Another Thing Are Also Equal to Each Other:

Since A (Mat. 24) = B (1 Thess. 4)
Christ Returns from Heaven			24:30			4:16
With Voice of Arch Angel			24:31			4:16
With Trumpet of God			24:31			4:16
Caught/Gathered Together with/to Christ			24:31			4:17
“Meet” the Lord in the Clouds			24:30 & 25:6			4:17
Exact Time Unknown			24:36			5:1-2
Christ Comes as a Thief			24:43			5:2
Unbelievers Caught Off Guard			24:37-39			5:3
Time of Birth Pangs			24:8			5:3
Believers Not Deceived			24:43			5:4-5
Believers to Be Watchful			24:42			5:6
Exhorted to Sobriety			24:49			5:7
Son/Sunlight Shinning From E. to W. / Sons of the Day			24:27, 36, & 38			5:4-8
And B (1 Thess. 4) = C (1 Cor. 15)
The Sleeping to Be Raised			4:13-14			15:12-18
The Living to Be aught/Changed			4:15-17			15:51-52
Christ’s Coming (Greek: Parousia)			4:15			15:23
At the Sound of the Trumpet			4:16			15:52
Encouraged to Stand Firm			4:18			15:58
Same Contemporary “We”			4:15-17			15:51-52
Then A (Matt. 24) = C (1 Cor. 15)
Christ to Come (Greek: Parousia)			24:27				15:23
His People to Be Gathered/Changed			24:31				15:52
To Come with the Sound of a Trumpet			24:31				15:52
To Be “The End” (Greek telos, the goal)			24:3, 14				15:24
Kingdom Consummation (goal reached)			Luke 21:30-32				15:24
All Prophecy Fulfilled at This Point			Luke 21:22				15:54-55
Victory over the Law/Temple			Mat. 24:1				15:55-56
Same Contemporary “We”			Mat. 24:2ff				15:51-52
*Two or More Things that Are Equal to Another Thing Are Also Equal to Each Other. Matthew 24 1 Thessalonians 4 1 Corinthians 15*
At His Coming (24:27-31)	=	At His Coming (4:16)		=	At His Coming (15:23)
At the Trumpet (24:31)	=	At the Trumpet (4:16)		=	At the Trumpet (15:52)
Dead Raised, All Gathered (24:31)	=	Dead Raised (4:16)		=	Dead Raised (15:35-44)
All Living Gathered (24:31)	=	Living Caught Together to Him (4:17)		=	Status of Living Changed (15:51)

I would latter write David Chilton a private letter expressing that his smile made me feel uncomfortable in that it communicated to me that he knew what the truth was but he was sitting on it or compromising it. He wrote me a scathing letter back expressing how my view would never amount to anything except to be a footnote in one of his books. This letter was responded to by my second, in which I told him I would be praying that the Lord would discipline Him for compromising and suppressing the truth and for his pride. Within a year or two, I had moved to Sacramento, CA (having dropped out of Master’s College – no need to go in debt for a theological education that was bogus) and was living two blocks from the hospital David Chilton ended up staying in (after his heart attack). I took the church I was attending (a small Sovereign Grace Full Preterist Church) and our worship team and visited David in the hospital where we sang worship songs (I didn’t mention our correspondence). We would later have lunch again, and David apparently did remember our correspondence and apologized to me for his letter and did say that he knew that the second coming happened in AD 70. From there he contacted other Full Preterists such as Don Preston and would be more vocal about his convictions.
Then I would begin writing Gary DeMar and realized that he too did not believe Matthew 24 could be divided into two comings of Christ. He assured me he would be addressing this issue in his next edition of Last Days Madness, which he did.
Let’s first get a bird’s-eye view of where everyone is on 1 and 2 Thessalonians and then I will address Gary’s problems:

Passages	Full Preterism	Partial Preterism Milton Terry	Partial Preterist Gary DeMar	Partial Preterist Keith Mathison	Partial Preterist Kenneth Gentry	Amill. & Hist. Premill.
1 Thess. 1	AD 70	AD 70	AD 70	Future	Future	Future
1 Thess. 2	AD 70	AD 70	AD 70	AD 70	AD 70	Future
1 Thess. 3	AD 70	AD 70	AD 70	Future	Future	Future
1 Thess. 4	AD 70	AD 70	Future	Future	Future	Future
1 Thess. 5	AD 70	AD 70	AD 70	AD 70	Future	Future
2 Thess. 1	AD 70	AD 70	AD 70	AD 70	Future	Future
2 Thess. 2	AD 70	AD 70	AD 70	AD 70	AD 70	Future

But here are the problems with Gary’s current position which he has held to for way too long without progressing or “continuing in doctrine.”
Gary DeMar believes 1 Thessalonians 5 was fulfilled in AD 70. One of the reasons he does so is because Paul uses the same phrases Jesus uses concerning the coming “birth pains” and Christ coming as a “thief” in Matthew 24. Look at numbers 7 and 9 below:

Matthew 24 – Fulfilled in AD 70	1 Thessalonians 4 – Still Future?
1. Christ comes from heaven (24:30)	1. Christ comes from heaven (4:16)
2. With archangelic voice (24:31)	2. With archangelic voice (4:16)
3. With God’s trumpet call (24:31)	3. With God’s trumpet call (4:16)
4. Gathered/Caught to Christ (24:31)	4. Gathered/Caught to Christ (4:17)
5. Believers meet Christ in clouds (24:30)	5. Believers meet Christ in clouds (4:17)
Matthew 24 – Fulfilled in AD 70	1 Thessalonians 5 – Fulfilled in AD 70
6. Exact time unknown (24:36)	6. Exact time unknown (5:1-2)
7. Christ comes like a thief (24:43)	7. Christ comes like a thief (5:2)
8. Unbelievers caught unaware (37-39)	8. Unbelievers caught unaware (5:3)
9. Birth pains (24:8 – fulfilled in AD 70)	9. Birth pains (5:3 – fulfilled in future?)
10. Believers are not deceived (24:43)	10. Believers are not deceived (5:4-5)
11. Believers told to be watchful (24:42)	11. Believers told to be watchful (5:6)
12. Exhortation against drunkenness (24:49)	12. Exhortation against drunkenness (5:7)
13. The Day, shinning from east to west, (24:27, 36-38)	13. The Day, sons of light, sons of day (1 Thess. 5:4-8)

But why wouldn’t DeMar address the remaining 6 parallels or phrases Paul is getting from Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 24 and import them into 1 Thessalonians 5? Because to do so, would bring to much attention to this parallel hermeneutic and have people asking and demanding why he doesn’t follow this same approach in paralleling Matthew 24:30-31 with 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 (see #’s 1-5 in chart)?!?
This begs another question for DeMar to answer – since he publishes James Jordan’s commentary on Daniel 12 – which supports Daniel (his soul) was raised out of Abraham’s Bosom or Hades at Christ’s parousia in AD 70 to inherit eternal life, then why isn’t 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 descriptive of this spiritual AD 70 fulfillment?!?
Partial Preterist Keith Mathison in his book on Postmillennialism took 1 Thessalonians 5 as fulfilled in AD 70. One of his reasons for this was because of Paul’s use of “birth pains” (again see #9 below) and paralleled this phrase with Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 24:

Matthew 24 – Fulfilled in AD 70	1 Thessalonians 4 – Still Future?
1. Christ comes from heaven (24:30)	1. Christ comes from heaven (4:16)
2. With archangelic voice (24:31)	2. With archangelic voice (4:16)
3. With God’s trumpet call (24:31)	3. With God’s trumpet call (4:16)
4. Gathered/Caught to Christ (24:31)	4. Gathered/Caught to Christ (4:17)
5. Believers meet Christ in clouds (24:30)	5. Believers meet Christ in clouds (4:17)
Matthew 24 – Still Future?	1 Thessalonians 5 – Fulfilled in AD 70
6. Exact time unknown (24:36)	6. Exact time unknown (5:1-2)
7. Christ comes like a thief (24:43)	7. Christ comes like a thief (5:2)
8. Unbelievers caught unaware (37-39)	8. Unbelievers caught unaware (5:3)
9. Birth pains (24:8)	9. Birth pains (5:3)
10. Believers are not deceived (24:43)	10. Believers are not deceived (5:4-5)
11. Believers told to be watchful (24:42)	11. Believers told to be watchful (5:6)
12. Exhortation against drunkenness (24:49)	12. Exhortation against drunkenness (5:7)
13. The Day, shinning from east to west, (24:27, 36-38)	13. The Day, sons of light, sons of day (1 Thess. 5:4-8)

But what about the other 7 phrases and parallels Paul uses in the rest of 1 Thessalonians 5 that He is getting from Jesus in Matthew 24? If Mathison is consistent in his use of parallelism and in using an identical phraseology heremeutic, then this disproves his first theory (he too no longer divides Matthew 24 – see his new book, From Age to Age) that Matthew 24:36ff. contains eschatological material that needs to be fulfilled in our future.
If parallels and similar phrases from Matthew 24 prove that 1 Thessalonians 5 was fulfilled by AD 70, then why wouldn’t the same hermeneutic of parallels and similar phrases prove that 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 was also fulfilled in AD 70 (again #’s 1-5)?
Partial Preterist Kenneth Gentry cites authors to support Paul is following Matthew 24 when he parallels and makes his Preterist case that 2 Thessalonians 2 was fulfilled in AD 70. But those same sources he uses, produce these parallels as well which Gentry arbitrarily ignores, because he knows if he was consistent in this use of the analogy of Scripture principle of interpretation, it would lead him to Full Preterism. Here is how Gentry understands Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 4-5:

Matthew 24 – Fulfilled in AD 70	1 Thessalonians 4 – Still Future?
1. Christ comes from heaven (24:30)	1. Christ comes from heaven (4:16)
2. With archangelic voice (24:31)	2. With archangelic voice (4:16)
3. With God’s trumpet call (24:31)	3. With God’s trumpet call (4:16)
4. Gathered/Caught to Christ (24:31)	4. Gathered/Caught to Christ (4:17)
5. Believers meet Christ in clouds (24:30)	5. Believers meet Christ in clouds (4:17)
Matthew 24 – Still Future?	1 Thessalonians 5 – Still Future?
6. Exact time unknown (24:36)	6. Exact time unknown (5:1-2)
7. Christ comes like a thief (24:43)	7. Christ comes like a thief (5:2)
8. Unbelievers caught unaware (37-39)	8. Unbelievers caught unaware (5:3)
9. Birth pains (24:8 – fulfilled in AD 70)	9. Birth pains (5:3 – fulfilled in future?)
10. Believers are not deceived (24:43)	10. Believers are not deceived (5:4-5)
11. Believers told to be watchful (24:42)	11. Believers told to be watchful (5:6)
12. Exhortation against drunkenness (24:49)	12. Exhortation against drunkenness (5:7)
13. The Day, shinning from east to west, (24:27, 36-38)	13. The Day, sons of light, sons of day (1 Thess. 5:4-8)

So why wouldn’t Gentry parallel Matthew 24:36-49 with 1 Thessalonains 5:1-8 to prove that both of these sections are to be fulfilled in the future?To do so would have Paul in 1 Thessalonians 5:3 use the “birth pains” (an alleged future fulfillment) parallel to Matthew 24:8 – which he says was fulfilled in AD 70. This is a similar problem Gentry has if he compares Matthew 24 with Luke 17, in that Luke 17 makes it clear there are not two comings of Christ in view. Luke mixes up AD 70 events to alleged future events, and allegedly future events, he places to be fulfilled in AD 70.
To make all of the 7 parallels between Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 5 would end up “proving to much” – in that everyone would be asking why not make the parallels between Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 4 then?!? If Paul is following Jesus’ material in 1 Thessalonians 5, why isn’t he following it in 1 Thessalonians 4?!? (again #’s 1-5).
Another problem Gentry has created for himself is that he now teaches the resurrection of Dan. 12:2 was fulfilled spiritually at Christ’s parouisa in AD 70. Therefore, this begs another question for Gentry to answer – WHY isn’t 1 Thessalonains 4:16-17 descriptive of the spiritual coming and spiritual resurrection of Daniel 7:13/Daniel 12:2 — that he says was fulfilled in AD 70?!?
It should be abundantly clear that Paul is following Jesus’ teaching Matthew 24=1 Thessalonians 4-5. As G.K. Beale points out in his commentary on 1 and 2 Thessalonians – Paul practically follows the exact same chronology of Jesus in Matthew 24! This is why the Classic Amillennial view and the Full Preterist view either have all of Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 4-5 as fulfilled in the future or fulfilled in AD 70. The analogy of Scripture demands one or the other. But the first century imminent expectation demands the Full Preterist interpretation.
Full Preterism
At this point I was a Full Preterist (in the broad sense of the definition) and didn’t know it. After I got back to The Master’s College and received Russell’s book (from Walt Hibbard’s GCB’s) and read his exegesis of Matthew 24 – I remember jumping up and down in my dorm room shouting, “YES! I found someone that believes what I do (the NT only teaches one Second Coming and it was fulfilled in AD 70)!” But then the depression and lonely feelings came back as I noticed that this author wrote the book in the 1800’s and was dead. But I was determined to find out if there was anyone (alive that is) that believed and saw what I did. I got onto the Internet and began debating my position on Matthew 24 with others online to see what would happen. It wasn’t long before I got into contact with Ken Davies and David Green. I was finally at peace and have been a Full Preterist now for 26 years and have never even thought of looking back.
Although the Lord (at least up to this point) never called me to be a Pastor, He did open the doors up for me to be a Full Preterist theologian, apologist, and author. I enjoy writing Full Preterist articles on my two web sites: www.fullpreterism.com and www.treeoflifeministries.info. I have also been blessed to be a co-author in House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to When Shall These Things Be? In the book I wanted to have as our guiding foundation and apologetic to be the one that actually led me into the Full Preterist movement – that is a synthesis between the Classic Amillennial view and the Partial Preterist view (or simply put – one of the Reformation’s cries, “Reformed and always reforming”). The Full Preterist movement is nothing other than the “organic development” between these two Reformed eschatological views. As I wrote in HD:
“1) Partial Preterism – Imminence and fulfillment are accepted. Christ appeared a second time at the end of the old covenant age. There was a spiritual, corporate, covenantal judgment and resurrection of the living and dead which was attended by a passing of the old creation and arrival of the new in AD 70 (Dan. 12:1-4; Matt. 5:17-18; 13:39-43, 24-25; Acts 1:11; Rom. 8:18; 13:11-12; Heb. 8:13; 9:26-28; 10:37; 1 Peter 4:5-7; 2 Peter 3; Rev. 1-22).
2) Classic Amillennialism – The New Testament teaches only one future coming of Christ, general judgment, and resurrection of the living and dead attended by the restoration of creation at the end of the age.”
“…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.” (HD Second Edition, 139).
My exhortation to the reader studying Full Preterism
And again, here is a small portion of our conclusion in HD that I made a contribution towards and want to pass on to you as you study the Full Preterist position:
“As a Reformed believer, dear reader, you know that there is no middle ground between Arminianism and Calvinism. You may have tried at one time to say that you were neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian. Or you may have acknowledged that the Bible teaches Calvinism, but you rejected the teaching because you were troubled by its implications. Or you may have even been a closet Calvinist for years. Though the road was perhaps difficult, you eventually embraced the doctrines of grace, and now you know there is no compromise position between the two doctrines.
Many Reformed believers today are having the same experience with the doctrine of preterism. They are learning that it is also a hard pill to swallow and that it is nevertheless the doctrine of Scripture. They are learning that it represents “the whole counsel of God” in the area of eschatology. After we are confronted with biblical preterism, we may try to straddle the fence, but there is truly no middle ground. Just as R.C. Sproul (Sr.) would consider a four-point Calvinist to be in reality a “confused Arminian,” more and more futurists, on their way to biblical preterism, are beginning to see that partial preterism is just “confused futurism.” There is no biblical basis for “partial preterism” even as there is no biblical basis for “partial Calvinism.” This is why partial preterism invariably leads to full preterism. This is why Keith Mathison and Ken Gentry have both come closer to “hyper-preterism” since they wrote WSTTB. Mathison now believes that the prophecy of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25 was fulfilled in AD 70 and Gentry now believes that the resurrection in Daniel 12:2-3 was fulfilled in AD 70. This is why partial preterist theologian David Chilton became a full preterist before he passed away, even though he knew he would be creedally anathematized by partial preterists such as his publisher Gary North.
Though we consider futurists who condemn us to be our brothers in Christ, we must acknowledge that they have been confronted with the truth, and rejected it, and declared us to be accursed. They would have done well to heed the wisdom of Gamaliel: “And now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it—lest you even be found to fight against God” (Acts 5:38-39). But instead, they are persecuting us and suppressing the truth, though ultimately to no avail.
The biblical record from cover to cover teaches us that taking a stand against traditions and authorities which nullify Scripture is not easy. When leaders take their stand against the teachings of Scripture for the sake of tradition, that is when God raises up “the things which are not” (1 Cor. 1:28)—fishermen, shepherds, janitors, waiters, drivers, etc.,— to stand in the gap. The rise of Reformed preterists within the history of the church can be likened to the conflict between David the shepherd and Saul the king, and between Luther and the One, Holy, Roman Catholic Church—small and humble beginnings, with powerful and profound results to be looked for in the future.
Preterists have been forced into the wilderness and caves by those who have felt threatened by our stand for the Word of God; and God continues to add to the number of men and women who are shunned by creedal futurists. These believers have been driven out by Saul-ish spear throwers, but they find their purpose in defending the truth at all costs. And as a result, they become God’s valiant warriors.
It took only a handful of committed Christians with a passion for God’s word to turn the Jewish and Roman world completely upside down with the gospel. God is not calling closet Calvinists or closet preterists, but faithful men to boldly proclaim His truth to His flock. Be assured that persecution and tears will come, but if you faithfully proclaim and trust in God’s Word, He will keep your tears in His bottle and turn back your enemies, and in one way or another, He will vindicate you and the truth together in Him (Jer. 1; Josh. 1; Ps. 56).” (HD, 235-236).
This is why every HD book I sign and mail off, I list Jer. 1; Josh. 1 and Psalm 56 – because this has been my experience and exhortation I want to pass on to you. That is, tears of pain and tears of joy will enter your heart when you see this truth and rejoice in God’s Word – and yet at the same time you will always have to be “strong and very courageous” never being “discouraged” to “fear the faces of men” or seek to compromise, for He will fight your battles, turn back your enemies, and His Word will not return to Him void! This is your calling, your duty and your privilege. Peace – Selah.

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. ²And 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. ⁴“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).” ⁵Then I, Daniel, looked; and there stood two others, one on this riverbank and the other on that riverbank. ⁶And 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)?” ⁷Then 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 finished. ⁸Although 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)?” ⁹And he said, “Go your way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. ¹⁰Many 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. ¹²Blessed 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:

. . . [T]he hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth. . . . (Jn. 4:23)
. . . [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.

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

Fall of Jerusalem (AD 70)

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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i.e., the habitation of

the Father,
the Son and
the Holy Spirit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

House Divided

Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

Chapter Seven
The Resurrection of the Dead

Part 13 Romans 8:11

David A. Green
Copyright 2009 and 2013 All rights reserved. No part of this book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing or David A. Green), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.
Strimple Argument #13: Christ’s redeeming experience is the
model and pattern of what lies ahead for us. Romans 8:11 says that
God “will also” (i.e., just as He did for Christ) “give life to your mortal
bodies” (288, 294, 297, 326-330, 333-337). Therefore, the word “soma”
(body), when used in reference to the resurrection of the dead, means
“the physical, material aspect of our person.”

Answer: Strimple is correct that the physical death, physical burial,
and physical resurrection of Christ was the “pattern,” “parallel” and
“model” of the church’s body-burial, body-death, and body-resurrection
with Him. And Strimple is correct that Paul said in Romans 8:11
that the same Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead “will also” give life
to the “mortal bodies” of believers.

Nevertheless, the eschatological church’s Spirit-empowered bodyburial,
body-death, and body-resurrection with Christ were not physical/
biological events. The “redemptive experience” of the eschatological
church was not a literal replay-in-process of what Christ experienced.
What Christ experienced physically (literal death, literal burial, and literal
resurrection), the eschatological church was experiencing spiritually
throughout the eschaton: Burial with Christ, death with Christ,
and resurrection with Christ through the age-changing power of the indwelling
Holy Spirit (Rom. 6:4-6,8; 8:17; 2 Cor. 13:4; Gal. 2:20; 3:27; Eph.
2:5,16; Col. 2:12-13,20; 3:1,3; 2 Tim. 2:11).

Most futurists accept the doctrine of a non-physical body-burial
with Christ and a non-physical body-death with Christ through the
Spirit. And they should. For as Paul said, “If Christ is in you, the body
is dead because of sin” (Rom. 8:10). The indwelling, Sin-killing Spirit
of Christ brought about the death of the mortal body of Sin and Death
while believers were still physically alive.

Preterists and futurists agree that Paul speaks of non-physical
body-death in Rom. 8:10. Yet when the doctrine of non-physical bodyresurrection
is offered, Strimple claims that such a non-physical usage
of the word “body” is “semantic sleight of hand” and a “contradiction in
terms.” He compares those who employ such a non-physical usage of
the word “body” to Humpty Dumpty arbitrarily changing the definition
of words (335-336).

Despite Strimple’s irrational ridicule, the Scriptures teach us that as
Christ was crucified physically, put to death physically, buried physically,
and resurrected from the dead physically, so were His people, through
His indwelling Spirit, buried bodily (yet non-physically) with Him into
His death; and while thus dying bodily (yet non-physically) with Him (to
Sin), His people were concurrently being resurrected bodily (yet nonphysically)
with Him through the same indwelling Spirit (Rom. 8:11) in
anticipation of the end of the old covenant age.

We know that the “body” was raised non-physically, because the
“body” that was non-physically buried with Christ and non-physically
put to death with Him was, as Paul’s logic demands, to be resurrected
with Christ out of its non-physical burial and non-physical death (which
was death to the Adamic world of Sin, Death, and the Law). Therefore,
the eschatological resurrection of “the body” was necessarily non-physical
(not a biological resurrection).

In the second half of this chapter I will discuss the meaning of the
word “body” in eschatological, resurrection-of-the-dead contexts. For
now though, I will close this section with a preliminary argument that
bears directly on the historical basis for a resurrection unto biological
incorruptibility.

On page 332 of WSTTB Strimple says that Christ’s individual, postresurrection
body was physically “endowed with new qualities” so that it was physically
imperishable, physically glorious, physically powerful, and physically heavenly.
How does Strimple know this?

Strimple acknowledges that although Jesus, after His resurrection,
passed through locked doors, and though God “caused Him to be
seen,” and though Jesus suddenly “disappeared from their sight,” these
occurrences do not prove that Jesus’ post-resurrection body had been
changed. As Strimple agrees, even before Jesus was raised from the
dead, He walked on water, was transfigured, and “walked right through”
a mob. Even the apostles themselves had passed through locked doors
and had vanished and reappeared (329).

Since none of those events indicate that either Jesus or the apostles
had physically imperishable bodies,[1] how does Strimple know that Jesus
had a physically imperishable body after His resurrection? Strimple
offers one piece of evidence, which is this:

Christ’s body would never die again. Therefore it was a physically
“imperishable, glorious, powerful, heavenly” body.

But this is hardly biblical proof. Enoch and Elijah were physically
taken up without seeing death. According to Strimple’s evidence,
Enoch and Elijah must have had biologically incorruptible bodies. But
if the hope of the promise is to receive a biologically incorruptible body,
then Enoch and Elijah could not have received such a body, because
Heb. 11:39 tells us that they “received not the promise.” If then, in the
futurist framework, Enoch and Elijah could not have put on physically
incorruptible bodies when they were taken up without seeing physical
death, why assume that Jesus became physically incorruptible when He
was assumed into the divine glory-cloud?

The fact is there is no scriptural proof that Christ’s body became biologically
incorruptible. That means that the four gospel narratives offer
no historical foundation and no Scripture-proof for the doctrine of a resurrection
of the dead unto biologically incorruptible bodies. The concept
has to be introduced into the gospel so that the gospel will better fit the
futurist supposition of an eschatological “resurrection of the flesh.”

Nevertheless, Strimple is so bold as to state, “ . . . [B]ut of course
the New Testament . . . lays great stress on the wonderful discontinuity
between Christ’s body before his resurrection and his body after it”
(332). Strimple offers no hint as to where in the New Testament this
“great stress” is found. That is because the “great stress” is found only
in the assumption of the futurist framework which has been imposed
upon the gospel narratives.

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

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

House Divided

Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

Chapter Seven
The Resurrection of the Dead

Part 6 John 5:28-29

David A. Green
Copyright 2009 and 2013 All rights reserved. No part of this book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing or David A. Green), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.
Strimple Argument #6: John 5:28-29 obviously teaches a physical
resurrection of the dead in that it speaks of a time in which “all who are
in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good
to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection
of judgment” (297).

Answer: In order to understand John 5:28 and 29, we must first look
three verses above it, in John 5:25, where Jesus said that the hour “now is”
when “the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear
shall live.” As most Reformed interpreters agree, Jesus in that verse was
referring to the preaching of His death and resurrection. The preaching
of that message commenced at Pentecost. “The dead” were physically
living people who were spiritually dead in sin, and “the voice of the Son of
God” was the gospel. Having heard the gospel, those who were spiritually
“dead” were spiritually resurrected. They lived in that they received eternal
life through faith in the gospel (“the voice of the Son of God”).

Then, in verses 28 and 29, Jesus expanded His teaching on the resurrection
to include those who were not only spiritually dead, but who were
also physically dead. He did not call them “dead” (as He had already called
the living who were spiritually dead), but He referred to them through another
figure of speech as “all who are in the graves.” They were not literally
in their graves or tombs, of course, but were in Hades/Sheol.

What is often missed in this passage is that, like the physically living
in verse 25, the physically dead in verse 28 were also going to live
by means of hearing Christ’s “voice.” As we know from verse 25, that
“voice” is the gospel. The physically dead therefore were going to hear
the gospel (cf. 1 Pet. 4:6.) and were, as a result of hearing the gospel,
going to be resurrected (regenerated, born from out of death and Hades).
This means that the physically dead were, like the physically living,
spiritually dead. And this inescapably means that both the physically
living and the physically dead were going to be spiritually resurrected
by means of the gospel-voice of the Son of God. One resurrection in
two main stages: First, the last days saints; then, the Old Testament
dead (“the rest of the dead” in Revelation 20:5).

After hearing the gospel, the dead were raised out of their Adamic
graves (Hades) in the end of the age. And those among them who believed
the gospel received eternal life in the kingdom of God. But those
who hated the gospel (those who had done evil) were raised out of Hades
only to stand before God and to enter into “eternal punishment” /
“the second death” (Matt. 25:46; John 5:28-29; Rev. 20:14).

House Divided Chapter Four The NT Time Texts Partial Preterist Keith A. Mathison Vs. Full Preterist Michael J. Sullivan Conclusion

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

When Shall These Things Be?

Chapter Four
The Eschatological Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be?
Conclusion
Michael J. Sullivan
Copyright 2009 and 2013 – All rights reserved. No part of this
book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission
in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing or Michael J. Sullivan), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.
Conclusion
Mathison says that interpreting New Testament eschatological timetexts is a “difficult problem” that has “perplexed commentators forcenturies,” and that it is therefore a subject upon which he and his coauthors do not agree (155, 178, 204). Consequently, Mathison’s treatment of the time texts is ambiguous and he casts a fog over the whole matter. Here are some examples of Mathison’s pervasive uncertainty as he wrestles against God’s eschatological time-statements.
• “You shall not finish going through the cities of Israel, until the Son of Man comes.”
Commentators have interpreted [Matthew 10:23] in a number of different ways. (175–176) Mathison presents five competing futurist and partial preterist interpretations.
He eventually lands on an interpretation but he does not express unequivocal confidence in it.
• “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standinghere who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”
. . . [W]hat does it mean for Jesus [in Matthew 16:27–28] to suggest that [the coming of the Son of Man] will happen within the lifetime of his hearers? (176)
But of course, Jesus did more than merely “suggest” that His coming would happen within the lifetime of His hearers, as Mathison weakens the words of the Lord.
• The Coming of the Son of Man
Each of the texts we have looked at (Matt. 10:23; Matt. 16:27–28; 24–25) seems to portray the coming of the Son of Man as something that would occur soon after the words were spoken.
This has perplexed commentators for centuries. (178)
Mathison then makes reference to “all of the difficulties surrounding these [time] texts” and adds that “several” interpretations have been “suggested” (178–179).
But as preterists know, these texts are unequivocal and non perplexing. Note that Mathison admits that all of the biblical texts he cited in Matthew (including the prophecy of the sheep and goats) “seem” to say what preterists say they say. When Mathison says that the texts are surrounded by “difficulties” and that they have “perplexed commentators,” the reason is—obviously—because the texts, if left to interpret themselves, teach “hyper-preterism.” Yet five pages later Mathison says, “There is nothing in any of these texts that demands or even strongly suggests a hyper-preterist interpretation” (183).
• “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.”
. . . [S]everal possible interpretations [of Matthew 24:34] have been offered.
Mathison presents nine competing futurist and partial preterist interpretations (179–181). All of the “possible interpretations” of the word “generation” proposed by Mathison are puzzling though, since he tells readers in his book, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope, while refuting Dispensationalism, that they can “know” the preterist interpretation of “this generation” in Matthew 24:34 is the true interpretation:
We know that the phrase “this generation” refers to the generation of Jews to whom Jesus was speaking for these reasons. . . .[1]
Treading water in a great sea of uncertainty and contradiction, Mathison flounders among the “many possible interpretations” of these and other passages, and then miraculously arrives at the shore and concludes with curious confidence: “Just as there is nothing in the Gospels that even remotely suggests hyper-preterism, so there is also nothing in the book of Acts or in the New Testament epistles that suggests hyper-preterism” (205, emphases added). “The New Testament . . . does not even suggest hyper-preterism” (213, emphases added).
Let’s see now. Mathison admits that Jesus said (or suggested or seemed to teach) many times and in many places that His coming would happen within the lifetime of His hearers. Mathison admits that this fact has perplexed futurist commentators for centuries (176–179). Mathison admits that Paul and other New Testament writers seemed to teach that Christ was coming soon and that the end of the age was near (201–202). Then Mathison says that there is nothing in the New Testament “that even remotely suggests hyper-preterism” (205, 213). Our question to Mathison is not when, but how can these things be?
Mathison undertakes to evaluate and dismiss the preterist position while he himself is uncertain as to how to interpret the verses that “seem” to support preterism (but at the same time do not even “remotely suggest” preterism). Mathison’s particular beliefs are a matter of opinion and debate, because according to Mathison, who can know with any certainty what such terms as “near” and “soon” and “this generation” and “some of you standing here” really mean? There are many possible interpretations.
Mathison should consider that his eschatological particulars (the time texts) are vague and uncertain because his eschatological universals (the physical and yet-future second coming, resurrection, and judgment) are askew. If we all were to agree and stand “shoulder to shoulder” (155) on the universal that eschatology is all about the fall of the Soviet Union, the result would be that our interpretation of a myriad of verses would become a “difficult problem” (Mathison’s term). Mathison’s quandary vividly illustrates the centuries-old problem with futurism. Two or three flawed universals have made a vast multitude of particulars unfathomable.
. . . [O]rthodox Christianity was characterized by two eschatological doctrines: the future return of Christ to judge mankind and the future bodily resurrection of all men for judgment. . . . [A]part from these two doctrines, there was nothing approaching consensus for the first four centuries [of church history].[2]
This problem is alive and well today, as Mathison’s multi-authored book demonstrates. Mathison uses wild understatement when he says of the authors of WSTTB: “ . . . [T]he contributors to this volume do not completely agree in their interpretation of every eschatological text” (155). The fact is that all seven of the contributors to Mathison’s volume do not agree at all on any (or at least virtually any) eschatological doctrine except the doctrine “that the second coming of Jesus Christ, the general resurrection, and the Last Judgment are yet to come” (155). Mathison can call that “shoulder-to-shoulder” agreement, but it is not impressive. Agreement on only a few points out of a myriad merely indicates that those few points are wrong.
It is more than difficult to understand how these authors can portray their historical positions as unified on these points when between their two systems (partial preterism and amillennialism) two contradictory propositions emerge when you examine the particulars – that is the passages that are used to arrive at a futurist position for these three events:
1)      Partial Preterism – Imminence and fulfillment is accepted, Christ appeared a second time at the end of the old covenant age, there was a spiritual, corporate, covenantal judgment and resurrection of the living and dead which was attended by a passing of the old creation and arrival of the new in AD 70 in such passages as these: Daniel 12:1-4; Matthew 5:17-18, 13:39-43, 24-25; Acts 1:11; Romans 8:18, 13:11-12; 1 Peter 4:5-7; 2 Peter 3; Revelation 1-22; Hebrews 8:13, 9:26-28,[3] 10:37.
And yet we are also told that this proposition is true –
2)      Classic Amillennialism – The NT only teaches one coming of Christ, general judgment and resurrection of the living and dead attended by the restoration of creation at the end of the age.
How can these things be indeed? Obviously both of these propositions cannot be true at the same time unless full preterism is true and accepted. Allow me to use two particular passages in connection with my testimony on how I became a full preterist which illustrates the problem the authors of WSTTB have with their so called “shoulder to shoulder” unity. One day I was reading Reformed amillennial and partial preterist books while also studying Matthew 24-25 and comparing it with 1 Thessalonians 4-5 in my dorm room at the Master’s College. I concluded that the partial preterist was accurate in teaching that the coming of Christ in Matthew 24-25 was fulfilled in AD 70 spiritually using apocalyptic language and that the amillennialist was also accurate in that Paul was drawing from Jesus’ teaching in the Olivet Discourse and that there is only one “the parousia” of Christ in the NT. Therefore “orthodoxy” was teaching me that 1 Thessalonians 4-5 was the same coming of Christ described by Jesus in Matthew 24-25. But since the futurist errs on the nature of the resurrection assuming it is biological and at the end of time, the readers of WSTTB are forced into a contradictory “either or” situation on passages such as these when the truth is a “both and.” I think one can see the problem the authors of WSTTB are trying to sweep under the rug when it comes to how they can “unify” in teaching that the Second Coming is still future when the particulars of what they are each saying on the given texts and how they relate to each other teach otherwise.
The choice is simple. Either one continues propagating the myth that these two propositions within the futurist paradigm do not lead to a contradiction, or accept the organic development of full preterism which unites them in seeing that these events were fulfilled in AD 70 when Christ came (once a “second time”) invisibly to close the old covenant age dissolving the elements of that world while establishing the new.
It is ironic that the title of Mathison’s book is When Shall These Things Be? Not only is there no consensus among the authors as to the answer to that very question, but Mathison himself (the only author who attempts to answer the question) fails to arrive at an unequivocal and decisive answer. Within a span of six pages (177–182), Mathison tacitly admits that the question is a problem for futurism, and offers seven or eight possible “solutions.”[4]
If we were to apply Mathison’s method in eschatological matters to all other areas of life, we would be certain of nothing; we would all be postmodernists. The truth would become unknowable. Mathison himself, in his book The Shape of Sola Scriptura, teaches that “clear” and “firm scriptural proof for every article of faith” is a “necessity.”[5]
Yet in WSTTB, Mathison demonstrates with his plethora of “possible interpretations” that he lacks “clear” and “firm” scriptural proof either for futurism or against preterism. Nevertheless, he feels at liberty to anathematize us for our preterist challenge to futurism (213).
Mathison claims that Christ died to leave the church, for 2,000 years and counting, in an “evil age.” As my editor has said, “Joy to the world!” Postmillennialists such as Marcellus Kik and Keith Mathison have produced not so much an Eschatology of Victory or An Eschatology of Hope, as a “sick” eschatology, because, “Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but when the desire comes, it is a tree of life” (Prov. 13:12). Preterism will stand the test of time; and as godly men embrace it and teach it, it will bring healing to the “eschatological schizophrenia” of Mathison et al, and to the eschatological division within the church as a whole.
Interestingly, Gentry and Mathison in their books pit old school dispensationalism against modern day progressives as a “House Divided” that “cannot stand” unless they move more toward covenant theology. And yet we have documented their “House Divided” approach which equally “cannot stand” unless full Preterism is embraced to “bridge the gap.” And since they also exhort progressives such as Pastor John MacArthur in his/their changes which are moving closer and closer to covenant theology, we too applaud Gentry and Mathison for coming closer and closer to full Preterism in what they have written since WSTTB. If a five point Calvinist and progressive dispensationalist such as MacArthur can be seen as “inconsistent,” holding to a “compromised” position, or being content in being a stepping stone for others to come into covenant theology, then full preterists can view Gentry and Mathison’s writings as such in their moves towards full preterism.
If not why not? As a Reformed believer, dear reader, you know that there is no middle ground between Arminianism and Calvinism. You may have tried at one time to say that you were neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian. Or you may have acknowledged that the Bible teaches Calvinism, but you rejected the teaching because you were troubled by its implications. Or you may have even been a closet Calvinist for years. Though the road was perhaps difficult, you eventually embraced the doctrines of grace, and now you know there is no compromise position between the two doctrines.
Many Reformed believers today are having the same experience
with the doctrine of preterism. They are learning that it is also a hard
pill to swallow and that it is nevertheless the doctrine of Scripture. They
are learning that it represents “the whole counsel of God” in the area of
eschatology. After we are confronted with biblical preterism, we may
try to straddle the fence, but there is truly no middle ground. Just as
R.C. Sproul (Sr.) would consider a four-point Calvinist to be in reality a
“confused Arminian,” more and more futurists, on their way to biblical
preterism, are beginning to see that partial preterism is just “confused
futurism.” There is no biblical basis for “partial preterism” even as there
is no biblical basis for “partial Calvinism.” This is why partial preterism
invariably leads to full preterism. This is why Keith Mathison and Ken
Gentry have both come closer to “hyper-preterism” since they wrote
WSTTB. Mathison now believes that the prophecy of the sheep and
the goats in Matthew 25 was fulfilled in AD 70 and Gentry now believes
that the resurrection in Daniel 12:2-3 was fulfilled in AD 70.

[1] Mathison, Postmillennialism, 111 (emphasis added)
[2] Postmillennialism, 33
[3] Milton Terry wrote of Hebrews 9:26-28, “The ‘end of the age’ means the close of the epoch or age—that is, the Jewish age or dispensation which was drawing nigh, as our Lord frequently intimated. All those passages that speak of ‘the end,’ ‘the end of the age,’ or ‘the ends of the ages,’ refer to the same consummation, and always as nigh at hand.” “…the writer [to the Hebrews] regarded the incarnation of Christ as taking place near the end of the aeon, or dispensational period. To suppose that he meant that it was close upon the end of the world, or the destruction of the material globe, would be to make him write false history as well as bad grammar. It would not be true in fact; for the world has already lasted longer since the incarnation than the whole duration of the Mosaic economy, from the exodus to the destruction of the temple. It is futile, therefore, to say that the ‘end of the age’ may mean a lengthened period, extending from the incarnation to our times, and even far beyond them. That would be an aeon, and not the close of an aeon. The aeon of which our Lord was speaking was about to close in a great catastrophe; and a catastrophe is not a protracted process, but a definitive and culminating act.” Milton S. Terry, Biblical HERMENEUTICS A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments, 441-442.
[4] Ken Gentry, in another book, gave a decisive interpretation of Jesus’ answer to the disciples’ question: “Christ’s teaching here is extremely important to redemptive history. He is responding to the question of His disciples regarding when the end of the age (Gk., aion) will occur (24:3). In essence, His full answer is: when the Romans lay waste the temple (vv. 6 and 15 anticipate this) and pick apart Jerusalem (v. 28).” Thomans Ice, Kenneth Gentry, The Great Tribulation Past or Future? Two Evangelicals Debate the Question (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1999), 58.
[5] Keith Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2001), 32

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

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

When Shall These Things Be?

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

Michael J. Sullivan

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

2 Timothy 2:17–18

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When Shall These Things Be?

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

The Millennium Revelation 20
Michael J. Sullivan
Copyright 2009 and 2013 – All rights reserved. No part of this book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing or Michael J. Sullivan), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.
Millennium
Mathison writes: “ . . . [T]he hyper-preterist interpretations of the millennium fail to take seriously the long-term time text involved. . . . When the word thousand is used in Scripture, it refers either to a literal thousand or to an indefinite, but very large, number” (209).
Response:
Psalm 50:10 is often cited, usually by postmillennialists, to teach that “a thousand” symbolizes literally “many thousands or millions.” For every beast of the forest is Mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. (Ps. 50:10)
Postmillennialists reason that God owns the cattle on every hill; therefore “a thousand hills” symbolizes or represents “many thousands or millions of hills.” Thus, they reason, we are led by Scripture to interpret the “thousand years” in Revelation 20 to mean “many thousands or millions of years.”
That reasoning sounds solid at first glance. However, the context of Psalm 50:10 does not lead us to a principle that a symbolic “thousand” always signifies “many thousands.” It leads us to the principle that a symbolic “thousand” signifies “fullness.” The “thousand” of Psalm 50:10 is interpreted for us two verses later:
The world is Mine, and the fullness thereof. (Ps. 50:12b)
In Psalm 90:4, a “thousand years” is as “yesterday” and as “a watch in the night.” In 2 Peter 3:8, a “thousand years” is as one “day.” In those verses, a “thousand” (and “yesterday” and “a watch” and a “day”) is used to teach us that to God, a small piece of time is no different than a fullness of time. (Compare Job 7:7; Ps. 39:5; 90:2; 144:4; Heb. 13:8; Jms. 4:14.) Thus in Psalm 105:8, a “thousand” corresponds with “forever”: He has remembered His covenant forever, the word that he commanded to a thousand generations. (Ps. 105:8)
In scriptural usage, a symbolic “thousand” can be likened to “one” (day / yesterday / a watch in the night), or used in reference to millions of hills, or to eternity (“forever”). A “thousand” can be likened unto or used to represent a number lesser or greater than a literal thousand. Only its context can determine its literal numerical meaning, but the basic idea that is communicated by the number is “fullness.” As G. K. Beale wrote, “The primary point of the thousand years is probably not a figurative reference to a long time . . .”^{^[1]}
How one interprets the thousand years in Revelation 20 depends on one’s eschatological framework. The passage does not interpret itself, but must be interpreted by the overall eschatology of Scripture. Within the preterist interpretive framework, the biblical-eschatological context of Revelation 20 should lead us to interpret the “thousand years” to signify the time of the Christological filling up of all things (Eph. 1:10; 4:10). That time was from the Cross of Christ to the Parousia of Christ in AD 70. That was the time during which “the [spiritual] death” which came through Adam and was magnified through “the law” was in process of being destroyed. The literal timeframe of the “thousand years” was roughly forty years.
Mathison admits that he does not know if there were any rabbis who used the number 1,000 to symbolize forty years (210). Reformed theologian G. K. Beale tells us that some Jews considered the length of the intermediate messianic reign to be forty years. He also states that one Jewish tradition made an anti-type connection between Adam’s lifespan (almost 1,000 years) and a reign of Messiah for a (possibly symbolic) thousand years.^{^[2]} Many Christians have attempted to make this connection and have also paralleled the thousand years of 2 Peter 3:8 with John’s thousand years in Revelation 20:2–6.
Adam falling short of the 1,000-year lifespan by 70 years (Gen. 5:5) may represent his being created a mortal being and perishing in sin outside of God’s presence. If this is the case, then it is more than reasonable that the number 1,000 took on the symbolism and representation of Christ’s and the church’s victory over Death in contrast to Adamic man’s vain existence apart from God’s salvation (Eccl. 6:6).
Some Evangelicals and Reformed theologians along with some preterists such as Milton Terry do not understand the long lifespans in the early chapters of Genesis to be literal.^{^[3]} They believe that the lifespans were symbolic and contained numerological elements. But even if Adam’s lifespan was a literal 930 years, this does not exclude an anti-typical, symbolic 1,000 years in Revelation 20.
When Messiah came as “the last Adam,” His reign in and through the church for a symbolic thousand years brought the church not to the dust of the earth separated from God’s presence, but to the Tree of Life and into the very presence of God (Rev. 20–22:12). Through faith in and union with Christ as the Last Adam (the Tree of Life and New Creation), Christians have achieved what Adam could not. The church was clothed with “immortality”; it attained unto the “fullness” of life in AD 70; and it will never die for the aeons of the aeons (2 Cor. 1:20; 1 Cor. 15:45–53; Rev. 21–22; Jn. 11:26–27).
All of the authors of WSTTB understand that the Second Coming is the event that brings the millennium to its consummation. However, the only future coming of Jesus discussed in the book of Revelation is the one that would take place shortly (Rev. 3:11; 22:6–7, 10–12, 20). Both Mathison and Gentry concede that this imminent coming of Christ took place in AD 70. But then they err in assuming that the imminent coming of Jesus in Revelation was not His “actual second coming” (182).
To conclude my section on the millennium of Revelation 20, please consider the following exegetical, orthodox, and historical points:

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

When Shall These Things Be?

Chapter Four: The Eschatological Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be?
All Israel Will be Saved Romans 11:26
Michael J. Sullivan
Copyright 2009 and 2013 – All rights reserved. No part of this book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission
in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing or Michael J. Sullivan), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.
All Israel will be Saved
Mathison argues: In Romans 11:25–26, Paul seems to be saying that ethnic Israel as a people will be saved. This has not happened yet (199–200).
Response:
There is a great debate between Amillennialists and Postmillennialists on the salvation of “all Israel” in Romans 11:25–26, as can be seen in the opposing views of Gentry and Strimple.^{^[1]} Postmillennialists such as Gentry and Mathison argue that “all Israel” being saved refers to a mass conversion of ethnic Jews before Christ comes in our future. Amillennialists understand “all Israel” being saved to refer to the salvation of the church as the new Israel of God.
As for the view that “all Israel” refers to ethnic Jews in our future, we can immediately know that this view is incorrect. With the passing of the old covenant in AD 70, there is no covenantal Israel other than the united Jew-Gentile church. The things of the old order passed away. So the covenant promises in Romans 11 cannot refer to the modern nation of Israel or to the modern Jewish race or community. The only “Israel” in the New Testament that was to be cleansed from sin is the Jew-Gentile church, the body of Israel’s Messiah. This is the “Israel” (“all” of it) that entered into the Holiest of Holies in AD 70 (Heb. 9:8). Let us briefly summarize Paul’s argument in Romans 11.
Even though God’s old covenant people in their last generation were being hardened and excluded from the coming inheritance, that did not mean that God had rejected old covenant Israel (Rom. 11:1– 2). Although it may have looked like Israel was being utterly cut off in her last generation, the truth was that old covenant Israel was being saved in her last days. God was actually saving “all Israel”—fulfilling His promises to “the fathers”—partly by means of the hardening of its last generation. Here’s how:

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

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

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

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

When Shall These Things Be?

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

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

The Creation Groaning

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

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

John Lightfoot associated the “earnest expectation of the creature”and the “whole creation groaning” with the mind and heart of man, and interpreted this passage as having nothing to do with the planet Earth— not even poetically.

. . . [T]his vanity [or futility] is improperly applied to this vanishing, changeable, dying state of the [physical] creation. For vanity, doth not so much denote the vanishing condition of the outward state, as it doth the inward vanity and emptiness of the mind. The Romans to whom this apostle writes, knew well enough how many and how great predictions and promises it had pleased God to publish by his prophets, concerning gathering together and adopting sons to himself among the Gentiles: the manifestation and production of which sons, the whole Gentile world doth now wait for, as it were, with an out stretched neck.^{^[1]}

And again,

The Gentile world shall in time be delivered from the bondage of their sinful corruption, that is, the bondage of their lusts and vile affections, (under which it hath lain for so long a time,) into a noble liberty, such as the sons of God enjoy. If it be inquired how the Gentile world groaned and travailed in pain, let them who expound this of the fabric of the material world tell us how that groaneth and travaileth. They must needs own it to be a borrowed and allusive phrase. But in the sense which we have pitched upon, the very literal construction may be admitted.^{^[2]}

Lightfoot is on solid ground here citing 2 Peter 1:4; 2 Corinthians 11:3; and 1 Corinthians 15:33. Not only is there lexical evidence to interpret “vanity,” “corruption,” and “decay” as ethical and moral putrefaction in the heart and mind of man, but contextually the passage has nothing to do with hydrogen or oxygen or squirrels longing for a better day when they won’t get hit by cars.

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

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

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

“The sufferings of this present time.” As much as I can relate to R.C. Sproul Jr. losing his hair and gaining some weight around his midsection (WSTTB, ix), Paul’s mention of the “sufferings” and “the redemption of the body” have nothing to do with those kinds of issues. The context of the “groaning” of the first-century Christians can be found in the previous chapter. The sufferings Paul has in mind here were eschatological —the birth pains that were to precede Christ’s return in AD 70 (Matt. 24:8; Rom. 8:22). They had to do with the last days persecutions and with the saints of the universal church groaning under the tyranny of Sin and Condemnation under the Law.

For Paul, Sin had produced “death,” but not physical death. Contrary to Mathison’s assertions, “the body,” “death,” and “the flesh” in Romans 5–8 have nothing to do with the idea of men biologically dying as a result of Adam’s sin. Paul’s concern is with corporate-covenantal Death, as even some Reformed theologians teach.^{^[3]} “Bondage,” according to the immediate context, had to do with groaning under the condemnation of the Law (cf. Rom. 7:2, 7, 15).

The “redemption” associated with the coming of the Son of Man in AD 70 entailed much more than a physical flight to the wilderness of Pella, as some commentators have proposed. Appealing to the principle of the analogy of Scripture, John Murray and other Reformed theologians understand Paul in Romans 8 to be speaking of the same “redemption” that Jesus discussed in the Olivet Discourse:
Now in Luke 21:28 . . . [t]his word ‘redemption’ (apolutrosin), when used with reference to the future, has a distinctly eschatological connotation, the final redemption, the consummation of the redemptive process (cf. Rom. 8:23; 1 Cor. 1:30; Eph. 1:14; 4:30). Hence analogy would again point to the eschatological complex of events.^{^[4]}

The following chart confirms that the “redemption” of Christ’s disciples in the first century in Luke 21:28 was the redemption of “the body” in Romans 8:18–23:

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

On page 200 of WSTTB, Mathison expresses willingness to concede that the imminence in Romans 13:11–12 was fulfilled in AD 70. The passage reads:

. . . it is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep; for now salvation is nearer to us than when we believed. The night is almost gone, and the day is at hand. . . .

But The Reformation Study Bible, of which Mathison is an editor, harmonizes Romans 13:11 with Romans 8:23, correctly teaching that “salvation” in that verse is not merely deliverance from persecution (as Mathison theorizes in WSTTB): “salvation. Here in the sense of future, final redemption (8:23).”^{^[1]} The connection between these two passages is made even stronger when we allow the Greek word mello in

Romans 8 to be translated the way it is predominately used in the New Testament: For I reckon that the sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory about to be revealed in us. (Rom. 8:18, YLT)

It is more than arbitrary for partial preterists such as Gentry to honor Young’s literal translation of mello in Revelation 1:19 when debating Dispensationalists and Amimmennialists, but then not honor it in Romans 8:18 when debating full preterists. Mello is used in the aorist infinitive in both verses. Gentry writes of mello in Revelation 1:19:

…this term means “be on the point of, be about to.” …According to Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible, Revelation 1:19 reads: “Write the things that thou hast seen, and the things that are, and the things that are about to come [mello] after these things.” The leading interlinear versions of the New Testament concur. This is surely the proper translation of the verse.^{^[2]} …when used with the aorist infinitive — as in Revelation 1:19 — the word’s preponderate usage and preferred meaning is:
“be on the point of, be about to. The same is true when the word is used with the present infinitive, as in the Rev. 3:10.^{^[3]} Unfortunately, none of the major translators cited above translates Revelation 1:19 in a literal fashion.^{^[4]}

Where is Gentry’s disappointment when it comes to translators not translating Romans 8:18 by the same grammatical standard? It is nowhere to be found, even though there are two other Greek words of imminence (apokaradokia and apekdekomai — “eagerly waiting”) within the immediate context.

At least partial preterist Gary DeMar has tried to be more consistent with a proper translation of mello in Romans 8:18. Citing Robert Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible he writes:
“Whatever the glory is it was ‘about to be revealed’…”^{^[5]}

We appreciate the honesty on properly translating mello here as “about to be revealed,” but contextually there is no ambiguity as to what the imminent manifestation of this “glory” was — the liberation of creation from its groaning and bondage, the full adoption of the sons of God, and the “redemption of the body” (vss. 18-23).

Interestingly enough though, according to Gentry and Mathison one of the things that was “about to come after” John wrote Revelation 1:19 was the arrival of the New Jerusalem and New Creation of Revelation 21:1ff. Mathison and Gentry tell us in their other works that the time texts in Revelation point to a near fulfillment of the passing of “the first heaven and earth.” They point out that Revelation 21:1 is referring to the passing of the old covenant “creation” in AD 70 and is a fulfillment of Isaiah 65–66. Gentry even says:

The absence of the sea (Rev. 21:1) speaks of harmony and peace within. In Scripture the sea often symbolizes discord and sin (13:1–2; cf. Isa. 8:7–8; 23:10; 57:20; Jer. 6:23; 46:7; Ezek. 9:10). Christianity offers the opposite: peace with God and among humankind (Luke 2:14; Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:12–18; Phil. 4:7, 9).

But then Mathison and Gentry assign an “expanded” meaning to 2 Peter 3, which discusses the same promises in Isaiah 65–66. They suggest that Peter is addressing the geological “elements” of the planet while the Apostle John, referencing the same Old Testament passage, is not.

This is not only arbitrary, it is amazing. If Gentry and Mathison can give prophetic New Testament passages “expanded” meanings to fit their eschatology, then they have surrendered their debate with Dispensationalists, who constantly employ this strategy to force their eschatology upon New Testament passages.

In Mathison’s section on the “Restoration of Creation” (195–197), he appeals to the literal and global beginnings of Genesis 1–3 to point out that preterists have interpreted “the end” in Romans 8 and in the rest of the New Testament in an inaccurate way. But Mathison should be open to considering the interpretations of Genesis 1–3 that are presented by some within the Reformed tradition and by other futurists.

Combined, authors such as Augustine, Milton Terry, David Snoke, Meredith Kline, and dispensationalist John Sailhamer teach the following:

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

As the theological emphasis in Genesis 1–2 is on the local land of Eden, which is both theologically and geographically tied to Israel’s Promised Land, so too is the emphasis of the New Testament on a Great Commission preached to the nations of Israel and to the Roman Empire with a judgment that would affect the nations of that world.

Both the localized and covenantal judgment in Eden and the one in AD 70 affected and continue to affect all humankind. The introduction of spiritual death (condemnation and alienation from God within the heart and conscience of man through Adam) was overcome by Christ’s death, resurrection, and indwelling presence in AD 70. All men and nations of the world are either inside the new Israel and New Jerusalem or outside her gates — as the gospel continues to bring healing and judgment to the nations today and forever (cf. Rev. 21–22:17).

When we take a combined look at some of the best theologians within the Reformed and Evangelical communities, we find a preterist interpretation of every eschatological de-creation prophecy in the Bible. Combined, John Owen, John Locke, John Lightfoot, John Brown, R.C. Sproul, Gary DeMar, Kenneth Gentry, James Jordan, Peter Leithart, Keith Mathison, Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis, Hank Hanegraaff, and N.T. Wright teach that the passing away of heaven and earth (Matt. 5:17–18; 24:3, 29, 35; 1 Cor. 7:31; II Peter 3; I Jn. 2:17–18; Rev. 21:1) refers to the destruction of the temple or to the civil and religious worlds of men—either Jews or Gentiles; and that the rulers of the old covenant system or world, along with the temple, were the “sun, moon, and stars,” which made up the “heaven and earth” of the world that perished in AD 70.⁶³

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

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

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

[2] Ibid., 158–159 (emphases added).

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

this book to any serious student of Reformed theology.

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

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

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

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

[8] Ibid., 141.

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

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

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

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

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

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

When Shall These Things Be?

Chapter Four
The Eschatological Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be?
Part 8 – The Rapture 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17
Michael J. Sullivan
Copyright 2009 and 2013 – All rights reserved. No part of this
book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission
in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing
or Michael J. Sullivan), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical
articles or reviews.

The Rapture

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

Response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 Thessalonians 4–5 & Matthew 24

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beale goes on to write:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1] Mathison, Postmillennialism, 224–225.

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

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

[4] Beale, Ibid, 136–137.

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

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

[7] Mathison, Postmillenialism, 230.

[8] Ibid, 226.

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

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

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

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

When Shall These Things Be?

Chapter Four The Eschatological Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be? Part 7 – In Like Manner Acts 1:9-11
Michael J. Sullivan Copyright 2009 and 2013 – All rights reserved. No part of this book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing or Michael J. Sullivan), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.
Like Manner
Mathison argues: Jesus ascended visibly and bodily. Then He vanished from sight in a cloud (Acts 1:9). Acts 1:11 says that He will return in the same manner that He departed. This has not happened yet (184–188, 204). Therefore, Acts 1:11 is not yet fulfilled.
Response: After speaking to His apostles about the kingdom over a period of forty days, Jesus told them to stay in Jerusalem and to wait for the fulfillment of the Father’s promise of the Holy Spirit, which Jesus said would take place “not many days from now.” This prompted the disciples to ask Him in verse six about the timing of the kingdom’s arrival. “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” Jesus did not give them a day or hour, but He reminded them in verse eight of the sign of the Great Commission which had to be accomplished before He would restore the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:8; Matt. 24:3, 14). Mathison, ignoring the immediate context, states:
The first thing that must be observed when we examine this account is that no reference to time is connected with the prediction of the return of Christ. (185)
However, in another book Mathison #2 admits:
The time frame is hinted at in the preceding context. The disciples are given a commission to be Christ’s witnesses “in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth” (Acts 1:8). The implication is that Christ’s visible return will follow the completion of the mission to the remotest part of the earth.”[1]
According to Mathison in the above quote, when the Great Commission in verse 8 is fulfilled, then the Second Coming of verse 11 will occur. Mathison’s contention that there are two Great Commissions given in the New Testament—one fulfilled before AD 70 and another that will be fulfilled before the allegedly yet-future Second (Third) Coming—is altogether arbitrary. It is a position he is forced to take because of his flawed, partial preterist framework—like his doctrines of two “last days” in the New Testament, and of two future “comings” of Christ in the New Testament, and of his divided sections separated by 2000+ years in Matthew 24 and in Matthew 16:27–28 and in other Scriptures.
Mathison breaks again from the majority of Reformed, Evangelical, and preterist theologians, who see one Great Commission in the Gospels and in the book of Acts, instead of two. Mathison’s dichotomizing approach to the Great Commission does not merit a serious rebuttal and can be rejected out of hand.
Since the Second Coming is fulfilled after the Great Commission, and since there is only one Great Commission, and since the Great Commission was fulfilled in Christ’s generation, it follows that the Second Coming was fulfilled in those days as well. The gospel was preached to the world; “then” the end came (Matt. 24:14). The following chart proves that the Great Commission was fulfilled in the first century.

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

Therefore, I have proven that the in-like-manner Second Coming of Christ was also fulfilled in the first century. After commanding His disciples to take possession of the kingdom through the Great Commission, Jesus ascended in a cloud, hidden from the disciples’ sight (Acts 1:9).
Mathison insists that Jesus’ physical body was seen for some period of time as He ascended into the sky. However, verse nine simply says, “He was lifted up, and a cloud received Him from their eyes.” Jesus was certainly seen just before He was “lifted up” (Acts 1:9). But it is not at all certain that He was directly seen as He ascended into the sky.
In verse 11, the disciples were told that Jesus would come in the manner that they had seen Him enter heaven (the sky). The continuity of Him coming as He had entered heaven is found in the fact that He would come in the heavenly glory-cloud of His Father (Matt. 16:27). Jesus was not physically seen after He was received into the glory-cloud. It was while He was hidden from sight in that cloud that He was indirectly seen entering the sky. And He was to come in like manner. Therefore, He would not be physically or directly seen when He came “in like manner,” in the cloud, to indwell His church in the end of the old covenant age (Luke 17:20–37; John 14:2–3, 23).
Mathison errs when he says that Jesus was going to come back in the same way that He “departed.” The Scriptures say that Jesus would come in the same way He had entered the sky. He entered the sky hidden from literal eye sight in the cloud of God’s glory.
Here is the order of events:
1. As they looked, He was taken up (Acts 1:9).
2. A cloud received Him from their eyes (Acts 1:9).
These first two events could very well have happened simultaneously. As Mathison himself admits, the verse could be translated, “He was lifted up; that is, a cloud received Him out of their sight.”[2] It is a very real possibility that Jesus was instantly hidden in the cloud at the moment His feet left the earth.
3. Then the disciples saw Him going into the sky. That is, they looked intently into the sky as He was ascending in the cloud (Acts 1:10–11).
In the Old Testament, God was never literally or directly seen coming in His glory when He judged or saved Israel and other nations. Jesus was not literally seen again after He entered the cloud of God’s glory. He was “taken up in glory” (1 Tim. 3:16) and He would come in glory as the Ancient of Days.
The Lord God had become flesh. John bore testimony to the fact that looking at and touching Jesus was to look at and touch God Himself (John 1:14; 1 John 1:1). God was physically seen in the flesh, but this was temporary for the second person of the Godhead (Heb. 5:7), even as He had been born into and under the old covenant system with its temporal types and shadows (Gal. 4:4; Rom. 5–8; 2 Cor. 3; Heb. 8:13).[3]
Ironically, the point of the question, “Why do you stand here looking into the sky,” was that Jesus was not going to return to His physical form. It was futile for the disciples to long for Jesus to return to the earthly form He had taken when He was born of Mary. In His ascension, Jesus had returned to His pre-incarnate glory. The question of the two men was rhetorical, and it meant, “There is no use in standing here longing for Jesus to return to you and to be as He was in the days of His flesh. He will come, but He will come in the manner you saw Him enter heaven—hidden from physical eyes in the cloud of the Father’s glory.”
We agree with the majority of commentators and cross reference systems which see the in-like-manner coming of Jesus in Acts 1:11 as being parallel with the coming of Jesus on or in the cloud(s) in Matthew 16:27–28, 24:30–31, 26:64–68; Luke 21:27, and Revelation 1:7. Mathison and Gentry, however, wrench Acts 1:11 from those Scriptures. They admit that Christ was figuratively “seen” (perceived, understood) at a figurative “coming” in/on the clouds in AD 70, but they deny that this was the fulfillment of Acts 1:11.
This brings us to another problem. Mathison writes of Matthew 24:30 in his book Postmillennialism:
. . . [T]he “coming” of the Son of Man is His coming in judgment upon Jerusalem (see vv. 23–28), which is intimately connected with His ascension to the right hand of God (cf. Dan. 7:13–14).[4]
Later, in WSTTB, Mathison goes further and identifies the Ascension with the coming of Christ in AD 70:
. . . [W]hen [Jesus] makes reference to “the coming of the Son of Man,” . . . He may have been referring . . . to his ascension . . . and the judgment on Jerusalem. . . . ” (182, emphasis added)
For Mathison, Christ’s “coming” in Daniel 7:13–14 is somehow both a literal, visible “going up” in a literal cloud in about AD 30 and a figurative “coming” to Jerusalem from heaven in figurative clouds in AD 70. The confusion inherent in this position is plain enough. Mathison says that “the coming of the Son of Man” in Daniel 7:13– 14 is a reference to the Ascension. But then Mathison says that when Jesus used the term, He was referring to the Ascension and to the destruction of Jerusalem. Yet there is not one instance where Jesus spoke of the coming of the Son of Man where it can be taken to be a reference to His Ascension. In every case, it is His coming to earth in judgment and salvation. But this is only the tip of the Iceberg of Confusion.
Even though Mathison says that Jesus’ “coming” in AD 70 was “intimately connected with His ascension,” and even though Mathison says that both the Ascension and His coming in judgment in AD 70 are equally “the coming of the Son of Man,” and even though Mathison admits that both events were with a cloud/clouds and in the glory of the Father, and that both events were seen (Acts 1:11; Matt. 26:64), Mathison nevertheless maintains that Jesus’ “coming” in AD 70 was not the “in-like-manner” coming promised in Acts 1:11. Mathison’s position is an ineffable tangle of exegetical double vision, contradiction, and consummate confusion.
Partial Preterist Milton Terry, in contrast, took a lucid, biblical approach, seeing Matthew 24:30–31, 34; Acts 1:11; and Revelation 1:7 as all being fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem in the end of the age:
Whatever the real nature of the parousia, as contemplated in this prophetic discourse, our Lord unmistakably associates it with the destruction of the temple and city, which he represents as the signal termination of the pre-Messianic age. The coming on clouds, the darkening of the heavens, the collapse of elements, are, as we have shown above, familiar forms of apocalyptic language, appropriated from the Hebrew prophets.
Acts i, 11, is often cited to show that Christ’s coming must needs be spectacular, “in like manner as ye beheld him going into the heaven.” But (1) in the only other three places where [“in like manner”] occurs, it points to a general concept rather than the particular form of its actuality. Thus, in Acts vii, 28, it is not some particular manner in which Moses killed the Egyptian that is notable, but rather the certain fact of it. In 2 Tim. iii, 8, it is likewise the fact of strenuous opposition rather than the special manner in which Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses. And in Matt. xxiii, 37, and Luke xiii, 34, it is the general thought of protection rather than the visible manner of a mother bird that is intended. Again (2), if Jesus did not come in that generation, and immediately after the great tribulation that attended the fall of Jerusalem, his words in Matt. xvi, 27, 28, xxiv, 29, and parallel passages are in the highest degree misleading. (3) To make the one statement of the angel in Acts i, 11, override all the sayings of Jesus on the same subject and control their meaning is a very one-sided method of biblical interpretation. But all the angel’s words necessarily mean is that as Jesus has ascended into heaven so he will come from heaven. And this main thought agrees with the language of Jesus and the prophets.[5]
As Mathison admits in one book but denies in another, the immediate context links Christ’s in-like-manner return to the fulfillment of the Great Commission (v. 8; Matt. 24:14, 27, 30; Rom. 10:18). The Great Commission was fulfilled in Christ’s generation. Jesus was “lifted up” and hidden from sight in the cloud of glory. He ascended into the sky hidden in the cloud, as His disciples watched. He was to come in the same manner in which the disciples saw Him enter into the sky: hidden in the cloud of the glory of His Father. He was “seen” in that Day in the same way that Yahweh was “seen” whenever He came on a cloud to judge nations in the Old Testament.
This was the one and only future coming of Christ that was promised in the New Testament. Therefore, Christ returned in AD 70. The analogy of Scripture confirms this interpretation. It does not confirm Mathison’s, which rips Acts 1:9–11 from its immediate and broader New Testament contexts. We agree with Terry’s comments on Matthew 24:30–31, 34; Acts 1:11; and Revelation 1:7. “We accept upon the testimony of the Scriptures”[6] that Christ returned on/in a cloud/clouds in that generation.

[1] Postmillennialism, 117 (emphasis added).

[2] From Age to Age, 459

[3] Though Jesus is no longer in the flesh, He forever retains His human nature. He is forever Man, even as the saints in heaven today, who are no longer in their physical bodies, are still human/man by nature. Neither the Son of Man nor those who are in Him, whether in heaven or on earth, are “nonhuman.” (See David Green’s response to Strimple Argument #11 in chapter seven of this book.)

[4] Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope (Phillipsburg, NJ: 1999), 114

[5] Milton S. Terry, A Study of the Most Notable Revelations of God and of Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988), 246-247.

[6] Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutic (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990), 468, n.1 (emphases added).

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

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

When Shall These Things Be?

Chapter Four
The Eschatological Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be?
Part 6 – The Coming of the Son of Man
Michael J. Sullivan
Copyright 2009 and 2013 – All rights reserved. No part of this
book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission
in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing
or Michael J. Sullivan), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical
articles or reviews.

The Coming of the Son of Man

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

Response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matthew 16:27–28

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

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

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

For the Son of Man is about to Come

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

Verily I say unto you

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

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

Some standing here shall not taste of death until

Thomas Ice says of this verse: “A further problem with the preterist
view is that our Lord said, ‘some of those standing here . . . .’ It is clear
that the term ‘some’ would have to include at least two or more individuals.
. . . Peter notes that John only survived among the 12 disciples
till the destruction of Jerusalem” (Ice, Controversy, 88).

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

Until they see the kingdom of God already come in power

According to Mark’s account, some of the disciples would not die until
they looked back on this event, knowing that the Lord and His kingdom
had come in power. (Literally, “until they see the kingdom of God having
come in power.”) According to Jesus, some of those who were listening to
Him that day would see His Parousia, look back on the event, and afterwards
die. Gentry concedes this point citing J.A. Alexander:

Here “come” is “not, as the English words may seem to mean, in
the act of coming (till they see it come), but actually or already
come, the only sense that can be put upon the perfect parti-ciple here
employed.”[3]

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

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

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

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

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

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

When Shall These Things Be?

Chapter Four
The Eschatological Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be?
Part 5 – Prophetic Telescoping Two Comings in Matthew 24-25?
Michael J. Sullivan
Copyright 2009 and 2013 – All rights reserved. No part of this
book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission
in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing
or Michael J. Sullivan), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical
articles or reviews.

Prophetic Telescoping

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

Response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3] Postmillennialism (213)

[4] Postmillennialism, 117 (emphasis added)

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

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

When Shall These Things Be?

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

Michael J. Sullivan

All Things Written

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

Response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“What Daniel is promised is that after his rest in Abraham’s bosom, he will stand up with all God’s saints and join Michael on a throne in heaven, as described in Revelation 20, an event that came after the Great Tribulation and in the year AD 70.[5]

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

“In Daniel 12:1-2 we find a passage that clearly speaks of the great tribulation in AD 70.”

“…But it also seems to speak of the resurrection occurring at that time…”

“Daniel appears to be presenting Israel as a grave site under God’s curse: Israel as a corporate body is in the “dust” (Da 12:2; cp. Ge 3:14, 19). In this he follows Ezekiel’s pattern in his vision of the dry bones, which represent Israel’s “death” in the Babylonian dispersion (Eze 37). In Daniel’s prophecy many will awaken, as it were, during the great tribulation to suffer the full fury of the divine wrath, while others will enjoy God’s grace in receiving everlasting life.”[6]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Daniel 12 is not dealing with bodily resurrection but national resurrection (as does Eze 37). Dan 12 sees the ‘resurrection’ of Israel in the birth of the Christian Church, which is the New Israel.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1] Dominion, 542.

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

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

[4] Ibid., 621

[5] Ibid., 628

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

my question on this text by writing, “Dan 12 is not dealing with bodily resurrection but national resurrection (as does Eze 37). Dan 12 sees the “resurrection” of Israel in the birth of the Christian Church, which is the New

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

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

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

[8] Gary North, perhaps not knowing his own son-in-law’s position at the time, wrote in 2001: “Anyone who equates the fulfillment of [the parable of the wheat and tares] with A.D. 70 has broken with the historic faith of the church.”
http://www.preteristcosmos.com/garynorth-dualism.html

[9] Joel McDurmon, Jesus v. Jerusalem: A Commentary on Luke 9:51 –
20:26, Jesus’ Lawsuit Against Israel (Powder Springs, GA: The American Vision,
Inc., 2011), 48-49; see entire section 43-51. One of DeMar’s co-authors
Peter Leithart, has also conceded that the parable of the wheat and tares was
fulfilled in the first century: “Jesus has now come with His winnowing fork,
and before the end of the age, the wheat and tares will be separated. The end
of the age thus refers not to the final judgment but to the close of “this generation.”
Peter J. Leithart, The Promise of His Appearing: An Exposition of Second
Peter (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2004), 95.

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

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

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

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

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

When Shall These Things Be?

Chapter Four
The Eschatological Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be?
Part 3 – Double Fulfillments
Michael J. Sullivan
Copyright 2009 and 2013 – All rights reserved. No part of this
book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission
in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing
or Michael J. Sullivan), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical
articles or reviews.

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

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

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

Double Fulfillments

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

Response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But a person at all familiar with the phraseology of the Old
Testament Scriptures, knows that the dissolution of the Mosaic
economy, and the establishment of the Christian, is often
spoken of as the removing of the old earth and heavens, and the
creation of a new earth and new heavens.[5]

Evangelical theologian Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis agrees:
. . . [T]he principal reference of “heaven and earth” is the temple
centered cosmology of second-temple Judaism which included
the belief that the temple is heaven and earth in microcosm.
Mark 13[:31] and Matthew 5:18 refer then to the destruction of
the temple as a passing away of an old cosmology. . . .22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When Shall These Things Be?

Chapter Four
The Eschatological Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be?
Part 2 – The Latter/Last Days
Michael J. Sullivan
Copyright 2009 and 2013 All rights reserved. No part of this book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing or Michael J. Sullivan), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.
In this chapter, I will answer objections that Dr. Keith Mathison raised against preterism in his chapter in WSTTB. Mathison’s chapter was entitled, “The Eschatological Time Texts of the New Testament.” His objections included:
• Prophetic imminence in the Old Testament (see part 1)
• The futurity of the last days (part 2)
• Prophetic double fulfillment
• Prophetic “telescoping”
• Jesus’ “in-like-manner” return
• “The Rapture”
• The creation groaning
• The abolition of death, pain, mourning, and Satan
• The salvation of “all Israel” in Romans 11
• The “thousand years” of Revelation 20
Mathison raised other objections in his chapter but they are addressed elsewhere in this book. At the conclusion of this chapter, I will offer a critique of Mathison’s tenuous and fragmented approach to the eschatological time texts of the New Testament.
The Latter/Last Days
Isaiah 2:2–4 speaks of “the latter days.” Mathison says that this passage “seems to point to something that even now has not been completely fulfilled. There are still wars, for example, and all nations have not yet bowed the knee to the Lord” (167). Mathison adds that although it is true that “in some sense” the last days “were already present immediately after the first coming of Christ,” some New Testament texts such as 2 Timothy 3:1 and 2 Peter 3:3 imply that the last days “are still future [to us]” (189–190).
Response:
In Isaiah 2:2–4 the prophet spoke of the time when Messiah would come and establish His mountain (Mount Zion), house, and city among Jews and Gentiles. As the New Testament reveals, this prophecy speaks of the spiritual peace that comes through the gospel, wherein Jew and Gentile are united in Christ into one spiritual nation and kingdom. Jesus said that His kingdom was “not of this world,” and the New Testament writers confirmed His teaching, telling believers that the kingdom they were receiving was not physical-literal, but spiritual (2 Cor. 6:16; Gal. 4; Heb. 9:24–27; 12:18ff.; 1 Peter 1:4–13).
In Luke 23:30, Jesus quoted Isaiah 2:10, 19 as prophesying the judgment that was to befall Jerusalem in AD 70. Virtually every futurist commentator agrees with this interpretation. The Apostle John referred to the same prophecy in reference to the same event (Rev. 6:15–17). Isaiah chapter 2 is intimately connected to the last days of old covenant Israel, not to the end of the planet or an alleged “end of time.”
Many within the Reformed community understand “the last days” in the New Testament to be referring to the end of the old covenant economy in AD 70. For instance, Gary DeMar:
The last days are not way off in the distant future. The end came to an obsolete covenant in the first century. In A.D. 70 the “last days” ended with the dissolution of the temple and the sacrificial system.[1]
David Chilton, before he converted to (full) preterism:
The Biblical expression Last Days properly refers to the period from the Advent of Christ until the destruction of Jerusalem inA.D. 70, the “last days” of Israel during the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant (Heb. 1:1–2; 8:13; James 5:1–9; 1 Pet. 2:20; 1 John 2:18).[2]
And John Owen in his exposition of Hebrews 1:2:
It is the last days of the Judaical church and state, which were then drawing to their period and abolition, that are here and elsewhere called “The last days,” or “The latter days,” or “The last hour,” 2 Peter 3:3; 1 John 2:18; Jude 1:18. . . . This phrase of speech is signally used in the Old Testament to denote the last days of the Judaical church.[3]
Mathison says that 2 Timothy 3:1 and 2 Peter 3:3 imply that the last days are still future. Let us see if that interpretation holds water.
But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come (2 Tim. 3:1).
In his book, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope, Mathison writes to futurists concerning this verse and its context:
The . . . “last days” . . . and similar phrases are often used to refer to the last days of the Jewish age (e.g., Heb. 1:2; 1Pet.1:20; 1John 2:18). . . . [This passage] speaks to a pastoral situation that Timothy was dealing with in his own day. It is not a prophecyof conditions at the end of the world.[4]
But five years later, in WSTTB, when debating “hyper preterists,” Mathison says that the very same last days prophecy (2 Tim. 3:1) will be fulfilled in our future:
. . . [Some] New Testament texts . . . seem to refer to “the last days” as something yet to come. Paul, for example, warns Timothy that “In the last days perilous times will come” (2 Tim. 3:1; cf. 1 Tim. 4:1). Peter warns his readers “that scoffers will come in the last days” (2 Peter 3:3). [Paul and Peter] say . . . that “the last days” will be the time in which something that is future will happen. The coming of “perilous times” and of “scoffers” is explicitly said to be future. The future times during which these things will come is called “the last days.” The implication is that “the last days” referred to in these texts are still future.
So while we are already in the last days, there is still some sense in which the last days can be considered future.[5]
But then yet another five years later, in his new book, From Age to Age, Mathison reverts to the biblical-preterist view that the last days in 2 Timothy 3:1 refer to the first century.
According to some, these verses refer to an apostasy to occur in the time immediately preceding the second coming of Jesus. There are at least three reasons, however, to doubt this conclusion.[6]
Who do we believe? The 1999 preterist Mathison (Postmillennialism) or the 2004 futurist Mathison (WSTTB) or the 2009 preterist Mathison (From Age to Age)? Are the last days in 2 Timothy 3:1 the last days of the “Jewish age,” as Mathison implies while defending partial preterist postmillennialism against other futurists? Or are the last days in 2 Timothy 3:1 the last days of a future end of world history, as Mathison implies while attempting to refute biblical preterism?
Mathison says “the last days” are past when he is refuting other futurists because he knows that if “the last days” are still future, then the growing and increasing apostasy which characterizes those “perilous times” are still present and future for us as well; and if this is the case, then there is nothing left to his “optimistic” and “successful” postmillennial “golden age” that will gradually blossom before Jesus allegedly comes back peacefully for His Second (Third) Coming in our future.
But Mathison does not concern himself with this implication of making “the last days” future when he refutes “hyper-preterists.” His only concern when dealing with us is to counter “hyper-preterism” at any cost, even, apparently, at the cost of his own doctrinal integrity.
Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts. (2 Peter 3:3)
The majority of futurist commentators, men such as Mathison’s coauthor Simon Kistemaker, are certain (as are we) that Peter’s “last days” involves at least one or two signs that Jesus spoke of in the Olivet Discourse, namely, false prophets and the apostasy (2 Peter 1:16; 2:1ff; cf. Matt. 24:3–5, 11, 23–26; 27–34). This fact leads us to an AD 70 fulfillment, not a future-to-us fulfillment.
The “mockers” and “ungodly men” of 2 Peter 3:3–7 are the “false teachers” of 2 Peter 2:1–3, whose destruction was imminent in Peter’s day. Partial preterist Peter Leithart writes of these false teachers and mockers:
Peter says explicitly that the destruction of false teachers is coming “soon.” Their destruction is the same event as the destruction of the present heavens and earth, the “day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men” (3:7). If the destruction of false teachers was near when Peter wrote, so also was the destruction of the heavens and earth and the coming of a new heavens and earth.[7]
Peter responds to mockers who doubt the promise of Jesus’ coming because time has passed without any sign of the Parousia.
If there were no time limit on the original prophecy, then the mockers would have no grounds for their mockery and no way to attract converts to their skeptical views. Therefore, the original prophecy must have included a time limit, a terminus ad quem, and that time limit must have been the lifetime of the apostles.16
Since these mockers were already present, it is illogical for Mathison to say that the perilous times of the last days will take place in our future (190). There is not one scintilla of evidence, whether explicit or implicit, for Mathison’s contention that “the future” for Peter and his audience is still “the future” for us.
According to Isaiah, the coming of the Lord and His righteous judgment of these scoffers would be likened to the Lord’s return in judgment upon the Philistines and the Amorites at Mount Perazim and the Valley of Gibeon (Isa. 28:21). These were not global judgments that burned the face of the planet or that disintegrated the elements of the periodic table.
Isaiah repeatedly tells us that there were to be “survivors” of this “Day of the Lord” even after the “earth”/“land” is burned with fire and the new creation takes its place (Isa. 1–5; 24–25; 65–66). This precludes the notion that Isaiah was speaking of a fiery destruction of the face of planet Earth and of the stars and planets.
The Law and the Prophets never predicted a literal torching of the planet. “The last days” were the last days before the judgment of apostate, old covenant Judah/Jerusalem and the “elements” (rudiments) of her world, and cannot be applied to an alleged ending of the eternal, new covenant age/world. There can be no “last days” of an age that has “no end” (Isa. 9:7; Eph. 3:21). There is therefore no 2000+ year extension or expansion of the “last days” into our future, as Mathison and other futurists theorize.

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

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

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

[4] Postmillennialism, 215 (emphasis added)

[5] WSTTB, 189–190 (emphases added)

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

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

TLB Show Matthew 24:35-36ff. End of Planet Earth Change of Subject? "Heaven and earth will pass away…" "But of that day and hour…"

Most agree that Matthew 24:1-34 contain the fall of Jerusalem, but do verses 35-36ff. indicate a change of subject to another coming of Christ to end and renew planet earth? We and other Partial Preterists such as Gary DeMar, Joel McDurmon and Keith Mathison argue “no.” But then does it follow from these Partial Preterists that Jesus didn’t have much to say about His Second Coming in Matthew’s gospel? Tune in and study with William Bell and myself as we tackle these issues with a grammatical historical hermeneutic.

The Living Body Show: Matt. 24:14-15; Luke 21:20-22/Dan. 9:24-27/12:1-7, 13

Mike Sullivan and William Bell continue their study of Matthew 24 – 25 discussing how the Great Commission of Matt. 24:14 was fulfilled by the end of the OC age in AD 70. Emphasis is also placed on how Jesus in Matt. 24:15 posits the end of the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24-27 [“abomination that causes desolation until the end that is decreed…”] to take place during the same time frame. Would the fulfillment of Daniel 9 and 12 (the judgment, resurrection, tribulation, abomination of desolation — ie. “the end”] be the fulfillment of all OT prophecy Luke 21:20-22? And if so does the rest of the NT support this? Tune in and see! Know anyone studying Bible prophecy or even Matt. 24 – 25? If so pass this on to them.

Exposing Sam Frost’s Sloppy “Exegesis” of Matthew 16:27-28 Part 1 – The Use of Similar Identical or Parallel Language Within Matthew and the NT

Exposing Sam Frost’s Sloppy “Exegesis” of Matthew 16:27-28

Part 1 – The Use of Similar Identical or Parallel Language Within Matthew and the NT

Michael J. Sullivan

Introduction
Partial Preterist Sam Frost has attempted to deal with one passage of what theologians have termed as “the big three” (Matt. 10:17-23; Matt. 16:27-28; Matt. 24:27-34) which addresses the question, “Did Jesus promise that His actual Second Coming would take place within the generation and lifetimes of some of His first century audience?” The Full Preterist answers this question and approaching these passages (and how they are developed in the rest of the NT) with a simple, certain and confident “yes” while others such as Frost approach our text with not much certainty at all.
In part 1 of this series, I want to focus on doing a proper exegesis of Matt. 16:27-28 which involves letting Jesus interpret Himself here within the same gospel – Matt. 13:39-43 and Matt. 24:30—25:31 and then how these passages are developed in Pauline eschatology – 1 Thess. 4-5 and 1 Cor. 15. Sam falsely claims that Full Preterism is “built upon” the “popular” “Left Behind” heremeneutical approach in stringing certain passages together when it comes to using similar or identical language between texts, when the actual truth is we build our approach the same way Reformed eschatology (Partial Preterism and the classic Amillennialism) has been built when it comes to using the analogy of Scripture principle of interpretation when approaching these key texts. There is much hypocrisy here when it comes to a parallelism in approaching Matt. 16:27-28 and Matt. 24-25 in developing AD 70 fulfillment throughout the NT which is something I will also address.
The facts will reveal not only is our analogy of Scripture parallelism found in our exegesis developed within the hermeneutics found within Partial Preterism and Amillennialism, but the truth is that it is Sam Frost who has more in common with the poor scholarship of the “Left Behind” approach to these texts. First, Sam denies the parallels between Matt. 16:27/Matt. 24 and 1 Thess. 4 as does the pre-tribulationl rapture “Left Behind” view. Secondly, he adopts a ridiculous hyper-literal hermeneutic in the OT and NT as these men do which results in an imminent expectation of the Second Coming which isn’t really imminent!
To sum up – Sam been dishonest in his “exegesis” and article of Matthew 16:27-28 in the following ways:
1)      Matthew 16:27-28 does not stand on its own in Matthew gospel and it is the same consummation judgment and resurrection as depicted in Matthew 13:39-43 and more specifically Matthew 24:30—25:31 as describing Christ’s actual Second Coming consummation event (which includes the resurrection) at the end of the OC age.
2)      Portraying that we get our parallel analogy of Scripture hermeneutic from “Left Behind” eschatology when in fact we get it from Partial Preterism and the classic Amillennial views!
3)      His RCM site has felt justified in condemning us literally to hell for adopting this hermeneutic from within reformed eschatology. He also feels comfortable to condemn us to hell when you can’t find much certainty in any of his articles. If he doesn’t really know what Matt. 16:27-28 teaches or if it is the Second Coming event (as most scholars believe) because “scholars disagree,” then how can he be so certain to condemn us to hell?
Sam Frost writes,
Recently, on Facebook, where the Hyper Preterist community is probably at its most visible, there was considerable discussion over these verses:
For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. ²⁸ Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom (ESV). [1]
This reference to Facebook is interesting in light of the fact that Sam has boasted on several forums that he has co-authored a book with myself, David Green and Ed Hassertt and yet instead of citing or dealing with my exegesis of this passage in our book[2] or article on my site,[3] he has chosen to interact with comments on Facebook?!? Since Sam has been trying to set himself up as an authority in refuting Full Preterism or as a “scholar,” one would think that he would attempt to deal with this passage from more credible sources. And yet I challenged Sam on Facebook (FB) to give his interpretation of Matthew 16:27-28 in light of Matthew 24:30 and 25:31-46 and none came forth on FB or in his article published on his RCM site from which I will be quoting and interacting with. Sam is a self-promoted “scholar” and expert at refuting Full Preterism and he can’t even address challenges of Matthew 16:27-28 on Facebook, interact with the arguments presented on the text in a book he co-authored or cite and interact with his older material on the passage as a Full Preterist?!?[4] All to say, there are several issues Sam did not deal with and will be covered in what follows.
Frost goes on,
Supposedly, these verses go a long way in demonstrating the Hyper Preterist contention that all prophecy was fulfilled in AD 70. Now, it must be fair to note that I know of no one who teaches that these two verses alone conclude the matter. Even Hyper Preterist teacher Larry Siegle, who often frequents here for discussion, recently admitted this. However, if it is conceded that these verses do, in fact, teach the idea that the Son of Man’s “coming in his kingdom” is to be related solely, that is, exclusively to the razing of Jerusalem in the Jewish War of 66-70 AD, then the Hyper Preterist thinks he or she has virtually demonstrated the point that all prophecy was fulfilled by this time. All that needs to be done is to connect a few more verses from the Bible in order to make this point: if these two verses were fulfilled in AD 70, then these few other verses must also be fulfilled in AD 70, because these other verses are talking about the same event. These other verses, of course, are referencing the resurrection of the dead and the other events associated with eschatology.
Now, that this is the argument I so once deeply espoused is, in turn, based upon another assumption, already well exposed on this website: since these other verses contain the same language they must be referring to the same event. Upon these considerations the whole Hyper Preterist scheme is built, and once this has been supposedly demonstrated, the unwary victim of such an assault can only say, “Yes, I see your point. All prophecy must have been fulfilled before the passing away of all those standing there!”
However, upon a sober analysis, and having once been a teacher of the above ruse, we should come at the text as objectively as possible, taking in the contentions noted above as well as the several suggestions of how the scholars, both past and present, have dealt with these verses. We should use all of the tools available. After all, we are only trying to figure what Jesus meant, right? We don’t want to prove our position, but, hopefully, what the text is actually saying.
The first thing we should do is note that this passage occurs in the other Synoptics (Mark, Luke). Thus, we should include a harmony of these other accounts, with the variations of their wordings as well.
So let’s cover what Sam means when he writes this:
“…if these two verses were fulfilled in AD 70, then these few other verses must also be fulfilled in AD 70, because these other verses are talking about the same event. These other verses, of course, are referencing the resurrection of the dead and the other events associated with eschatology.”
“…since these other verses contain the same language they must be referring to the same event. Upon these considerations the whole Hyper Preterist scheme is built,…”
What Sam is referring to here is the analogy of Scripture principle of interpretation which he has avoided like the plague in this article and is the same principle of interpretation that reformed eschatology is built upon – not just Full or “Hyper” Preterism. Sam doesn’t want Jesus to interpret Himself here so he avoids “these few other verses.” Which ones might these be? Since Sam is too “lazy” let’s do the work he is unwilling to do because he can’t.
1)      (Matthew 13:39-43, 49-50)
He answered and said to them: “He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. ³⁸ The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one. ³⁹ The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels. ⁴⁰ Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. ⁴¹ The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, ⁴² and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. ⁴³ Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!
So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come forth, separate the wicked from among the just, ⁵⁰ and cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”
Here is a passage which Sam Frost and other Partial Preterists such as Joel McDurmon take as being fulfilled at the end of the Old Covenant (OC) “this age” in AD 70. Let’s make some exegetical observations (which other Reformed and Evangelicals have noted of this passage – not just ones Full or “Hyper-Preterists” are making).
Perhaps not just quoting others using the same analogy of Scripture principle of interpretation we will be using, lets also use some logic. 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. Or the property of equality is transitive – for 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 = (Matt. 13:39-43 – Sam says end of OC age in AD 70)
B = (Matt. 16:27-28 – Sam doesn’t seem to know)
C = (Matt. 24:30-31—25:31-46 – ?)

“If A (Matt. 13:39-43) bears some relation to B (Matt. 16:27-28)”:

Matthew 13:38-43, 49

Matthew 16:27-28/Mark 8:38-9:1

Matt. 13:41 Christ sends out His angles, at which time…

Matt. 16:27 Christ was about to come with His angels at which time…
Matt. 13:42-43 The time of judgment and rewards are given.
The wicked are gathered and burned where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
The righteous are rewarded and…
Inherit the kingdom – thus raised and glorified (Dan. 12:2-3).

Matt. 16:27 / Mrk. 9:1 He would reward each person which would obvious include two groups…
(the wicked and
the righteous)

…according to what he has done.

At which time they would be able to look back and see that the kingdom of God had already come in power.

As we will see not only does the orthodox church make the same exegetical connections the Full Preterist does with these passages, but Frost immediately runs into another problem at this point in the teachings of Christ. In Sam’s article on Daniel 12:2 he claimed he agreed with the “consensus” of the “scholars” that this is an end of time fleshly resurrection. However, Frost did not touch my challenge to him in that the “consensus” of the “scholars” posits this “future” resurrection at the end of the age – Sam (and Joel McDurmon) claim was the OC age (not the end of time) ending in AD 70. Here are some examples of the “consensus” on the resurrection/glorification of Daniel 12:3/Matt. 13:43 which Sam avoided:
13:43 shine like the sun. An allusion to Dan. 12:3, a promise of the future resurrection.[5]
The allusion is to Daniel 12:3 LXX…   …in v. 41. These righteous people (see on 5:20, 45; 9:13; 10:41; 13:17; 25:37, 46), once the light of the world (5:13–16), now radiate perfections and experience bliss in the consummation of their hopes.^{^[6]}
In Sam’s article on Daniel 12:2 he also failed to successfully refute the latest cutting edge “scholarly consensus” among his own Partial Preterists which take the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 as being fulfilled in AD 70 (ex: Kenneth Gentry, Gary DeMar, Joel McDurmon, James Jordan, etc…). According to these men, Daniel 12:2-3, 13 was a spiritual, corporate, covenantal resurrection for the Church and one in which Daniel’s soul was raised out of Abraham’s Bosom to inherit eternal life in God’s presence – in AD 70. This is in essence the Full Preterist view of the resurrection. In his article on Daniel 12:2 he once again did not successfully deal with or touch the “all things” of verse 7 which connects the judgment and resurrection of vss. 1-3 with the tribulation – that Jesus said would be fulfilled by AD 70 and within that generation. And as I already stated he did not touch or seek to reconcile this judgment and resurrection taking place at the end of the OC age he says took place in AD 70 (Matt. 13:39-43=Dan. 12:1-3).[7]
Clearly identifying these two passages Matt. 13:38-50; Matt. 16:27-28 and Matthew 24-25 as the same end of the age consummation event is not unique to Full Preterism. It isn’t a similarity we have with “Left Behind” “popular Christianity” here, but a similarity we have with “popular Christianity” as can be found within the creeds of the historic church and Reformed eschatology.
Again, THE REFORMATION STUDY BIBLE makes the same exegetical connections as we do,
…the language of [Matt. 24:31] is parallel to passages like 13:41; 16:27; 25:31…
Leon Morris writes of Matthew 13:41,
The picture of harvest is carried on, with the reapers defined as the angels. The angels are associated with the consummation elsewhere (16:27; 24:31; 25:31). Jesus assigns to them an important part.^{^[8]}
The Reformation Study Bible with all of its “scholarship” and Leon Morris lead us to not only Matthew 13:41 to help us interpret the same “consummation” of Matthew 16:27, but their exegesis and “parallels” lead us to another place where Sam Frost didn’t want to go in his article – Matthew 24-25
2)      (Matthew 24:30-31—25:31-46)
³⁰ Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. ³¹ And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
³¹ “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. ³² All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. ³³ And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. ³⁴ Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: ³⁵ for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; ³⁶ I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’ ³⁷ “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? ³⁸ When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? ³⁹ Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ ⁴⁰ And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’ ⁴¹ “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: ⁴² for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; ⁴³ I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’ ⁴⁴ “Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ ⁴⁵ Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ ⁴⁶ And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” ^{^[9]}
“…and B bears the same relation to C:

1) Christ comes in glory

Luke 9:26

1) Christ comes in glory

Matthew 24:30

2) Christ comes with angels

Matthew 16:27

2) Christ comes with angels

Matthew 24:31

3) Christ comes in judgment

Matthew 16:27

3) Christ comes in judgment

Matthew 24:28-31; 25:31-34

4) Christ and the kingdom come in power

Mark 8:38

4) Christ and the kingdom come in power

Luke 21:27-32

5) Some of the disciples would live

Matthew 16:28

5) Some of the disciples would live

Luke 21:16-18

6) Some of the disciples would die

Matthew 16:28

6) Some of the disciples would die

Luke 21:16

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

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

Jesus in the Olivet discourse ties the same subject matter in with both Mt. 16:27 & 28. Not only is the same subject matter taken as one unit, but the same time frame for the Second Coming is reiterated by Christ, ie. in His/their first century, “this generation.” This is a very specific historical event and is not addressing several comings of Christ at: 1) the ascension, 2) Pentecost, 3) A.D. 70, and 4) an imagined future coming to end history.
As we will see in further examining Sam’s article, he casts much doubt on the certainty of Matthew 16:27’s meaning and avoiding any interaction with Matthew 24-25. However, Partial Preterist Gary DeMar is very “certain” of its meaning based upon a method condemned by Frost – that is using “identical” (or “similar”) language and “jumping” to Matthew 24-25,
“…there is little evidence that the “coming of the Son of Man” in Matthew 24:27, 30, 39, and 42 is different from the coming of the Son of Man” in 25:31. Compare 25:31 with 16:27, a certain reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70… These verses are almost identical.”[10]
For DeMar “identical” or “similar” language is used as a valid hermeneutical/exegetical approach in determining that the coming of the Son of Man in Matt. 16:27; Matt. 24:30 and Matt. 25:31 “certainly” refer to the same coming at the destruction of Jerusalem.
But can we find the resurrection in Matthew 24:30-31 in the context of the judgment of the dead in 25:31-46? We now come full circle.
“…then A (Matt. 13:39-43) bears it to C (Matt. 24:30-31—25:31-46)”:

Matthew 13:39-43	Matthew 24:30-31—25:31-46
1 Evangelism within the local “world” takes place (Matt. 13:38).	1 Evangelism within the local “world” takes place (Matt. 24:14).
2 There is persecution, tribulation, apostasy, & faithfulness (Matt. 13:19-30).	2 There is persecution, tribulation, apostasy, & faithfulness (Matt. 24:9-13).
3 The subject is the growth and reception of the kingdom at which time the judgment at the “end of the age” takes place (Matt.13:40).	3 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. 24:3).
4 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 (Matt. 13:39-42).	4 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 (Matt. 24:30-31, 25:31-41).
5 The righteous are gathered into the Kingdom at the end of the OC age at which time they are raised and glorified and shine like the sun (Matt. 13:43/Dan. 12:2-3).	5 Christ’s coming is most likely described as the sun or bright light coming for the east to the west (Mt. 24:27).

The resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 is not only evident when allowing Jesus to interpret Himself regarding the end of the OC age gathering into the kingdom of Matthew 13:39-43 with Matthew 24:30-31, but it is also evident in that Jesus references the eschatological gathering and trumpet call of Isaiah’s little apocalypse which includes the time of resurrection (cf. Isaiah 25:8–27:13). Jesus tells us that His teaching in the Olivet discourse and His coming at the end of the OC age within that “this generation” would be the “…days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written.” (Luke 21:22). “All that is written” would include the judgment and resurrection of Daniel 12:1-4 that would take place at the “time of the end” in AD 70 and not the “end of time.” “All that is written” would also include the judgment and resurrection of Isaiah 25—27:13.
So let’s stop here briefly and ponder what we have seen when we allow Jesus to interpret Himself (something Sam can’t do) and what we have gleaned from not just a Full Preterist exegesis and comparison of the pertinent texts, but one also derived from orthodox REFORMED SCHOLARS as well.

Matthew 13:39-43 is the same end of the age consummation event as Matthew 16:27.
Matthew 13:39-43; Matthew 16:27 and Matthew 24:30-31—25:31ff. are also the same end of the age consummation event.
But Matthew 13:39-43 is the time of the resurrection and consummation at the end of the age as predicted by Daniel 12:2-3.
More modern cutting edge Partial Preterist “scholars” and “exegetes” than Sam Frost posit the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 at the end of the OC age in AD 70.
Conclusion: The end of the OC age coming of Christ with his angels to gather His elect into the Kingdom is the time of the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 – which took place in a spiritual, covenantal, corporate manner for the Church and at which time Daniel’s soul (and other souls) was/were raised out of Abraham’s Bosom and inherited eternal life in God’s presence.

How did I arrive at this conclusion? Was it reading or referencing any unscholarly Dispensational “Left Behind” material? Lol. No, it was referencing Reformed and standard Evangelical sources on the analogy of Scripture that led us to this conclusion. But let’s continue filling in the gaps to Sam’s quote:
“…if these two verses were fulfilled in AD 70 [Matt. 16:27-28], then these few other verses [Matt. 13:39-43/Dan. 12:2-3; Matt. 24:30-31—25:31-46 must also be fulfilled in AD 70, because these other verses are talking about the same event. These other verses, of course, are referencing the resurrection of the dead [Matt. 13:39-43/Dan. 12:2-3=Matt. 24-25] and the other events associated with eschatology [the judgment “weeping and gnashing of teeth & everlasting punishment with the Devil and his angles].”
“…since these other verses contain the same language they must be referring to the same event. Upon these considerations the whole Hyper Preterist scheme is built,…”
There are of course other verses I believe Sam has in mind here – specifically now allowing Jesus’ teaching in the passages I have covered within the gospel of Matthew which form and develop Pauline or NT eschatology on the coming of the Son of Man in judgment to reward each person and raise the dead at the end of the OC age (1 Thess. 4 and 1 Cor. 15). But as we have seen, this is not just how Full Preterism is “built,” it is how traditional, orthodox and “popular” eschatology is built. So let’s move on interacting with what Sam has written here.
Is it scholarly to understand that if Matthew 16:27-28 is the same event as Matthew 24-25 then these passages form the foundation to Pauline and NT eschatology?
D.A Carson wrote the following concerning Matthew 24-25 in the development of NT eschatology:
Fourth, the discourse itself is undoubtedly a source for the Thessalonian Epistles (cf. G. Henry Waterman, “The Sources of Paul’s Teaching on the 2nd Coming of Christ in 1 and 2 Thessalonians,” JETS 18 [1975]: 105–13; David Wenham, “Paul and the Synoptic Apocalypse,” France and Wenham, 2:345–75) and Revelation (cf. Gregory Kimball Beale, “The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John” [Ph.D. diss., Cambridge University, 1980], pp. 260–64, and the literature cited there). If so, then we may say that Jesus himself sets the pattern for the church’s eschatology.[11]
Of the trumpet call and gathering of the elect in Matthew 24:31 he wrote:
The sound of a loud trumpet (cf. Isa 27:13; 1 Cor 15:52; 1 Thess 4:16) is an eschatological figure (see on 24:30). Only with considerable difficulty can v. 31 be interpreted as referring to Christian missions: its natural linguistic relations are in 13:41. For comments on “his elect,” see on 22:14; 24:22. The “four winds” represent the four points of the compass (Ezek 37:9; Dan 8:8; 11:4): the elect are gathered from all over (cf. Mt 8:11), “from one end of the heavens to the other” (from every place under the sky), since that is how far the gospel of the kingdom will have been preached (24:14).[12]
Carson is correct to equate the eschatological coming, gathering and trumpet call of Matt. 24:30-31 with 1 Cor. 15:52 and 1 Thess. 4:16 as the same consummative event. He is also correct to connect the eschatological gathering of Matt. 24:30-31 as being the consummation of the Great Commission in 24:14. But Jesus is not discussing a Great Commission that covers the globe before He would float down on a literal cloud at the end of time, but is rather addressing the world as they knew it or the Roman world. Therefore, Paul taught under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that it had been fulfilled toward the end of their generation (Rom. 10:18; 16:25-26; Col. 1:5-6, 23).

We have examined what THE REFORMATION STUDY BIBLE had to say in connecting Matt. 16:27 with 13:41 and Matt. 24:31/25:31 as the same event and consummation, but let’s see how reformed theologians now connect Jesus’ teaching in the gospel of Matthew with resurrection texts in the NT as Full Preterists do:

“…the language of [Matt. 24:31] is parallel to passages like 13:41; 16:27; 25:31 [already covered], as well as to passages such as 1 Cor. 15:52 and 1 Thess. 4:14-17.”[13]
Since others such as G.K. Beale have produced “parallel” charts as we have, let’s not just revisit the analogy of Scripture principle but also now address these three Scriptures the way we did with Matt. 13:39-43; 16:27-28; 24:30—25:31ff. If A bears some relation to B and B bears the same relation to C, then A bears it to C. Or the property of equality is transitive – for 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 = (Matt. 24:27-31, 34)
B = (1 Thess. 4:15-17)
C = (1 Cor. 15)

In addressing these texts, I will also cover the arbitrary parallel hermeneutics of Partial Preterism. This is also an issue I dealt with in our book (cf. House Divided pp. 107-110), which is a subject Sam has also not dealt with in his “exegesis” of 1 Thess. 4:15-17 on his RCM site either.
G.K. Beale wrote the following of Matthew 24-25 being the same consummative event as 1 Thessalonians 4-5:
“…4:15-17 describe generally the same end-time scenario as 5:1-10. Specifically, Paul narrates the resurrection at the end of the age and then recapitulates in chapter 5 by speaking about the timing of this event and about the judgment on unbelievers, which will happen at the same time. That both 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, as apparent from the chart…”
[“If A (Matt. 24-25) bears some relation to B (1 Thess. 4-5)”]:

	1 Thessalonians	Matthew
Christ returns	4:16	24:30
From heaven	4:16	24:30
Accompanied by angels	4:16	24:31
With a trumpet of God	4:16	24:31
Believers gathered to Christ	4:17	24:31, 40-41
In clouds	4:17	24:30
Time unknown	5:1-2	24:36
Coming like a thief	5:2	24:43
Unbelievers unaware of impending judgment	5:3	24:8
Judgment comes as pain upon an expectant mother	5:3	24:8
Believers not deceived	5:4-5	24:43
Believers to be watchful	5:6	24:37-39
Warning against drunkenness	5:7	24:49

“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” (1Thess.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 1Thess 4:17; see further Waterman 1975).[8]
“…(and although Matthew does not explicitly mention the idea of resurrection, he implies it in the phrase “gather his elect” in 24:31, which implies the gathering of all believers, both living and dead [Marshall 1983: 126]).”[9]
Beale further tightens the connection of 1Thessalonians 4-5 together by demonstrating that chapter 5 is also continuing the theme of the resurrection:
“Within the larger context, 5:9-10 (appointed to receive salvation…so that…we mayh live) provides the basis for being self-controlled 5:8, the main point thus far in 5:8-10. Being self controlled because of the prospect of salvation and resurrection culminates in the goal of 5:1-10 to which Paul has been aiming at throughout: “Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing. The nearest thought sparking this final exhortation to encourage is the just mentioned consummated resurrection existence of God’s people who will join fellowship with the resurrected Christ 5:10. That the phrase we may live in 5:10 alludes to the resurrection of God’s people is borne out by observing the parallels between 5:10-11 and 4:13-18, which show that Paul has returned to the earlier theme of resurrection as the basis for encouragement:

4:13-18	5:10-11
(1) “Jesus died and rose” (4:14)	(1) “he died for us” (5:10)
(2) “the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive…will be caught up together with [hama syn] them. …And so [in this manner of resurrection existence] we will be with the Lord forever” (4:16-17)	(2) “Whether we are awake or asleep [a metaphor for living and deceased saints] we may live together with [hama syn] him” (5:10)
(3) “Therefore encourage each other [parakaleite allelous]” (4:18)	(3) “Therefore encourage one another [parakaleite allelous]” (5:11)[10]

Partial Preterism’s Arbitrary Parallel Hermeneutics in Matt. 24 & 1-2 Thess.

Keith Mathison writes of 1 Thess. 5 in relationship to Matt. 24:
“The language used in 1 Thessalonians 5 is also used in passages describing the coming of Christ for judgment in A.D.70. We have already mentioned that the term “day of the Lord” (5:2) is used in 2Thessalonians 2 in a passage that refers to A.D. 70. Another interesting parallel is found in verse 3, where the coming of this destruction is compared to “birth pangs.” The same phrase is used in Matt. 24:8 to describe the judgments leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.”[14]
Mathison here has no problem paralleling similar “language” and “phrases” in 1 Thessalonians 5 with that of the Olivet Discourse. But did you notice that Mathison dishonestly left out the comparison of Christ coming as a “thief” in (1 Thessalonians 5:2) in paralleling it with the Olivet Discourse? Why? It is Because during the time Mathison wrote this, he incorrectly took Christ coming as a thief in Matthew 24:43 as the alleged end of time (“second section” of the OD) coming, while taking Christ coming as a thief here in 1Thessalonians 5:2, as the A.D. 70 coming. To bring attention to this would be to expose his artificial division and two second comings theory of the Olivet Discourse so he avoids the comparison and hopes no one will notice it.
Gary DeMar does not divide Matt. 24-25 (and now does Mathison) so he doesn’t have a problem in harmonizing Christ coming as a thief in Matthew 24:43 with 1 Thessalonians 5:2 as the same AD 70 coming of the Lord. But let’s examine his “you” argument once again,
“While [the Jews of the first century living in Jerusalem] are saying, “Peace and safety!’ then destruction will come upon them suddenly like birth pangs upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape” (5:3; cf. Matthew 24:15-25). The Thessalonians had been warned of this coming judgment: “But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day should overtake you like a thief” (5:4). Paul had told the Thessalonians that certain indicators were available to them that would prepare them for the “day of the Lord.”[15]
Let’s look at some other examples in developing parallels from Mathison and DeMar between Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 24 with Pauline eschatology in 1-2 Thessalonians:
“Some of these parallels are:
a. a coming of our Lord (2Thess.2:1; cf. Matt.24:27, 30),
b. a gathering together to Him (2Thess. 2:1; cf. Mattt.24:31),
c. apostasy (2Thess. 2:3; cf. Matt. 24:5, 10-12),
d. the mystery of lawlessness (2Thess. 2:7; Matt. 24:12),
e. satanic signs and wonders (2Thess. 2:9-10; cf. Matt. 24:24),
f. a deluding influence on unbelievers (2Thess. 2:11; cf. Matt. 24:5, 24).”[16]
Obviously Mathison has been influenced by DeMar or sources such as Waterman that Beale and Kenneth Gentry have appealed to in 1-2 Thessalonians,
1) 2Thess. 2:1 = Mt. 24:31
2) 2Thess. 2:1-2 = Mt. 24:27,30; Lk.21:27
3) 2Thess. 2:3 = Mt. 24:12; Mk. 13:14
4) 2Thess. 2:4 = Mt. 24:25
5) 2Thess. 2:7 = Mt. 24:12, 15
6) 2Thess. 2:8-12 = Mt. 24:24; Mk. 13:22
7) 2Thess. 2:13 = Mk. 13:27; Lk. 21:8
8) 2Thee. 2:15 = Mk. 13:23,31.”[17]
Interesting enough, Sam has now changed his view on 2 Peter 3 (as he continues his “make it up as he goes” response to FPism) and yet Gary DeMar and Joel McDurmon use parallels between Matthew 24 and 2 Peter 3 to establish that 2 Peter 3 was fulfilled in AD 70!
Gary DeMar or Joel McDurmon and Full Preterism have no problems seeing these parallels:

Matthew 24:9-30 = 1 Peter 1:6-7
Matthew 25:31-46 = 1 Peter 4:4-7, 17/2 Peter 2:4, 9/2 Peter 3
Matthew 24:47; 25:19-23, 46 = 1 Peter 5:1, 4/2 Pet. 3
Luke 17:20-21/21:27-31 = 1 Peter 1:6-9/2 Peter 1:11/2 Peter 3:10-13
Matthew 24:35 = 2 Peter 3:10-13[18]

Gary DeMar is also on record as saying that John’s version of Matthew 24-25 is found in the book of Revelation. I will address these parallels once we cover more of Sam’s argument on what exactly this “rewarding” is in Matthew 16:27. Sam wants to “jump” to Revelation 5 and yet most futurists and Full Preterists go to Revelation 20:5-15 or 22:10-12.
So the issue that Sam has been dishonest with here is that clearly Full Preterism is using the analogy of Scripture principle of interpretation in developing “similar language,” “identical language” or “terms” “parallels” etc…, of passages that arise from the “popular Christian” reformed tradition of exegesis – NOT the novel and “popular”“Left Behind” “exegesis”! But let’s further expose Sam on this alleged parallel (pun intended) approach between who is really building their system with “Left Behind” eschatology motifs.

Sam Frost and “Left Behind” Eschatology

Frost seeks to discredit the Full Preterist view when we use the analogy of Scripture principle of interpretation and point out the “similar language” “identical language” “parallels” etc…, by saying this is what the unscholarly Dispensational pre-tribulation rapture “Left Behind” approach does. And yet obviously I have been appealing to Reformed theologians or other scholars in which they would consider as reputable. A desperate tactic indeed for Frost to use.
But we must go farther in exposing Sam on this false affiliation between Full Preterists and “Left Behind” theology when it comes to the analogy of Scripture or developing parallels etc… It is actually Sam Frost and the Partial Preterist system which has a great deal of similarities with “Left Behind” when it comes to denying paralleling Matthew 16:27/24:30—25:31 with 1 Thessalonians 4. Since both the Partial Preterism and “Left Behind” pre-tribulation rapture folks embrace TWO COMINGS of Christ in the NT (one in AD 70 and one at the end of time / one at the secret “rapture” seven years before the Second Coming), the above parallels destroys both of their systems and thus they both come together in agreement in hopes of shaking these similarities and parallels away because it does not support their two comings theory.[19]
Sam concludes his article with these words,
Always be ready. Keep your wicks trimmed, and oil in your lamps – lest he come and remove his candle.
Frost must be rusty or a novice on his two coming Partial Preterist Postmillennial view. There is NO imminent expectation of the Second Coming for us today per this system! Perhaps Talbot-Sam is getting his eschatology mixed up with the “popular” Left Behind views? The “signs” (so to speak) to take place before this coming can take place (when it is imagined) would include:
1. The nations of the globe need to be Christianized and have no more wars before He returns.
2. Men need to be living up to 900 years old again before He returns.
3. Evidence of lions reverting to herbivores – eating straw with the ox needs to take place before He can return.
4. Evidence of children being able to play with poisonous snakes and not getting hurt needs to be present in the creation before He can return again.
Indeed the science fiction and extreme literal hermeneutic that Frost imposes upon the OT and NT shares many things in common with “Left Behind” folks. Per Postmillennialism this progressive/manifestation of fulfillment in the glorification of the creation is going to take thousands or possibly millions of years to take place before Christ’s “final” coming takes place. Why should Sam be “always ready” or his exhortation to us be something to consider? Per Sam’s eschatology should he be more concerned with progressive lion taming and or genetic research to make men live longer as parts of “the gospel” he espouses? Not only is there no real imminent coming in Matt. 24-25 for us today within Postmillennialism (Sam’s exhortation), the one text he is appealing to here is the one DeMar (his publisher and conference speaker) says he is “certain” took place in AD 70 and is identical to the one found in Mt. 16:27. Go figure!
Now back to Beale and his chart. Frost and other disciples of Dr. Talbot felt as if something was solved with Beale now flirting with some Partial Preterist [from R.T. France] concepts and trying to grapple with Christ promising to return in the clear time reference of “this generation.” While in the futurist paradigm he understands this to be a “thorny problem” for him and no doubt the creedal church which has not been able to solve this within the box they have created:
“The clearest reference to Jesus as the Son of Man from Daniel 7:13 come in the third category (which he identifies as “those that refer to Jesus’ future coming in glory”), where there are quotations of Dan. 7:13 (Matt. 24:30, Mark 13:26, Luke 21:27). However, it is likely better to see most of these third-category references fulfilled not at the very end of history but rather in AD 70 at the destruction of Jerusalem, in which the Son of Man’s coming would be understood as an invisible coming in judgment, using the Roman armies as his agent. The reference in Matt. 25:31 to “the Son of Man” who will “come in His glory” and “sit on His glorious throne” is not a quotation of but rather an allusion to Dan. 7:13-14, which clearly is applied to the very end of the age at Christ’s final coming. If this view is correct, it may be that the AD 70 coming of Christ in judgment as portrayed by the Synoptics is a typological foreshadowing of his final coming in judgment. However, the traditional view that the coming of the Son of Man in the Synoptic eschatological discourse refers to Christ’s final coming certainly is plausible. This issue is a thorny one that still deserves much more study.”[14]
Of course this becomes even more of a “thorny problem” after noting how other futurists such as Gary DeMar are “certain” that the coming of the Son of Man in Matt. 25:31 is not referring to the end of time but is also Christ’s invisible coming in AD 70!
Although not a Full Preterist, it would appear that Colin Brown sees Beale’s “thorny problem” as well in that if Matthew 24:27-31 was fulfilled in Jesus’ “this generation” and Paul is teaching the same event in 1 Thessalonians 4-5, perhaps 1 Thessalonians 4:16 should be interpreted with symbolic apocalyptic language (events that take place within history not at the end of it) as is the case in Matthew 24.
“But if these events were expected within the first generation of Christians (and “generation” is the most probable translation of genea), either Jesus or the evangelists were mistaken…” or “…there is an alternative interpretation of the passage which points out that insufficient attention has been paid to the prophetic language of the passage as a whole.
The imagery of cosmic phenomena is used in the OT to describe this-worldly events and, in particular, historical acts of judgment. The following passages are significant, not least because of their affinities with the present context: Isa. 13:10 (predicting doom on Babylon); Isa. 34:4 (referring to “all the nations”, but especially to Edom); Ezek. 32:7 (concerning Egypt); Amos 8:9 (the Northern Kingdom of Israel); Joel 2:10 (Judah). The cosmic imagery draws attention to the divine dimension of the event in which the judgment of God is enacted. The use of Joel 2:28-32 in Acts 2:15-21 provides an instance of the way in which such prophetic cosmic imagery is applied to historical events in the present (cf. also Lk. 10:18; Jn. 12:31; 1 Thess. 4:16; 2 Pet. 3:10ff.; Rev. 6:12-17; 18:1). Other OT passages relevant to the interpretation of the present context are Isa. 19:1; 27:13; Dn. 7:13; Deut. 30:4; Zech. 2:6; 12:10-14; Mal. 3:1. In view of this, Mk. 13:24-30 may be interpreted as a Son of man will be vindicated. Such prophecy of judgment on Israel in which a judgment took place with the destruction of Jerusalem, the desecration of the Temple and the scattering of Israel – all of which happened within the lifetime of “this generation.” “…Such an interpretation fits the preceding discourse and the introductory remarks of the disciples (Mk. 13:1ff. par.).”[11].
This is the position I take in our book. Therefore, to conclude Carson and Beale’s position of Matthew 24:30-31/1 Thessalonians 4:15-17:

Matthew 24:30 is the final Second Coming event but it also took place invisibly in AD 70.
Matthew 24:31 depicts the resurrection of the dead because the gathering of the elect at the end of the age points back to Matthew 13:39-43 and Daniel’s resurrection in Daniel 12:2-3.
The Second Coming and resurrection described by Jesus as the gathering of all the elect at the end of the age in Matthew 13:39-43/Daniel 12:2-3 and Matthew 24:30-31 is Paul’s source of teaching and the same Second Coming event describe by Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4:15—5:10-11 in which all the dead (living and dead) will be raised together in the kingdom and will thus be together forever with the Lord.

Beale obviously can’t take both positions and remain a futurist. He can’t say that Matthew 24:30-31 is the “final coming in judgment” and is addressing the “resurrection” being the same event as depicted by Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4:15—5:11 and yet also hold that Matthew 24:30 took place in AD 70. It seems to me that Beale seems content (as Gary DeMar is) to have others such as Full Preterists do the “more study” to solve their “thorny problem” while they keep their creedal jobs and financial supporters (see Sam’s comment in House Divided, 228).
“And …B (1 Thess. 4-5) bears the same relation to C (1 Cor. 15)…” or “B=C”:
All agree that B (1 Thess. 4:15-17) bears the same relation to C (1 Cor. 15) or “B=C” and is referring to the second coming and resurrection events:
Those asleep will be raised                            1 Thess. 4:13-14 = 1 Cor. 15:12-18
The living will be “caught up” “changed”   1 Thess. 4:15-17 = 1 Cor. 15:51-52
At the sound of a “trumpet”                          1 Thess. 4:16 = 1 Cor. 15:52
At Christ’s coming (Greek parousia)            1 Thess. 4:15 = 1 Cor. 15:23
“Encourage” “Stand firm”                            1 Thess. 4:18 = 1 Cor. 15:58
Same contemporary audience “we”              1 Thess. 4:15-17 = 1 Cor. 15:51-52

“Then A (Matt. 24) bears it to C (1 Cor. 15)” or “A=C”:

Christ comes (Greek parousia) Matt. 24:27 = 1 Cor. 15:23
To “gather” or “change” His people Matt. 24:31 = 1 Cor. 15:52
With a “trumpet”       Matt. 24:31 = 1 Cor. 15:52
To bring “the end” (Greek telos) Matt. 24:3, 14 = 1 Cor. 15:24
Deliver up & fulfill “kingdom” promises    Luke 21:30-32 = 1 Cor. 15:24
The fulfillment of all OT prophecy    Luke 21:22 = 1 Cor. 15:54-55
Stones of temple & “the Law” destroyed    Matt. 24:1, 15 = 1 Cor. 15:55-56
Same contemporary audience “you” “we” Matt. 24:2…, 34 = 1 Cor. 15:51-52
PREMISE #1: The parousia/coming of Christ in Matthew 24 took place in AD 70 (according to Partial Preterists and Biblical Preterists)
PREMISE #2: The parousia/coming of Christ in Matthew 24 is the same coming of Christ in 1 Thessalonians 4-5 and 1 Corinthians 15 (according to traditional Amillennialists and Biblical Preterists)
The parousia/coming of Christ in 1 Thessalonians 4-5 and 1 Corinthians 15:23-24 took place in AD 70.
Concluding Part 1:
Sam Frost’s attempts to discredit how Full Preterism is “built” using “parallels” “similar” or “identical language” etc…, has completely backfired on him. I have appealed to the “Popular Christian” Reformed views [even DeMar Sam’s new publisher] and my sources for the most part in this article have not been “Left Behind” poor scholarship. Full Preterism is “built” the same way the classic Reformed Amillennial and Partial Preterist systems are “built” up when it comes to using the analogy of Scripture and the use of the analogy of Scripture, parallels, etc… And the facts are that it is Frost who has more in common with the “Left Behind” folks in: 1) denying the parallels between Matt. 24 and 1 Thess. 4 because they both share a faulty two coming theory system in the NT, 2) create some extreme science fiction nonsense/theology based upon a hyper-literal interpretation of certain OT and NT texts, and 3) teach an imminent Second Coming or “rapture” of Christ which is not really imminent.
Sam’s position is so embarrassing and practically nonexistent when it comes to the analogy of Scripture in letting Jesus interpret Himself in Matthew’s gospel on Matt. 16:27-28=13:30-43= 24:30—25:31ff. or in letting Paul interpret Jesus’ teaching in Matt. 16:27-28=Matt. 24-25=1 Thess. 4-5=1 Cor. 15, that he simply couldn’t even mention let alone address these texts or challenges when it comes to giving a proper exegesis of Matt. 16;27-28. I will be covering more passages that Sam cannot deal with in how Jesus’ teaching in Matt. 16:27-28 is develop in the rest of the NT.

[1] Sam Frost, Matthew 16:27-28, http://thereignofchrist.com/matthew-1627-28/

[2] Michael J. Sullivan, Edward Hassertt, David Green, Samuel Frost, House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to When Shall These Things Be?, (Ramona, CA: Vision Publishin, 2009) 95-98.

[3] Michael J. Sullivan, An Exegesis of Matthew 16:27-28, http://www.treeoflifeministries.info/index.php?view=article&catid=35%3Apreterist-eschatology-all-prophecy-fulfilled-by-ad-70&id=56%3Aan-exegesis-of-matthew-1627-28&option=com_content&Itemid=75

[4] Sam Frost, Introduction to Matthew 16:27-28, http://www.restorationgj.com/id50.htm Follow links at bottom of page for the rest of his exegesis – which for the most part is very good. Note how confident and sure Sam was a Full Preterist as you read this article and compare it to how evasive and unsure he is of Matthew 16:27-28’s meaning as a “hard hearted” (his term) Partial Preterist.

[5] R.C. Sproul General Editor, THE REFORMATION STUDY BIBLE (Philipsburg, NJ: Ligonier Ministries, 2005), 1384. Bold emphasis mine.

^{^[6]} Carson, D. A. (1984). Matthew. In F. E. Gaebelein (Ed.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (F. E. Gaebelein, Ed.) (327). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House. Bold emphasis mine.

[7] Sam Frost, Daniel 12:2, http://thereignofchrist.com/daniel-122/

^{^[8]} Morris, L. (1992). The Gospel according to Matthew. The Pillar New Testament Commentary (357). Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press.

^{^[9]} The New King James Version. 1982 (Mt 25:31–46). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

[10] Gary DeMar, Last Days MADNESS Obsession of the Modern Church (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 1999) 200. Bold and underlined emphasis mine.

[11] Carson, D. A. (1984). Matthew. In F. E. Gaebelein (Ed.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (F. E. Gaebelein, Ed.) (489). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House. Emphasis mine.

[12] Carson, Ibid., 506. Emphasis mine.

[13] THE REFORMATION STUDY BIBLE, Ibid., 1401

[14] Keith Mathison, Postmillennialism An Eschatology of Hope, (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1999), 226. Bold emphasis mine.

[15] Gary DeMar, LAST DAYS MADNESS Obsession of the Modern Church, (Atlanta, GA: American Vision, Inc., 1994), 327.

[16] Mathison, Ibid., Postmillenialism, 230.

[17] DeMar, Ibid., 325.

[18] A Full Preterist Response To Joel McDurmon’s Article “The Passing Away of Heaven and Earth in Revelation 20:11 AND 20:1” Part 1 – 2 Peter 3, https://fullpreterism.com/a-full-preterist-response-to-partial-preterist-joel-mcdurmons-article-the-passing-away-of-heaven-and-earth-in-revelation-2011-and-201/

[19] Wayne House, Differences Between 1 Thessalonians 4 and Matthew 24, http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/differences-between-1-thessalonians-4-and-matthew-24. Thomas Ice, Differences Between The Rapture And The Second Coming, http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/differences-between-rapture-and-second-coming

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John’s version of the Olivet discourse can be found in the book of Revelation.
Matthew 25:31-46 is descriptive of Christ coming in the judgment of AD 70.
That Matthew 24-25 can be paralleled to the vast majority of eschatological passages in the NT to prove AD 70 fulfillments and thus disprove Dispensationalism.

Therefore, it is pure eisegesis and a creedal bias which causes Partial Preterism and American Vision writers to avoid making these parallels here! Does not orthodox Christianity and reformed creedal theology claim that Matthew 25:31-46 is a description of the Second Coming and final judgment — connecting it to the same judgment of Revelation 20:10-13?!? As I pointed out in “Part 1” of my response to Joel’s article, these parallels should have been developed but because it would continue to lead American Vision readers into Full Preterism or upset creedal supporters, these parallels were not:
1) Matthew 25:31=Revelation 20:11 — Christ/God on the Throne to Judge.
2) Matthew 24:29, 35=Revelation 20:11 — Heaven and Earth pass/flee.
3) Matthew 25:31/Matthew 16:27=Revelation 20:12 — “all men” “each person” “all Nations” “the rest of the dead” “small and great “according to what they have done.”
4) Matthew 25:41-46=Revelation 20:10, 14-15 — Wicked along with the Devil thrown into Lake of Fire for eternal punishment.
Daniel 12:1-7 and Revelation 20:5-13
Beale also points out that there is no greater influence upon the book of Revelation than that of the book of Daniel. Well, again this is no small problem for Joel McDurmon and American Vision who are now in print as informing their readers that the judgment and resurrection of the dead in Daniel 12:1-7 took place in AD 70. We are told by Partial Preterists that John picks up where Daniel leaves off – and we couldn’t agree more!
Conclusion:
I don’t think it is a huge mystery as to why McDurmon “fled” from mentioning Revelation 16:20 and these other texts and issues in his article on Revelation 20:11 and 21:1. Personally, I tend to believe it was more than sloppy or non-existent exegesis, it was borderline dishonesty or as Frost once wrote “seeking the validation of men” – but I will leave it for the readers to decide. McDurmon has failed on an exegetical level to prove his case that Revelation 20:11 is a text which directly points to a literal de-creation event at the end of history while others such as Revelation 21:1 have a dual/double meaning of fulfillment– 1) AD 70 covenant de-creation and 2) an alleged literal/global de-creation referent.

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

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

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

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

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

By Michael J. Sullivan

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

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

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

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

Response To Joel McDurmon's Article "The Passing Away of Heaven and Earth in Revelation 20:11 AND 20:1” Part 1 – 2 Peter 3

A FULL PRETERIST RESPONSE TO PARTIAL PRETERIST JOEL MCDURMON’S ARTICLE “THE ‘PASSING’ AWAY OF HEAVEN AND EARTH IN REVELATION 20:11 AND 21:1” Part 1 – 2 Peter 3

By: Michael J. Sullivan
We once again turn our attention to the arbitrary hermeneutics of Partial Preterism (PP) in examining an article produced by American Vision’s Joel McDurmon as to why he feels the de-creation of Revelation 20:11 is referring to a future fulfillment of planet earth, whereas 21:1ff. is a spiritual fulfillment referring to a covenantal transition taking place in AD 70.[1] Since in this article McDurmon cites and bids us to read two of his articles on 2 Peter 3, this is where we too will begin – making this a 2 or 3 part series in response. Perhaps the PP confusion over 2 Peter 3 is a good starting point in examining their arbitrary hermeneutics:
· If 2 Peter 3 should be interpreted within the AD 70 contextual flow that 1 Peter and 2 Peter 1-2 give it, shouldn’t this approach be used in Revelation 20:10-15? What of the AD 70 contextual flow of fulfillment in chapters 1-19 leading into chapter 20 or the ones PP give of 21-22 following it? What of the internal parallels between Revelation 16 and 20? Apparently “exegesis” stops with Revelation 20:10-15 for the PP.
· If 2 Peter 3 should be paralleled to Matthew 24-25, why can’t Revelation 20:10-15?
· If 2 Peter 3, Matthew 24:35 and Revelation 21-22 can use Genesis 1 and Isaiah 65 material to be referring to an AD 70 fulfillment or transition between OC and NC worlds/creations, why can’t Revelation 20:11ff.?
· If the “X” of the “elements” of the “world” or “heaven and earth” of (2 Peter 3) is “ONLY” referring to the Old Covenant world and not the planet earth, how does Peter’s prediction also get changed to be referring to the LITERAL elements of the planet earth at the end of history?
· And closely associated with the previous point — how can PP claim Dispensationalists and Amillennialists can’t come to Matthew 24 or the majority of the book of Revelation and state AD 70 was only a “typological” “partial” “mixed” “already not yet” kind of fulfillment, when PP turn around and have to resort to using the same lingo in debating FP? And do many know what many Postmillennialist see as progressively being fulfilled in a literal way in Isaiah 65? Curious indeed.
2 Peter 3:1-15
In McDurmon’s first article The Promise of His Appearing[2] we immediately see two hermeneutical approaches to developing an AD 70 fulfillment for 2 Peter 3. The first, is to parallel eschatological material from 1 and 2 Peter with Matthew 24’s AD 70 “this generation” time frame. The second, is to show how the contextual AD 70 flow of an imminent persecution, appearing of Christ, salvation and judgment from 1 Peter and 2 Peter 1-2 naturally flows into 2 Peter 3. This of course begs the question as to why this hermeneutical approach is not valid when we approach Revelation 20:10-15?
McDurmon points out that 1 and 2 Peter is written to a first century audience who were currently undergoing persecution and tribulation for a “little while” but were comforted by the hope and assurance of an imminent appearing of Jesus (1 Pet. 1:6-7). Joel immediately goes to Matthew 24 to establish that this persecution, tribulation and coming of the Lord is what was predicted by Jesus to take place in their “this generation” (Matt. 24:34).
1 Peter and Matthew 24 Parallels:
· Matthew 24:9-30 = 1 Peter 1:6-7 – First century persecutions, tribulations and sufferings.
Likewise, the book of Revelation was written to 7 first century churches in Asia (Rev. 1-3) who were going through persecution and tribulation but comforted with the promise of an imminent coming of the Lord. These promises are connected to the rewards of an imminent New Creation in Revelation 20-22. These persecutions and trials were predicted in Matthew 24 as well.
Revelation 20:11-15 and Matthew 24 Parallels:
· Matthew 24:9-30, 34 = Revelation 1-3ff. — Fist century persecutions, tribulations and sufferings.
McDurmon also points out that 2 Peter in general, but Peter 3:1 specifically, is written in “remembrance” of what was written about the imminent salvation and judgment which was previously addressed in his first letter,
“…the entire letter of 2 Peter is an exhortation to the same group addressed in the first letter during this same interim time period to continue trusting what they have been previously taught from the prophets, apostles, and especially the promises of Jesus. Peter “reminded” the group of the first message: “remembrance” is his goal in 2 Peter 1:12, 13, and 15, and 3:1. They were to hold to what had been promised and not to be deceived by false prophets and “scoffers” who had in the meantime (between letters) come among them. In both letters, therefore, patience is the key message—and patience toward the same goal and for the same reason.”
McDurmon is correct that Peter’s goal is to “remind” his audience of what he to them in his first letter and that the judgment of the false prophets and teachers of 2 Peter 2 flows well into the judgment of the scoffers in chapter 3. There is a contextual flow leading us into 2 Peter 3 — God was “ready to judge the living and dead” and therefore “the end of all things was at hand” (1 Pet. 4:5-7). It was “THE time” for “THE judgment” (1 Pet. 4:17). God was holding fallen angels and the souls of men for this first century imminent “judgment” or “day of judgment” (2 Pet. 2:4, 9). American Vision’s Gary DeMar along with McDurmon do not believe Matthew 24-25 can be divided into two comings of Jesus and thus two judgments, therefore at the coming of the Son of Man in the judgment of AD 70, the souls of men along with Satan and his angels went away into “eternal punishment” (Matt. 25:31-46).
· Matthew 25:31-46 = 1 Peter 4:4-7, 17/2 Peter 2:4, 9/2 Peter 3
Revelation 20:10-15 The genre of recapitulation found in the book of Revelation served as a memory tool for the first century readers and listeners of the book of Revelation. We will revisit the recapitulation theme throughout the book of Revelation which helps us interpret the imminent time frame of Revelation 20:11-15 later on in part 2 of this series. But I did want to emphasize something very important in that just as McDurmon points out 2 Peter 3 cannot exegetically be isolated from the imminent AD 70 time frame concerning the salvation and judgment throughout the contextual flow of 1 Peter—2 Peter 1-2 leading into 2 Peter 3; Revelation 20:10-15 cannot exegetically be isolated from the imminent AD 70 time frame concerning the salvation and judgment throughout the contextual flow of chapters 1-19 leading into chapter 20 or the imminent AD 70 fulfillments of chapters 21-22! We will be addressing this more in part 2 when we go through the proper hermeneutical and exegetical steps of Revelation 20:10-15 that McDurmon set on the shelf when he wrote that article.
Revelation 20:10-15 Is no different than the teaching of 1 and 2 Peter or that of Jesus in Matthew 24-25 concerning a first century imminent judgment of Satan and his angles along with “the dead.” As usual PP and American Vision specifically, contradict their own hermeneutics and choose to ignore the creeds and the analogy of Scripture that the vast majority of reformed commentators have made here:
Matthew 25:31-46 = Revelation 20:10-15
1) Matthew 25:31=Revelation 20:11 — Christ/God on the Throne to Judge.
2) Matthew 24:29, 35=Revelation 20:11 — Heaven and Earth pass/flee.
3) Matthew 25:31/Matthew 16:27=Revelation 20:12 — “all men” “each person” “all Nations” “the rest of the dead” “small and great “according to what they have done.”
4) Matthew 25:41-46=Revelation 20:10, 14-15 — Wicked along with the Devil thrown into Lake of Fire for eternal punishment.
And we must not forget that the reception of the glorious New Creation at the imminent appearing of Jesus in 2 Peter 3 is a “reminder” of what Peter taught previously — in that they were going to partake in the “glory about to be revealed” and thus be rewarded with the “crown of glory” (1 Pet. 5:1, 4YLT). In Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 24-25 this is equivalent to the faithful servant being rewarded with having charge over his Master’s “possessions” and sharing in His Master’s “happiness” or being rewarded with “eternal life” (Matt. 24:47; 25:19-23, 46). For PP such as Kenneth Gentry and others, the “long time” of (Matt. 24:48; 25:5, 19) and coming of the Son of Man in (Matt. 25:31) is a description of the millennium period and the final Second Coming of Jesus. And yet DeMar and McDurmon posit this “long time” to be within the lifetime and generation of the person in the parable and thus the lifetimes and “this generation” of Jesus’ audience.[3] Once again, both the PPism of Gentry and that of DeMar “lead us to FPism.”
· Matthew 24:47; 25:19-23, 46 = 1 Peter 5:1, 4/2 Pet. 3
Revelation 20:10-15 The first century church at Smyrna was promised that if they endured persecution, that they too would receive “the crown of life” (Rev. 2:10). This reward (along with all of the others described for us in chapters 1-3) would also be received at the imminent Second Coming of Jesus – described as Him coming as “a Thief” (Rev. 3:3, 16:15). In the book of Revelation, the millennium, resurrection and judgment of Revelation 20 is FOLLOWED by the rewarding of the New Creation at Christ’s imminent Second Coming (cf. Rev. 20-22:6-7, 10-12, 20). The first century church received the “crown of life” because their names were written in “the book of life” (Rev. 20:12)! The same first century audience being rewarded with crowns in connection with a first century judgment and Christ coming/appearing as a “Thief,” are the same event.
· Matthew 24:47; 25:19-23, 46 = Revelation 2:10/3:3/16:15/20:12—22:10-12.
Another parallel which McDurmon makes is between Jesus’ teaching concerning His appearing in the judgment of AD 70 using the illustration of what took place in Noah’s day in Luke 17 = 2 Peter 3. Perhaps another observation may be that the realm of fulfillment of the “salvation” which was coming in the New Creation would be “within” or the “salvation of the soul”:
· Luke 17:20-21/21:27-31 = 1 Peter 1:6-9/2 Peter 1:11/2 Peter 3:10-13
McDurmon seems to recognize that the salvation that came from Jesus’ parousia at the end of the OC age in Matthew 24 was more than a physical flight from Jerusalem, but a salvation that affected the soul,
“Not only were they saved in soul, but they mostly fled Jerusalem before the Roman siege.”[4] And Gentry believes that at the Lord’s return in AD 70 the absence of the sea in Revelation 21:1 has to do with “peace within.”[5] This is consistent with when the earth and sky flee, the curse and condemning force of “the [spiritual] death” that came through Adam was thrown into the lake of fire (Rev. 22:14). This is what produces true peace and reconciliation with God and His presence in the New Creation. The book of Revelation never describes a judgment or resurrection of fleshly bodies at the end of history. Rather, it is about the salvation and vindication/judgment for the souls of men and their peace with God in the New Creation.
Let’s now continue in examining McDurmon’s hermeneutical approach in 2 Peter 3 in his article:
New Creation, Adorned[6] Once again Joel appeals to Matthew 24 to interpret and give 2 Peter a Preterist interpretation:
We have established a close connection between Peter’s letters and Jesus’ eschatological predictions. This is particularly true of Matthew 24:34—“this generation”—as we saw. In this context, too, we should emphasize Jesus’ very next words in Matthew 24:35: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” These are obviously connected to the same predictions of Jesus. They also correlate directly to Peter’s “new heavens and a new earth.”
But what did Jesus mean “heaven and earth will pass away”? On the surface, this appears to be merely some kind of figure of speech to emphasize the invincibility of God’s Word compared to even the entire universe; but we should rethink this. Is it not the case, rather, that it is directly connected to the idea of a new heaven and earth about to come in the same time frame as the destruction Jesus just predicted. Indeed, seen from this viewpoint, Jesus was promising the passing of the present heaven and earth and the creation of a new heaven and earth in the lifetime of those listening to Him. And this is exactly the issue which Peter takes up in 2 Peter 3.
This connection is not only thematic, but literary also. Jesus’ word for “pass away” [pareleusetai] is repeated by Peter: “the heavens will pass away [pareleusontai] with a roar.” Peter is again applying the teaching of Jesus for his audience.
And again,
Now the ultimate symbol of the Old Covenant administration—the “present heavens and earth” of 2 Peter 3—was the Jerusalem Temple. Jesus had clearly predicted it would be destroyed, not one block left upon another (Matt. 24:2). James Jordan and Peter Leithart argue that the Temple was a symbolic “creation” of God, an image of “the heavens and the earth,” and I tend to agree.[1] This is why the tabernacle/temple was adorned with beasts, lights, trees, fruit, a sea, etc., and separated from the other heavens by a ceiling (firmament), while a veil (again, a firmament) separated God’s presence in the Holy of Holies from everything else. While I do not have the time to develop this completely, let it suffice to say that God was about to destroy this particular heavens and earth literally, and by extension, the entire covenant world-order associated with it.
Therefore, according to McDurmon:
· Matthew 24:35 = 2 Peter 3:10-13
Like FP and following in the reformed PP tradition of men such as John Owen and John Lightfoot, McDurmon also appeals to the use of the Greek word stoicheia “elements”:
…the translation “heavenly bodies” is not very supportable here anyway. Both times this phrase appears the Greek word is stoicheia, “basics” or “principles.” The KJV actually went with “elements,” but even this is not quite right if understood as physical elements, earthly elements. In the New Testament, the word is used to refer to principles of the covenant order, often of the Old Testament, to which the people should not want to return (Gal. 4:3, 9; Col. 2:8, 20; cf. Heb. 5:12). In one place, a group of Jews uses the verb form specifically to direct Paul to follow Old Covenant rituals (Acts 21:24). In other places, the verb form refers to a basic discipline of living righteously, by the faith, or by the Spirit (Phil. 3:16; Gal. 5:25; 6:16; Rom. 4:12). This is about all the biblical direction we get, and none of it refers to the heavenly bodies or to the physical elements of the world, earth, heavens, or universe. It seems the consistent theme throughout the biblical usage is that of basic principles of religion. Thus it seems that the “heavenly bodies” mentioned in 2 Peter 3 should probably be translated something like the KJV, but understood as a reference to the elements of the Old Covenant order. God was not about to nuke the stars, but He was about to destroy the Old Covenant Temple with all of its special rules, rituals, rites, vessels, and paraphernalia. These basic elements—which Paul calls stoicheia tou kosmou (“elements of the kosmos”)—would be no more.
And let’s again quote and reference that tradition here:
John Owen writes of 2 Peter 3:
“…this is a prophecy of gospel times ONLY; and that the planting of these new heavens is NOTHING BUT the creation of gospel ordinances, to endure forever. The same thing is so expressed, Heb. Xii. 26-28. Let others mock at the threats of Christ’s coming. – he will come, he will not tarry; and then the heavens and earth that God himself planted, – the sun, moon, stars OF THE JUDAICAL POLITY AND CHURCH, – the whole old world of worship and worshippers, that stand out in their obstinacy against the Lord Christ, – shall be sensibly dissolved and destroyed. This, we know, shall be the end of these things, and that shortly.’”[7] And John Lightfoot agrees:
“‘The heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat,’ &c. Compare this with Deut. 32:22, Heb. 12:26: and observe that by elements are understood the Mosaic elements, Gal. 4:9, Col. 2:20: and you will not doubt see that Peter speaks ONLY OF THE CONFLAGRATION OF JERUSALEM, the destruction of the nation, and the abolishing the dispensation of Moses.”[8] But PP such as Gentry getting nervous and realizing he needs to somehow get in line with the reformed confessions contradicts Owen and Lightfoot stating:
The destruction of the heavens and the earth that he envisions involves the current material creation. Hence, it refers to the distant consummation and not the approaching AD 70 conflagration, despite certain similarities between the two events (since one is the type of the other). Peter expressly refers to the material creation order: “from the beginning of creation” (2 Pet. 3:4; cf. Ge 1:1); “by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water” (3:5; cf. Ge 1:2, 9 [n. 112- Ps 33:6-7, Ps 32:6-7].” “He is not contemplating the destruction of the old Jewish order in AD 70, but the material heavens and earth at the second advent.”
“Here Peter is obviously borrowing terminology from Isaiah 65:17 (which speaks of a spiritual reality, see ch. 14). Yet as an inspired apostle he expands on that truth, looking to the ultimate outcome of the spiritual new heavens and earth in an eternal new heavens and earth.”[9] This is “fuzzy eschatology” and reasoning indeed since everyone and their grandmother knows John in Revelation 21:1ff is drawing From Genesis 1-3 and Isaiah 65 and yet there Gentry believes the imminent time texts demands that the first heavens and earth passing away is Israel’s world or the OC world passing in AD 70 giving way to the NC heaven and earth.
McDurmon admits that Peter is using Genesis 1 material but states,
The long story short, here, is that God’s covenantal judgments—however extensive and severe—at different times can delineate different “worlds” before and after, as well as different “heavens and earths” before and after, while not necessarily being understood as literally as possible.” “…Thus there are multiple applications of “world” and of “heavens and earth” which we ignore at our peril.
So according to McDurmon, Gentry has “ignored” the context of 1 Peter and 2 Peter 1-2 (along with Matthew 24) and that although Peter is referring to Genesis 1 material in 2 Peter 3, it is “not necessarily being understood as literally as possible.” Gentry ignores these exegetical arguments to his “peril” in 2 Peter 3. I will argue later on that Mr. McDurmon ignores his own arguments/hermeneutics in Revelation 20:11 and Romans 8:18-23 at his own “peril” as well.
And if you weren’t confused already between reading McDurmon and Gentry on why or why not 2 Peter 3 was fulfilled in AD 70 in light of references being made to Genesis 1 and Isaiah 65, McDurmon goes on:
Most commentators make the connection between this passage and Isaiah 65:17: “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind” (Isa. 65:17). Isaiah’s description which follows of this new heavens and new earth includes the well-kown references to extra-long age (someone dying at 100 years is just a child and considered accursed for living so briefly) and changes in the nature of deadly beasts: “’The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent’s food. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain,’ says the LORD” (Isa. 65:25).
The exact phrase appears again in Isaiah 66:22, and later in the New Testament in Revelation 21:1. Again, I must shorten this study more than I would like:
While 2 Peter 3:13 is definitely related thematically to Isaiah 65, it is a mistake to think that there is an exclusive relationship between the Isaiah passage and any New Testament usage, as if Isaiah were giving a unique prophecy of a unique event in the future, and then Peter and John were announcing the fulfillment of that one predicted event on their horizon (or at any time in the future). It is not that Isaiah announced “X,” and that Peter and John were saying “the time has come for X,” after which time “X” is done and gone. Rather, both texts are partaking of a much larger theological genre which is replayed many times throughout Scripture, and which reappears particularly prominently in these passages. This is to say that while Isaiah 65 is certainly a backdrop to the New Testament references to a new heavens and new earth, it is not the ultimate basis of it.
That ultimate basis is found in Genesis 1.
All this talk of Peter allegedly not saying what he is — that Isaiah 65 “X” is going to be completely fulfilled in an “the end of all things is at hand” time frame, reminds me of Dispensationalists claiming that Peter in Acts 2:16 really wasn’t saying Joel 2 was being fulfilled in his lifetime. According to Dispensationalists such as Merrill F. Unger, “This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel…” should be understood,
“Peter’s phraseology “this is that” means nothing more than “this is [an illustration of that] which was spoken by the prophet Joel. …The reference is solely in an illustrative sense to Jewish listeners at Pentecost. Fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy is still future and awaits Christ’s second coming in glory and a copious spiritual outpouring ushering in kingdom blessing (cf. Zech. 12:10-13:1; Acts 1:6, 7).[10] Since McDurmon understands that 1 Peter 1:4-12, 4:7 is to flow into 2 Peter 3, the “salvation” and “inheritance” contained in the OT “Prophets” which were “ready to be reveled” in the “last time” was that of which Isaiah 65 predicted. There is no mention that the salvation and inheritance of the New Creation of Isaiah 65 was about to be fulfilled in AD 70 only in a “typological,” “thematic,” “illustrative,” “already not yet” way awaiting another “ultimate” “expanded” physical manifestation fulfillment thousands or millions of years away.
This is interesting because PP can’t stand it when Dispensationalists or Amillennialists approach Matthew 24 or the book of Revelation and dismiss their PP AD 70 “fulfillments” by insinuating AD 70 was merely “typological” and “illustrative” of a much greater eschaton for national Israel to be realized in the near future etc…
Let me demonstrate and cite Gary DeMar on double or multiple fulfillments of Matthew 24 (this is taken from Gary’s article, “The Olivet Discourse: The Test of Time” [bold & underline emphasis mine):
“There are still others who take a “double fulfillment” approach. While Jesus is describing events related to the generation alive in His day, the argument is made that He also has in mind a future generation where the same events will happen again. While this approach is appealing, it has innumerable interpretive problems, the most serious being how does anyone know what is being doubly fulfilled if a passage does not say there will be another fulfillment, how to distinguish what prophecies do not fall into the category of double fulfillment, and that there is no evidence from Scripture itself that there have been double fulfillments. The following is taken from “Christ’s Prophecy (Matt. xxiv.) of the Destruction of Jerusalem, and of His Second Coming” and appeared in the Theological and Literary Journal (July 1857-April 1858)::
There are no prophecies in which the event directly and expressly foreshown, is set forth as being also a representative of still another event of a different nature. Of the numerous prophecies that are interpreted in the sacred writings, and that are represented as fulfilled in occurrences that have taken place, there are none that are exhibited by the explanation of their meaning as filling such a double office. The allegorization of the sacred word in that manner, is altogether unauthorized and arbitrary, and occupies itself wholly in the invention of imaginary and false senses.
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: “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (also see Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:32).”
For Gary DeMar and Joel McDurmon, the “heaven and earth” of (Matt. 5:17-18/Matt. 24:29, 35/Rev. 21:1) is Israel’s Old Covenant World which passed away in AD 70 – because the context or imminent time texts demand this. But Gary clearly believes from his citation, that Matthew 24 will not allow for a “mixed approach” or even “future completion” — which includes Matt. 24:29, 35. It is difficult to watch PP proclaim out of both sides of their mouths that Isaiah 65 is the OT source for Matthew 24:35=2 Peter 3:10-13=Rev.21:1ff. and that these passages in essence do and do not have “typological” and “mixed approaches” to fulfillment or do or do not demand a “future completion” beyond AD 70. And is it or is it not right to come to Matthew 24:29, 35 and claim it’s fulfillment happened in AD 70 but it is “…representative of still another event of a different nature [the end/transformation of planet earth]?”
And Gentry in his debate over the book of Revelation, FOUR VIEWS ON THE BOOK OF REVELATION, (Grand Rapids: MI, Zondervan, 1998), 44 and in an article from his web sitehttp://postmillennialism.com/2012/02/double-fulfillment-in-revelation/ does not like it when individuals claim his Revelation 1-19, 21-22 fulfillments have “double fulfillments.” Or he objects to the notion that his AD 70 fulfillments were merely a “good starting place” that did not actually “fill the complete expectation” of the prophetic material in question.
“Some Christians see the strength of the preterist analysis of Revelation. They recognize that it is difficult to get around Revelation’s opening and closely comments regarding the temporal nearness of its prophecies. After all, Revelation 1:1 states rather clearly:
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place.
And Revelation 22:6 closes the book on the same note:
These words are faithful and true”; and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent His angel to show to His bond-servants the things which must soon take place.
Since these statements are so clear and compelling, some believers attempt an end-run around them. They agree that Revelation does in fact point to events that were to occur in John’s lifetime. But then they argue that these events can have double-fulfillment, so that they occur originally in the first century, but will occur again toward the end. For instance, Marvin Pate holds that Revelation “does not imply that Nero filled the complete expectation of the coming antichrist, but, as a precursor to such, he is certainly a good starting place.”1
Three difficulties plague this type of response:
Lack of Exegetical Warrant
First, there is no exegetical warrant for double-fulfillment in Revelation. The statement is pure theological assertion. What is more, this approach not only empties John’s express declarations of meaning (“these things must shortly come to pass“), but it contravenes a specific angelic directive contrasting John’s responsibility to Daniel’s. An angel commands Daniel to “seal up” his prophecy for later times (Dan. 12:4), but commands John (who lives in “the last hour,” 1 John 2:18) to “not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand” (Rev. 22:10).
Stretching of Intellectual
Second, the double-fulfillment argument requires us to believe that the many specific events, things, and personages of Revelation will appear repeatedly on the scene of earth history. In the same order? In the same geographic regions? With continual groupings of 144,000 being sealed? With constant beasts designated by the same number 666? On and on I could go. For example, Pate suggests that “the signs of the times began with Jesus and his generation,” and history witnesses “the coming intensification and culmination of those signs of the times” which begin in the first century.2 Such a position seems to stretch credulity to the breaking point.
The already/not yet theological principle, though valid and widely accepted by evangelicals, cannot govern whole, vast, complex works such as Revelation. The already/not yet principle applies to unitary, simple constructs: the kingdom, salvation, new creation, and so forth. The principle snaps apart when we stretch it over so vast a work as Revelation. Furthermore, how can this principle explain the simultaneous operation in one book of such allegedly global themes operating as judgment (Rev. 6-19) and blessing (Rev. 20-22)? Pate’s use of this principle to explain Revelation seems more hopeful than helpful.3″
So per Gentry, Revelation 21:1ff. was fulfilled kind of sort of in AD 70, but it’s fulfillment was only a “good starting place” that did not actually “fill the complete expectation” of Genesis 1-3/Isaiah 65? And where is the “exegetical warrant” in Matthew 24, 2 Peter 3 or Revelation 21 to give these passages “typological” or “expanded” meanings? Are these not “theological assertions” they are reading into the texts – no more than other futurist systems do? The problem for Gentry is that the NT teaches that the “not yet” to “kingdom,” “salvation” and “new creation” promises would be fulfilled in the first century (Luke 21:27-31; 1 Romans 13:11-12; Peter 1:4-12/2 Peter 3). Therefore, Gentry has to go to passages the Church has traditionally seen as teaching “the not yet” of eschatology – referring to the final Second Coming of Jesus, and then interpose or place ANOTHER “already not yet” period upon the existing “not yet” promises. McDurmon is more consistent than Gentry in that he takes the end of “this age” (as the OC age) and “age to come” (as the NC age) in (Matthew 13:39-43) as having transitioned in AD 70 along with the passing and arrival of the heaven and earth in Matthew 24, 2 Peter 3 and Revelation 21. The reformed creeds place this “not yet” transition between “this age” and the “age to come” (or of 2 Peter 3 and Revelation 21) at the end of history.
And who is Gentry to try and limit the “already and not yet” concept to HIS futuristic camp’s concept of salvation, the kingdom and new creation promises? We’re not these promises given to national Israel through a literal temple, land, Jerusalem, etc…? And Gentry in his “expanded” interpretation of 2 Peter 3 has claimed that AD 70 was “typological.” If it was, then why can’t the Dispensational and Amillennial systems approach and give Matthew 24 (the signs, Jerusalem, the Temple, etc…) and other NT PP prophetic texts their versions of “typological” “mixed” and “already and not yet” future fulfillment’s?!? If Gentry and McDurmon can, why can’t they? After all PPism has their own version of TWO comings of the Lord, TWO judgments and resurrections for the living and dead, etc… Kind of hard for Gentry and other PP to try and take the speck out of the eye of Dispensationalists who see double in these areas, when Gentry won’t take the plank out his own eye which is causing a far worse case of seeing and reading double vision into NT eschatology.
Before concluding I would like to add two brief meditations in the area of hermeneutics and fulfillments when reading PP. The first, is to note that McDurmon in the comments section of his article on Revelation 20:11 and 21:1 states that he does not believe Revelation 21:1 and Isaiah 65 have been “fulfilled.” Why? Well, since Joel McDurmon is a Postmillennialist he believes the long ages and the wolf lying with the lamb and the lion eating straw with the ox in Isaiah 65 is literally and progressively being fulfilled. This is a part of the earth allegedly being progressively glorified or Paradise being restored before their third coming of Jesus takes place thousands or millions of years from now. Apparently if you see anyone living beyond 80 years old, this is evidence of this passage being progressively fulfilled. If you go to a circus and see lions being trained – this too is alleged evidence of this passage being fulfilled right before your very eyes. Wow. So we should begin seeing the biological change and evolution or de-evolution of carnivorous animals changing as the physical curse is gradually being lifted before Christ’s third appearing at the end of history. According to this bizarre hermeneutic, if we throw in a 90 year old naked lion tamer, we should all see the PP Postmillennial progressive fulfillment doctrine at work. This is right up there with the fictional hermeneutics of Dispensationalism and their perverting OT passages according to their “literal” fulfillments. The truth of course is that the long ages and the wolf lying down with the lamb type passages are poetically describing eternal life and the peace that the gospel brings to man in the Kingdom.
The second, is that when PP use parallels to Matthew 24 with NT texts they are trying to demonstrate have been fulfilled in AD 70 (ex. 1 Thess. 5=Matt. 24-25, 2 Thess. 2=Matt. 24, 2 Peter 3=Matt. 24), they expect their readers to consider it as exegesis, but when FP do it they are accused of using an over-simplified “code.” When these parallels destroy their creedal views of the new creation and resurrection (ex. 1 Thess. 4:15-17=Matt. 24:30-31; Rev. 20:10-15=Matt. 24-25:31-46) this is supposed to just be “similar language” or “patterns” but not the same event! But of course the classical reformed Amillennial view make the same parallels and identifications as we do in these passages — hardly something unique to a FP hermeneutic. The truth of course is that PPism and especially McDurmon and DeMar of American Vision have painted themselves into a corner and are trying to be as honest with the time texts and not get the rod from “Mother Church” at the same time. In doing so, they have to abandon their own hermeneutics and the analogy of Scripture.
Conclusion:
My purpose in this article was to briefly examine and cite the confused and inconsistent hermeneutical standards and approaches within Partial Preterism in interpreting 2 Peter 3. But more specifically to address the more than inconsistent (hypocritical “seems” to me) hermeneutics that Joel McDurmon and Gary DeMar of American Vision employ in establishing AD 70 fulfillments of Matthew 24, 2 Peter 3 and Revelation 21:1ff. and yet ignore “at their peril” in Revelation 20:10-15 and Romans 8:18-23 — with these two later texts being our focus in parts 2 and 3 of this series. In those articles we will allow the PP AD 70 fulfillment contextual flow of Revelation 1-19 and 21-22 to interpret Revelation 20:10-15. We will also use the PP and orthodox hermeneutic and parallel Revelation 20:10-15 with Matthew 24-25. We will also make parallels between Daniel 7 and 12 with Revelation 20:10-15 to establish an AD 70 fulfillment. In looking at the “creation” in Romans 8, we will take a look at DeMar’s admission that the Greek word mello in (Romans 8:18YLT) should be translated as “about to be revealed” and connect this imminent time frame with the “redemption” of Luke 21 and what DeMar has to say of a Preterist fulfillment of Romans 11 and 13:11-12.
As we will see, neither the OT nor the NT teaches an end/transformation of the planet earth. And since new creation and resurrection promises go hand in hand, the Bible does not teach a transformation of every human corpse that has ever lived at the “end of history” either. The NT teaches these OT promises of resurrection and new creation would be fulfilled at the end of the Old Covenant age and thus they were “about to be” or would “shortly” be fulfilled by AD 70. Partial Preterists such as McDurmon have gone “beyond what is written” and have sought (willingly or not) to make null and void the teachings of Christ and the NT in order to uphold his/their creedal traditions. Selah.
[1] Joel McDurmon, The ‘Passing’ Away of Heaven and Earth in Revelation 20:11 and 21:1
[2] Joel McDurmon, The Promise of His Appearing (2 Peter 3), http://americanvision.org/5523/the-promise-of-his-appearing-2-peter-3/
[3] Gary DeMar, Last Days MADNES Obsession of the Modern Church, (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 1999), read the entire chapter pp. 189-201.
[4] Joel McDurmon, Jesus v. Jerusalem A COMMENTARY ON LUKE 9:51- 20;26, JESUS’ LAWSUIT AGAINST ISRAEL, (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, Inc., 2011), 49.
[5] Kenneth L. Gentry, FOUR VIEWS ON THE BOOK OF REVELATION, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 89.
[6] Joel McDurmon, New Creation, Adorned http://americanvision.org/5526/a-new-creation-adorned/
[7] John Owen, The Works of John Owen (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Publications, 1972), Vol. 9, pp. 134-135. Emphasis MJS
[8] John Lightfoot, Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003), Vol. 3, p. 452. Emphasis MJS.
[9] Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, (Draper, VA: Apologetics Group, 2009), 305. Bold emphasis MJS.
[10] Merrill F. Unger, New Testament Teaching on Tongues (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1971), 26.

The ABC’s of Matthew 24-25=1 Thessalonians 4-5=1 Corinthians 15 Embracing the Organic Development of Full Preterist Synthesis Or the Myth of Orthodox “Unity” on the “Essentials” – You Decide

The ABC’s of Matthew 24-25=1 Thessalonians 4-5=1 Corinthians 15

Embracing the Organic Development of Full Preterist Synthesis

Or the Myth of Orthodox “Unity” on the “Essentials” – You Decide

By Michael J. Sullivan
Copyright 2009 – revised and expanded 2013

Since this article is by far one of my most popular ones and has helped so many people come out of their journey from reformed Amillennialism and Partial Preterism into Full Preterism, I decided to add a section at the end which further demonstrates how Full Preterism synthesizes and is the organic development of the two reformed competing views on many eschatological subjects and key texts — all the while exposing the myth that these two views can somehow be “united” in the alleged future “essentials” of eschatology. For footnotes of what I say about each view – one should get a copy of our book, House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to When Shall These Things Be?.
Hermeneutics is defined as “the study or science of interpreting the Scriptures.” The Westminster Confession of Faith correctly states that, “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.”[1] J.I. Packer understands this to mean “that we must give ourselves in Bible study to following out the unities, cross-references and topical links which Scripture provides.”[2]
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. Or the property of equality is transitive – for 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 = (Matt. 24:27-31, 34)
B = (1 Thess. 4:15-17)
C = (1 Cor. 15)

THE CURRENT CONTRADICTION & DIVIDED HOUSE OF FUTURISM WITHOUT FULL PRETERISM:

Orthodox Reformed Partial Preterism (ex. R.C. Sproul, Kenneth Gentry, Gary DeMar, Keith Mathison, etc…) Teaches the Church That:
A (Matt. 24:27-31) was fulfilled when Christ returned in AD 70 in Jesus’ “this generation” (Matt. 24:34). For the Partial Preterist Jesus’ statement of “this generation” (AD 30-70) connected with the NT’s imminent time texts “at hand,” “shortly,” “soon,” “quickly,” “in a very little while,” “about to,” also refer to an AD 70 fulfillment (cf. Romans 13:11-12; 1 Peter 4:5-7; James 5:7-9; Hebrews 8:13–10:37; Revelation 1:1, 3:11, 10:6-7, 22:6-7, 10-12, 20) and are the “speak more clearly” texts. We agree with them on this point. While ignoring the “clear” proposition of Biblical Preterism and traditional Amillennialism that A (Matt. 24:27-31) is equal to B (1 Thess. 4:15-17), they do affirm that both B (1 Thess. 4:15-17) and C (1 Cor. 15) are equal to each other and are the Second Coming and resurrection events.
Orthodox Reformed Classic & Creedal Amillennialism Teaches the Church That:
A (Matt. 24:27-31) = B (1 Thess. 4:15-17) and that both A (Matt. 24:27-31) and B (1 Thess. 4:15-17) = C (1 Cor. 15). For example the very Reformed Study Bible in which Partial Preterists R.C. Sproul and Keith Mathison are editors we learn this from an Amillennialist contributor concerning Matt. 24:29-31:
“But the language of Matt. 24:31 is parallel to passages like 13:41; 16:27; and 25:31 [passages Partial Preterists say were fulfilled in AD 70], 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.”[3]
Luther, Calvin and even the WCF itself affirms that Matt. 24:30-31/Luke 21:27-28 is the Second Coming event. While ignoring the “clear” proposition of Biblical and Partial Preterism on Jesus’ use of “this generation” and the imminent time texts, the traditional Amilennialist sees that the analogy of Scripture and the fact that the NT only teaches ONE second coming (not a third) is the hermeneutical “speak more clearly” teaching of Scripture. We agree with them on this proposition as well.

THE BETTER HERMENEUITCS, LOGIC & SYNTHESIS OF BIBLICAL OR FULL PRETERISM

Orthodox (“straight”) Biblical Preterism Objects To The Combined Contradictory Statements In That If…
A (Matt. 24:27-31) was fulfilled in AD 70, and if A (Matt. 24:27-31) is equal to both B (1 Thess. 4:15-17) and C (1 Cor. 15), then both B (1 Thess. 4:15-17) and C (1 Cor. 15) were fulfilled at Christ’s parousia in AD 70. In other words, “Things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another. If equals be added to equals, the wholes are equal.”
“If A (Matt. 24:27-43) bears some relation to B (1 Thess. 4:15 – 1 Thess. 5)” or “A=B”:
If A (Matt. 24) is = to B (1 Thess. 4-5) and B (1 Thess. 4) is = to C (1 Cor. 15) Then A (Matt. 24) is = to C (1 Cor. 15)

Since A (Mat. 24) = B (1 Thess. 4)
Christ Returns from Heaven			24:30			4:16
With Voice of Arch Angel			24:31			4:16
With Trumpet of God			24:31			4:16
Caught/Gathered Together with/to Christ			24:31			4:17
“Meet” the Lord in the Clouds			24:30 & 25:6			4:17
Exact Time Unknown			24:36			5:1-2
Christ Comes as a Thief			24:43			5:2
Unbelievers Caught Off Guard			24:37-39			5:3
Time of Birth Pangs			24:8			5:3
Believers Not Deceived			24:43			5:4-5
Believers to Be Watchful			24:42			5:6
Exhorted to Sobriety			24:49			5:7
Son/Sunlight Shinning From E. to W. / Sons of the Day			24:27, 36, & 38			5:4-8
And B (1 Thess. 4) = C (1 Cor. 15)
The Sleeping to Be Raised			4:13-14			15:12-18
The Living to Be aught/Changed			4:15-17			15:51-52
Christ’s Coming (Greek: Parousia)			4:15			15:23
At the Sound of the Trumpet			4:16			15:52
Encouraged to Stand Firm			4:18			15:58
Same Contemporary “We”			4:15-17			15:51-52
Then A (Matt. 24) = C (1 Cor. 15)
Christ to Come (Greek: Parousia)			24:27				15:23
His People to Be Gathered/Changed			24:31				15:52
To Come with the Sound of a Trumpet			24:31				15:52
To Be “The End” (Greek telos, the goal)			24:3, 14				15:24
Kingdom Consummation (goal reached)			Luke 21:30-32				15:24
All Prophecy Fulfilled at This Point			Luke 21:22				15:54-55
Victory over the Law/Temple			Mat. 24:1				15:55-56
Same Contemporary “We”			Mat. 24:2ff				15:51-52
*Two or More Things that Are Equal to Another Thing Are Also Equal to Each Other. Matthew 24 1 Thessalonians 4 1 Corinthians 15*
At His Coming (24:27-31)	=	At His Coming (4:16)		=	At His Coming (15:23)
At the Trumpet (24:31)	=	At the Trumpet (4:16)		=	At the Trumpet (15:52)
Dead Raised, All Gathered (24:31)	=	Dead Raised (4:16)		=	Dead Raised (15:35-44)
All Living Gathered (24:31)	=	Living Caught Together to Him (4:17)		=	Status of Living Changed (15:51)

PREMISE #1: The parousia/coming of Christ in Matthew 24 took place in AD 70 (according to partial preterists and Biblical preterists)
PREMISE #2: The parousia/coming of Christ in Matthew 24 is the same coming of Christ in 1 Thessalonians 4-5 and 1 Corinthians 15 (according to traditional amillennialists and Biblical preterists)
CONCLUSION: The parousia/coming of Christ in 1 Thessalonians 4-5 and 1 Corinthians 15 took place in AD 70.
Preterists unite these two clear premises from both groups:
1. Partial Preterism – The imminent time texts concerning the parousia of Christ, judgment/resurrection of the dead = AD 70 and…
2. Classical Amillennialism – The analogy of Scripture supports only one NT “hope” of a Second Coming/judgment/resurrection of the living and dead.
Therefore, we “…speak more clearly” and consistently in our debate with futurists. The divided corporate Reformed “House” contains the two premises (which we assume are true) and we are simply uniting the two valid premises into one new House. We’re validating the Reformed and Sovereign Grace House by accepting both of it’s competing premises, and then uniting them, further honoring the Reformed and Sovereign Grace House. This has and will continue to appeal to Reformed and Sovereign Grace believers as Biblical preterism spreads throughout their churches.   We are making a motion to revise the creeds to make them more “orthodox” (straight) with the “more clear” teaching of Scripture–“Sola Scriptura” and “Semper Reformanda”–selah.
If A = B and B = C, then A = C. Things which are equal to the same thing are equal to each other.
A (Matt. 24:27-31, 34 fulfilled in AD 70) = B (1 Thess. 4:15-17 fulfilled in AD 70) = C (1 Cor. 15 fulfilled in AD 70).
Again, I couldn’t agree more with the editors and authors of THE REFORMATION STUDY BIBLE:
1) (Matthew 24:27-31, 34) is descriptive of Christ’s invisible parousia taking place in Jesus’ “this [AD 30 – AD 70] generation” and…
2) Matthew 24:27-31 “Most naturally refers to the Second Coming” and is “parallel” to or the same event as developed by the Apostle Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 and 1 Corinthians 15:52.
Synthesis or “Reformed and always reforming”: Thus the inevitable conclusion is that the Full Preterist view is both “Orthodox” and “Reformed” – Selah. It is exciting to see (through emails and phone calls) that students of Reformed eschatology are properly learning their ABC’s of Biblical prophecy through Full Preterism and how our view is “Bridging the Gap” between the two futurist contradictory and competing views of Partial Preterism and classic Amillennialism.
Article Expansion
Although originally this article focused on how only the Full Preterism can harmonize what reformed eschatology has taught and is teaching on Matthew 24/1 Thessalonians 4-5/1 Corinthians 15, I would like to expand this now to other eschatological subjects and key texts. I also want to turn my attention on exposing the “reformed” myth that reformed eschatology can be united on the future (to us) “essentials of eschatology.”
The Last Days

1)      Classic Amillennialism – The NT’s use of the “latter or last days” refers to the time of Christ’s first coming and extends to His one eschatological end time event of “the parousia” / Second Coming.
2)      Partial Preterism – The NT’s use of the “latter or last days” was a period roughly from AD 30 – AD 70 which closed the Old Covenant age (Gary DeMar & Joel McDurmon).
3)      Full Preterism (Synthesis / “Reformed and always reforming”) – The NT’s use of the “latter or last days” refers to the time of Christ’s first coming and extends to His one eschatological end time event of “the parousia” / Second Coming which was a period roughly from AD 30 – AD 70 which closed the Old Covenant age.
“This age” and “the age to come”
1)      Classic Amillennialism – The NT’s use of “this age” is the New Covenant Christian age and the “age to come” is when the one consummative end time event of “the parousia” / Second Coming, resurrection and judgment of the living and dead and arrival of the new creation takes place.
2)      Partial Preterism – The NT’s use of “this age” was the then current Old Covenant age and the use of “the age to come” was the imminent arrival of the New Covenant or Christian age in AD 70 (Gary DeMar & Joel McDurmon).
3)      Full Preterism (Synthesis / “Reformed and always reforming”) – The NT’s use of “this age” is the Old Covenant age and the “age to come” is the New Covenant age at which time the one imminent consummative end time event of “the parousia” / Second Coming, resurrection and judgment of the living and dead and arrival of the new creation took place in AD 70.
The Resurrection and Judgment of the living and dead
1)      Classic Amillennialism – There is only one end time consummative eschatological resurrection and judgment of the living dead event which takes place at the one “the parousia” at the “end of the age.”
2)      Partial Preterism – There was a judgment and resurrection of the living and dead at “the parousia” in AD 70 at “the end of the [Old Covenant] age” in AD 70. This resurrection of the dead was:

Spiritual and unseen.
Corporate and covenantal.
Of souls taken out of Abraham’s Bosom/Hades to receive eternal life in God’s presence (James Jordan).

3) Full Preterism (Synthesis / “Reformed and always reforming”) – There is only one end time consummative eschatological resurrection and judgment of the living dead event which takes place at the one “the parousia” at the “end of the [Old Covenant] age” in AD 70. This resurrection of the dead was:

Spiritual and unseen.
Corporate and covenantal.
Of souls taken out of Abraham’s Bosom/Hades to receive eternal life in God’s presence.

Seeing Christ coming on the clouds at His Second Appearing (Acts 1:9-11; Matthew 24:30; Revelation 1:7 and Hebrews 9:26-28)
1)      Classic Amillennialism – The one and final visible bodily Second Appearing/Coming of Christ is described for us again in (Acts 1:11; Matthew 24:30;Revelation 1:7 and Hebrews 9:26-28). He returns literally on the clouds at the end of the age(s) and we will see Him with our literal eyes. Hebrews 9:26-28 is describing Christ’s appearing as our High Priest to finish and complete salvation for the Church.
2)      Partial Preterism – The “seeing” of Christ in the Greek of (Matthew 24:30 and Revelation 1:7) means to “understand” or “perceive.” Through the events of AD 66 – AD 70 when Christ came in power through the Zealot and Roman armies they “saw” “perceived” or “understood” that He had “already” come (Mark 8:38-9:1). It is not hermeneutically valid to separate the coming of Christ in Acts 1:11 from His coming in Matthew 24:30 and Revelation 1:7. They are the same coming and took place in AD 70. It is also true that hermeneutically / exegetically / logically that Christ’s appearing / coming a “second time” in Hebrews 9:26-28 is Him appearing at the end of the Old Covenant age(s) in AD 70 (Milton Terry). Hebrews 9:26-28 is describing Christ’s appearing as our High Priest to finish and complete salvation for the Church.
3)      Full Preterism (Synthesis / “Reformed and always reforming”) – The “seeing” of Christ in the Greek of (Matthew 24:30 and Revelation 1:7) means to “understand” or “perceive.” Through the events of AD 66 – AD 70 when Christ came in power through the Zealot and Roman armies they “saw” “perceived” or “understood” that He had “already” come (Mark 8:38-9:1). It is not hermeneutically valid to separate the coming of Christ in Acts 1:11 from His coming in Matthew 24:30 and Revelation 1:7. They are one and the same coming of Christ and took place in AD 70. It is also true that hermeneutically / exegetically / logically that Christ’s appearing / coming a “second time” in Hebrews 9:26-28 is describing Him appearing at the end of the Old Covenant age(s) in AD 70 and corresponds to the same coming described in the next chapter that would be “in a very little while” and would “not be delayed” (Heb. 10:37). Hebrews 9:26-28 is also describing Christ’s appearing as our High Priest to finish and complete salvation for the Church.
The Millennium
1)      Classic Amillennialism – The thousand years of Revelation 20 is a symbolic period of time which does not have to be a very long time. It is a period extending from Christ’s first coming to His one eschatological end time “the parousia” / Second Coming to close “this age” and judge and raise the rest of the dead. The WCF confirms that the coming of Christ throughout the book of Revelation is indeed His Second Coming. Revelation 20 recapitulates or is parallel to the same judgment scene depicted in Revelation 1-19 and 21-22.
2)      Partial Preterism – The thousand years of Revelation 20 is a symbolic period of time ending with the Second Coming of Christ and was or very possibly was from AD 30 – AD 70 (Sam Frost). Revelation 20 does in fact “pick up where Daniel leaves off” in Daniel 12:1-7, 13 with Daniel himself being raised out of Abraham’s Bosom/Hades inheriting eternal life and enjoying God’s presence (James Jordan). The book of Revelation is John’s version of the Matthew 24-25 which cannot be divided and refers to Christ’s coming in AD 70 (Gary DeMar). The only coming of Christ mentioned in the book of Revelation is imminent and therefore refers to His coming invisibly in AD 70 to judge Old Covenant Jerusalem/Babylon/The Great City. Revelation is written in a recapitulation or parallel structure, with chapters 1-19 (and some of 20) and 21-22 being fulfilled in AD 70.
3)      Full Preterism (Synthesis / “Reformed and always reforming”) – The thousand years of Revelation 20 is a symbolic period of time which does not have to be a very long time and is therefore from AD 30 – AD 70 extending from Christ’s first coming to His one eschatological end time “the parousia” / Second Coming to close “this age” and judge of   one eschatological end time Second Coming to close “this age” and judge and raise the rest of the dead. The coming of Christ throughout the book of Revelation is imminent and is His actual Second Coming. Revelation 20 does in fact “pick up where Daniel leaves off” in Daniel 12:1-7, 13 with Daniel himself being raised out of Abraham’s Bosom/Hades inheriting eternal life and enjoying God’s presence. The book of Revelation is John’s version of the Matthew 24-25 which cannot be divided and refers to Christ’s coming in AD 70. Revelation 20 recapitulates or is parallel to the same judgment scene depicted in Revelation 1-19 and 21-22.
The “groaning of creation” and the passing/fleeing of the old heavens and earth and the arrival of the new heavens and new earth (Isaiah 65-66; 2 Peter 3 & Revelation 21-22)
1)      Classic Amillennialism – There is one consummative eschatological end time passing and fleeing of the “elements” of the first heavens and earth and arrival of the new heavens and new earth and it arrives at the one “Day of the Lord” “the parousia” or Second Coming of Christ in the NT to close the end of the age. There is no exegetical evidence to support two passings of the heavens and earth and arrival of a new heavens and a new earth in 2 Peter 3 or in Revelation 21-22. These passages are clearly describing the fulfillment and restoration of Genesis 1-3. Romans 8:18-23 is one unit and is also describing the fulfillment and restoration of Genesis 1-3 and the resurrection of the dead. And “salvation” in (Romans 13:11-12) is the “redemption” of (Romans 8:23) and the same final “redemption” described by Jesus in (Luke 21:27-28).
2)      Partial Preterism – There was a covenantal passing of the “elements” of the “first” heavens and earth and a spiritual and unseen arrival of the new heavens and new earth at Christ’s “the parousia” to close “the end of the [Old Covenant] age” in AD 70. The Day of Lord or “the parousia” caused the passing of the Old Covenant “elements” in (2 Peter 3) and this coming and de-creation “only” refers to AD 70. Romans 8:18 is describing the glory that was “about to be” (cf. Young’s Literal Translation) revealed “in” the first century believers in AD 70 (Gary DeMar). The “creation” (Gk. kitisis) here is not referring to planet earth but to the creation of people as in (Mark 16:15/Colossians 1:23) (John Lightfoot). The “bondage,” “futility” and “decay” here is not discussing the second law of thermodynamics of the planet, but rather man groaning under sin in the heart and mind (John Lightfoot).
3)      Full Preterism (Synthesis / “Reformed and always reforming”) – There is one consummative eschatological end time passing and fleeing of the “elements” of the “first” heavens and earth and arrival of the new heavens and a new earth and it arrives at the one “Day of the Lord” “the parousia” or Second Coming of Christ in the NT to close the end of the [Old Covenant] age in AD 70. There is no exegetical evidence to support two passing(s) or two fleeing(s) of the heavens and earth and arrival of a new heavens and a new earth in 2 Peter 3 or in Revelation 21-22. These passages are clearly describing the fulfillment and restoration of Genesis 1-3 and were fulfilled by AD 70. Romans 8:18-23 is one unit and is also describing the fulfillment and restoration of Genesis 1-3 and the resurrection of the dead. Romans 8:18-23 is describing the glory that was “about to be” (cf. Young’s Literal Translation) revealed “in” the first century believers and the Church by AD 70. The “creation” (Gk. kitisis) here is not referring to planet earth but the creation of people as in (Mark 16:15/Colossians 1:23). The “bondage,” “futility” and “decay” here is not discussing the second law of thermodynamics, but rather man groaning under sin in the heart and mind. The “salvation” in (Romans 13:11-12) is the “redemption of the body”(Romans 8:23) and the same final “redemption” described by Jesus at His Second Coming in (Luke 21:27-28) and were all eschatological events that were “near,” “at hand” and “about to be” fulfilled in Jesus’ contemporary “this generation.”
The Olivet discourse Matthew 24-25; Luke 21 Mark 13
1)      Classic Amillennialism – Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 24-25 helps us understand all of the key eschatological themes (Second Coming/judgment and resurrection/passing of creation) developed in the rest of the NT (ex. 1-2 Thessalonians; 1 Corinthians 15; 2 Peter 3; Romans 8:18-23, 13:11-12, 16:20 and the Book of Revelation).
2)      Partial Preterism – Matthew 24-25 cannot be divided and the disciples question regarding the Temple’s destruction, His coming and the end of the age is referring to Christ’s invisible coming to close the Old Covenant age and “nothing else.” One cannot “double fulfill” it’s content (Gary DeMar).
3)      Full Preterism (Synthesis / “Reformed and always reforming”) – Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 24-25 helps us understand all of the key eschatological events (Second Coming/judgment and resurrection/de-creation and passing of creation) developed in the rest of the NT (ex. 1-2 Thessalonians; 1 Corinthians 15; 2 Peter 3 and the Book of Revelation). Matthew 24-25 cannot be divided and is referring to Christ’s invisible coming to close the Old Covenant age and “nothing else.” One cannot “double fulfill” it’s content.
Indeed I could produce ABC charts here (as I have elsewhere on my sites) of the Olivet discourse with all of the main eschatological texts in the NT – 2 Peter 3, Revelation 20, etc…, just as I have with 1 Thessalonians 4-5 and 1 Corinthians 15.

Conclusion

As one can plainly see the assertion that reformed orthodox eschatology is and can be united concerning the following:

The seeing of Christ on the clouds (the Second Coming) at the end of the last days or end of the age(s)…
The judgment and resurrection of the dead at the end of the last days and end of the age(s)…
The liberation of creation and arrival of the New at the end of the last days or end of the age(s)…

…is nothing but a pure myth as long as the classic Amillennial position holds to the NT’s “one hope” “the [one] parousia” of Christ is future and the Partial Preterist view says it happened in AD 70. As long as AD 70 is the “X factor” in all of these crucial eschatolocial passages and and it continues to be “orthodox” and the creedal Amillennial view affirms they are one and the same “end of the age” event, the ONLY way to harmonize the two is with the Full Preterist view. This is how I came to the Full Preterist view – by comparing Scripture with Scripture (Matt. 24-25=1Thess. 4-5) and realizing the classic Amillennial view and Partial Preterist views were teaching (no matter if they realized it or not) that Christ’s ONE Second Coming happened in the First Century ie. AD 70.
Both the Amillennialist and the Postmillennial Partial Preterist claim that if Full Preterism is true then the Holy Spirit failed in guiding the Church in truth. And yet if this is the case, this begs the question as to which “truth” did the Holy Spirit guide the Church in Amillennialism or Partial Preterism? Does the Holy Spirit contradict Himself? The truth of course is that this is not an either or choice between the two competing views since as I have demonstrated they are both right and yet at the same time both wrong. The Holy Spirit is guiding the Church through Full Preterism as it unites the two views. The truth has always been with us, it just hasn’t been put together correctly because of all of the in-fighting between the two and their upholding the reformed creeds as if they have the same authority as the Bible (tradition over Scripture). And answering a foolish argument according to its folly – are they willing to say that the Holy Spirit failed to lead the Church on the issue of forensic justification for 1500 years prior to Luther? Do they forget that the Roman Catholic Church and John Eck pointed out that Luther had to be wrong because he was teaching something totally new that had not been taught by the Church Fathers prior to him?!?
When will the Partial Preterist and the classic Amillennialist stop shooting at each other and writing the IVP 3-4 view type books (without Full Preterism being allowed to present the truth)? The Partial Preterist view fires away at the Amillennial and Premillennial Dispensational views by arguing that they come dangerously close to denying the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible in their handling of the imminent time texts or their approaches to them are more akin to liberal treatments (DeMar & Sproul). The Amillennialist fires back that the Partial Preterist is denying the reformed creeds (and shouldn’t be considered “reformed”) ripping asunder texts which are united through the analogy of Scripture principle of interpretation. Wouldn’t it be more constructive for these two groups to humbly sit down at the table with Full Preterists to discuss the creedal position that the creeds are not infallible (as were the previous creeds they radically reformed) and thus really are subject to Scripture and change on eschatology — and that if both the classical Amillennialial and Partial Preterist views are true, then Full Preterism is true! The day will come and it is inevitable – it is just a matter of when.

[1] Westminster Confession of Faith, I. ix.

[2] J.I. Packer, The Interpretation of Scripture, from ‘Fundamentalism’ and the Word of God (Inter-Varsity Press, 1958), pp. 101-114. http://www.bible-researcher.com/packer1.html

[3] THE REFORMATION STUDY BIBLE, R.C. Sproul General Editor, (Orlando: FL, Ligonier Ministries) 1401.

[4] If we translate astrape in Matthew 24:27 as a “bright light” from the sun (instead of lightning) coming from the east and shining to the west, then this parallel that I have seen is also possible.