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:

  1. Do you believe in a future bodily, glorious return of Christ?
  2. Do you believe in a future physical, general resurrection of the dead?
  3. 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 13:4116:27; 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 1st 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

(NEW BOOK) ARMAGEDDON DECEPTION EXPOSED – A CHRISTIAN FULL PRETERIST BIBLICAL RESPONSE TO THE IMMINENT HOLY LAND HOLY WAR ESCHATOLOGY OF ISLAM, ISRAELI ZIONISM AND EVANGELICAL ZIONISM

TO VIEW THIS BOOK BETTER DOWNLOAD THE PDF FILE HERE:

Armageddon Deception Book Final Draft Sept 7-print edition 7×10-with additions-2-final

Copyright 2020 Michael J. Sullivan – thank you for your Christian integrity in advance.

  By Michael James Sullivan

 

ABOUT THE COVER

 

We live in a day where our presidents and politicians are highly influenced and manipulated by Israeli Zionism, Islam and Christian Dispensational Zionism to make political decisions which will allegedly usher in an end-time holy war or coming (first or second) messianic figure; thus the devil is sitting on President Trump’s shoulders and whispering in his ears. Only a correct and exegetical understanding of the first century imminent time frame and spiritual nature of Christ’s Second Coming and arrival of His “kingdom of Heaven” (the golden missing puzzle piece) can expose, correct and reverse the alleged inevitable and supposedly imminent “Armageddon Deception,” or the “Gog and Magog Deception” present in all three of these systems. It is only then that we can truly begin to bring peace to the Middle East.

 

IN GRATITUDE

 

I wish to express my everlasting gratitude to my beloved wife, Denise, whose patience and longsuffering toward me and loving support in writing this volume has meant the world to me.

This book would have never come to fruition without Pastor David Curtis of Berean Bible Church inviting me to speak at one of our annual conferences where I lectured on the contents of this book. I had so many people over the years tell me that those lectures and subsequent articles needed to be turned into a book, so here it is.

Special thanks to Jeff McCormack in his labors on the cover design work and to Adam Maarschalk for his meticulous editing. It’s a blessing to have Full Preterist Christians gifted in these areas.

 

PREFACE

 

CHAPTER ONE

Islam – an Eschatology of Violence:  Holy Land, a “Very Soon” Second Coming of Jesus and End Time Holy War to Destroy the Infidels (Jews, Christians, etc.)

 

CHAPTER TWO

Talmudic or Messianic Zionism:  Holy Land, an Imminent Messianic Deliverer and Holy War to Enslave or Destroy the Gentiles (Islam, Christians, etc.)

 

CHAPTER THREE

Evangelical Zionism:  Holy Land, a “Very Soon” Second Coming of Jesus to “Rapture” the Church and Start a Holy War to Destroy the Sinners (Islam, Jews, etc.)

 

CHAPTER FOUR

The Christian Full Preterist Solution:  Believers in Messiah/Jesus Are God’s New Covenant Sacred Space – the Kingdom is Now         “Within” and “in Christ,” Not “in the Land”

 

CHAPTER FIVE

The Christian Full Preterist Solution:  The “Big Three” (Mt. 10:22-23; Mt. 16:27-28 & Mt. 24:34) – Jesus Promised that His Second Coming and the End of the Old Covenant Age/World Would Occur in the Lifetime and Generation of the First Century Church—Promise Fulfilled by AD 70

 

CHAPTER SIX

The Christian Full Preterist Solution:  The End of the Old Covenant Age Battle of Armageddon / Gog and Magog Fulfilled AD 67 – AD 70

 

CHAPTER SEVEN

How was the Resurrection Fulfilled by AD 70?

 

CHAPTER EIGHT

How was the “Rapture” Fulfilled by AD 70?

 

CHAPTER NINE

How did Jesus Come “In Like Manner” in AD 70?

 

CHAPTER TEN

How was the Millennium Fulfilled Between AD 27 – AD 67?

 

CHAPTER ELEVEN

How is the Promise of No More Death, Pain and Tears Fulfilled?

 

CHAPTER TWELVE

How to Evangelize Muslims, Zionists and/or Reach Evangelical Zionists from Their Own Sources of Authority.

 

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

Pentecostal and Charismatic Zionists and their Conflicting or False Prophecy – the Miraculous Sign and Revelatory Gifts Ceased in AD 70!

 

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

Liberal Pacifism Refuted and Just War Theory Defended from Scripture!

 

CONCLUSION

Identifying the Enemies and Putting Together a Christian Patriot Party Platform and Foreign Policy in the Middle East

 

APPENDIX

A). The Roman Catholic Church, Sacred Space and Holy War Eschatology

 

B).  Two Full Preterist Movie Proposals:  1). AD 70 and 2).  Armageddon Conspiracy.

 

PREFACE

 

“The war of ideas” = “The war of theology or eschatology”

 

Everyone looking at the conflict in the Middle East realizes that while engaging militarily at times is necessary, the ultimate solution will have to come from another area. Therefore, many see the various conflicting religious theologies or forms of eschatology (study of prophecy) fueling these areas as being solved ultimately through a “war of ideas.”  What they mean by this is really a “war of theology/eschatology” that needs to change the hearts and minds within these areas before lasting peace can emerge.

 

The problem summarized 

 

Unfortunately, these three futurist eschatological systems of Islam, Israeli or Talmudic Zionism and Evangelical Zionism all share common errors that perpetuate conflict in the Middle East and the U.S. such as:

 

  • God allegedly has predicted for our generation to see end time “signs” that are allegedly being fulfilled right before our eyes today such as natural disasters, wars, and an imminent arrival of an evil ruler or “Antichrist”, “man of lawlessness,” etc. As we will see, many read their Quran, Talmud/Torah and NT through the lens of current events and news headlines.

 

  • God allegedly will cause the evil ruler’s religious system to overcome others or inherit certain local “holy land” areas and ultimately the earth, while the other groups are exterminated or end up serving their god or even them in some way.

 

  • There is an alleged future but imminent “end time” great war (e.g. the battle of Gog and Magog or Armageddon) for us to experience in which their religion will win over the other wicked ones.

 

  • God allegedly will send Jesus or Messiah to save Israel (or to condemn Israel, according to the Islamic view), bringing global peace, defeating the antichrist and infidels, and thus ushering in some kind of paradise or kingdom on earth.

 

But what if it can be proven that these Biblical “end time” signs and “holy war” scenarios have already been fulfilled and that the OT and NT predicted a “new” and spiritual kingdom to be established within the hearts of His people rather than the establishment of a physical earthly paradise on earth?

 

What if it can be proven according to Allah’s “revelations” that Muhammad was a false prophet, and thus the Quran is not a revelation from God?  What if it can be proven from their own Islamic sources that the Old and New Testaments could not be corrupted and that they do contradict the Quran?  Where does this leave and lead the Muslim when he or she is commanded to go to the “people of the book” (Christians) to test and judge if the Quran is accurate and/or consistent with the Bible?

 

And for the Zionist, what if all of the land promises were actually fulfilled in the OT and therefore the modern state of Israel is a non-starter?  What if the OT prophetic material concerning Israel being saved or gathered “in the land” was also typological, pointing to a greater and spiritual fulfillment in the prophesied coming new covenant that would be realized “in Christ”?

 

Therefore, does the God of the Bible really support or recognize modern day Israel as “God’s people”?  Is modern day Israel and the events of 1948 or 1967 a “super sign” of fulfilled Bible prophecy, or was it simply formed and funded by the Rothschild dynasty and Khazarian mafia which seeks to globally enslave the Gentiles through monetary means using modern Israel as one of many places to conduct some of its affairs?

 

How many passages in the OT and NT have they and Evangelical Zionists claimed were fulfilled in 1948 or 1967 that are grossly taken out of context in order to back and support their false and manipulative religious/political systems?

 

Are Christians in the U.S. supposed to support modern day Israel in their theft and violence because God will allegedly “bless” us if we do?  Are some Evangelical Zionists such as C.I. Scofield and John Hagee correct to condemn Christians as being in “sin” if we don’t support the modern Israeli agenda?

 

Is it just possible that modern day Israel is simply another unbelieving nation, among many others, that needs the gospel and to be held accountable for their land agreements with the Palestinians?

 

What if it can be proven from Jewish sources prior to Jesus and after AD 70 that Messiah would be divine and had to have arrived even upon the clouds of heaven before the second Temple fell in AD 70?  What if I can show Jews that their own sources of authority teach that a spiritual resurrection and spiritual fulfillment of the Temple promises were to be fulfilled by AD 70?

 

And what if I can prove to the Evangelical Zionist that both the OT and NT teach that a Messianic kingdom and temple would be fulfilled spiritually and “within” the believer, and that they don’t teach that a physical or earthly kingdom or temple will be set up in modern Jerusalem?  And what if I can prove these to be true not only from the Scriptures, but from the teachings of the orthodox Christian Church?

 

What if I can prove to the Evangelical Zionist that the “rapture” of 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 is not a promise made to them whereby they are going to disappear from planet earth just before things get really bad here on earth?  If I can prove this passage was fulfilled by AD 70 and the Christian Church will never be raptured off the planet, would this affect the way the Church lives, should be involved in politics, and ought to develop long-term strategies to take back our country and fight against wicked globalism?  If I can do this, perhaps we can awaken the Evangelical sleeping giant from the mentality that says, “You don’t polish brass on a sinking ship.”

 

What are we to make of the Charismatic Evangelical Zionist movement that brings false prophecies in the name of God concerning the Second Coming and the activities of our politicians and even our Presidents?  Did the gift of prophet and prophecy in the OT and NT contain error or was the prophet to be 100% accurate?  Did the office of prophet and the miraculous gifts of prophecy, tongues and knowledge stop or cease in AD 70?  If so, what are we to make of all the false, failed and often times conflicting “prophecies” arising from the Charismatic Zionist churches?

 

The solution summarized

 

These are all very important questions when analyzing these three “end time” religious systems and trying to find an effective “war of ideas” that can bring as much peace as is possible among them.  Therefore, let me answer some of these questions and give the reader my propositions and solutions from the outset. The rest of this volume is designed to prove my propositions:

 

  • Imminent Time of Fulfillment: Jesus predicted that His Second Coming, the end of the (old covenant) age, and all of the signs described in Matthew 24-25 would be fulfilled (and were “near”) within His contemporary “this generation” and He kept that promise (Matthew 24:34; see also Matthew 10:22-23 and Matthew 16:27-28). Therefore, the NT inspired authors who were “reminded” and “led into truth concerning things to come” like their Master also taught (as their generation was ending) that Christ’s Second Coming was “at hand”, “near”, “soon,” and was “about to be” fulfilled “in a very little while and will not delay” (ex. Rms. 13:11-12; Jms. 5:7-9; 1 Pet. 4:5-7; Heb. 10:37; Rev. 1:1—22:7, 10, 20).

 

Jesus and the NT authors are consistent with OT prophets who used common apocalyptic language filled with metaphors and symbolism.  When God came on the clouds in the OT and there was de-creation language, He came through an invading army and caused the nations being judged to have their civil and religious worlds come to an end.  In the Olivet Discourse Jesus prophesied that the age or world (heaven and earth) of the old covenant system would end in His generation.  Neither Jesus nor any NT author predicted that the end of world history was “near” or “soon” to take place.

 

  • Sacred Space: Under the Old Covenant there was a literal “in the land” militaristic kingdom or theology, but this served as prophetic types and shadows of Jesus’ spiritual kingdom or being “in Christ” under the new covenant which now advances through the sword of the Spirit or the everlasting gospel.  However, this does not lead to pacifism, as I will discuss in a later chapter.

 

The events of 1948 have nothing to do with the fulfillment of Bible prophecy, contrary to the empty claims of Zionism in its various forms.  Neither modern-day Judaism nor Islam has any religious right to “holy land” in the Middle East or the planet today.

 

The Bible does not support a Messianic Kingdom or paradise on earth.  Jesus taught that when He would be revealed from heaven like the sun shining from the east to the west, His Kingdom would not be seen with one’s eyes, but rather would be realized “within the heart of a person” (Lk. 17:20-37).  It is more than ironic that people refer to Islam, Talmudic Zionism, and Evangelical Zionism as the “three Abrahamic faiths.”  This is odd since Hebrews makes it abundantly clear that Abraham’s faith was not in an earthly country or city but a spiritual or heavenly one, “For we have not here an abiding city [a city named Jerusalem on earth], but we are seeking the one [city / New Jerusalem] about to [‘mello’ in Greek] come” (Heb. 11:10-16; 13:14).  This is consistent with the “Jerusalem from above” being the new covenant (Gal. 4:26) which Revelation teaches is the New Jerusalem which was in the process of coming down and did “shortly” arrive in AD 70 when the earthly Jerusalem/Babylon was destroyed (Rev. 1:1; 3:12; 22:7, 10, 20 NIV).

 

  • The End of the Age War: The battle of “Gog and Magog,” or “Armageddon” was prophesied to be fulfilled within a 3 ½ year period, and “shortly” or “soon,” and this took place during the Roman-Jewish War of AD 67 – AD 70, resulting in the temple being destroyed. This was also the time “when the power of the holy people would be completely destroyed,” thus marking the end of the old covenant age (Lk. 21:20-32; Rev. 11; Dan. 12:4-7).

 

  • The Office of Prophet & Prophecy: I will prove from the OT and NT that the office of prophet and the miraculous gift of prophecy “stopped” or “ceased” when the Temple was destroyed in AD 70 at the “soon” Second Coming of Christ (Dan. 9:24-27; 1 Cor. 13:8-12; Rev. 22:4-7, 10, 20).  This obviously is relevant in our discussion with Islam since because Muhammad couldn’t be “God’s prophet” when that office and revelation ceased in AD 70.  It is also relevant since many Charismatic Zionists surround President Trump and give false and failed “prophecies” on almost a daily basis, which creates much concern.  If a President has a “prophet” or “prophetess” as his council and wants WWIII to take place so they can be “raptured,” – “Houston we have a problem.”

 

Outline and Approach to the Solution

 

My approach is twofold:  First, I will develop what each of these three systems teach concerning sacred space and an imminent Second Coming of Jesus the Messiah to usher in an end-time holy war.  Secondly, I will demonstrate how these overlapping prophetic concepts have either been proven to be false and failed predictions, or are in conflict with what the Bible actually teaches.

 

I should also note that since Islam says that Jesus never claimed to be God and rejects the Deity of Christ, and since modern Jews claim that a divine Messiah is nowhere taught in the Torah or in their rabbinic traditions, I will deal with this subject in much detail as well.  It is not sufficient to tear down a false religion, but one must do so while pointing the person to the truth and when possible do it even through their own sources of authority.

 

I will now begin to make my case proving that all of my propositions above are in fact true, and therefore make a truly Biblical and common-sense case which will achieve more peace in the Middle East than is present today.

 

I dedicate this book to President Trump who did not listen to many who wanted to lure us into the “endless wars” in the Middle East.  In fact, not only did he not listen to the enticements of Islam, Israel and Evangelicals to engage in war in the Middle East, but he made peace deals.  My work is simply a theological treatise which can be used for Christian politicians and presidents to take peace in the Middle East to the next level and provide a platform for “Christian Patriots” to take back this great country!

TO VIEW THIS BOOK BETTER DOWNLOAD THE PDF FILE HERE:

Armageddon Deception Book Final Draft Sept 7-print edition 7×10-with additions-2-final

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your time.

In Christ,

Michael Sullivan

My Response to Jeff Durbin’s Podcast:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now compare Romans 5-13 with 1 Corinthians 15:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

James White on the Olivet Discourse

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

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

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

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

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

The Apologia Church Confession of Faith

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

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

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

Psalm 110 / Hebrews 10 / 1 Corinthians 15

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

Harmonizing Luke 21 and Matthew 24-25

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

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

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

Matthew 8:10-12:

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

Gentry writes,

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

Strengths:

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

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

Weaknesses:

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

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

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

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

D.A. Carson writes,

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

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

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

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

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

Strengths:

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

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

Weaknesses:

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

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

Matthew 22:1-14:

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

Joel McDurmon writes of verses 2-7,

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

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

Strengths:

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

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

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

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

Weaknesses:

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

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

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

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

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

Matthew 25:1-13

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

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

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

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

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

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

Context of Isaiah 25:6-9

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

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

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

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

Context of Isaiah 65:12-14

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

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

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

Putting it All Together “Bridging the Gap”

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

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

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

If A bears some relation to B…

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

…and B bears the same relation to C,…

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

…then A bears it to C.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus nor the NT writers ever predicted the end of the planet earth as is simply assumed by so many here in Matthew 24:3, 29, 35 and elsewhere in the NT. When we take a combined look at some of the best theologians within the Reformed and Evangelical communities, we find a preterist interpretation of virtually every eschatological de-creation prophecy in the Bible. Combined, John Owen, John Locke, John Lightfoot, John Brown, R.C. Sproul, Gary DeMar, Kenneth Gentry, James Jordan, Peter Leithart, Keith Mathison, Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis, Hank Hanegraaff, and N.T. Wright teach that the passing away of heaven and earth (Matt. 5:17–18; 24:3, 29, 35; 1 Cor. 7:31; II Peter 3; I Jn. 2:17–18; Rev. 21:1) refers to the destruction of the temple or to the civil and religious worlds of men—either Jews or Gentiles; and that the rulers of the old covenant system or world, along with the temple, were the “sun, moon, and stars,” which made up the “heaven and earth” of the world that perished in AD 70. (John Owen, The Works of John Owen, 16 vols. (London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1965–68), 9:134–135. John Lightfoot, Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica: Matthew – 1 Corinthians, 4 vols. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, [1859], 1989), 3:452, 454. John Brown, Discourses and Sayings of our Lord, 3 vols. (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, [1852] 1990), 1:170. John Locke, The Clarendon Edition of the Works of John Locke: A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St Paul Volume 2, (NY: Oxford University Press, 1987), 617–618. R.C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: BakerBooks, 1998). Kenneth Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion (Tyler TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1992), 363–365. Kenneth Gentry (contributing author), Four Views on the Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1998), 89. Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church (Powder Springs: GA, 1999), 68–74, 141–154, 191–192. James B. Jordan, Through New Eyes Developing a Biblical View of the World (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, 1998), 269–279. Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis (contributing author) Eschatology in Bible & Theology (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 1997), 145–169. Peter J. Leithart, The Promise of His Appearing: An Exposition of Second Peter (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2004). Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1999), 114, 157–158. N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996), 345–346. N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003), 645, n.42. Hank Hanegraaff, The Apocalypse Code (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2007), 84–86. C. Jonathin Seraiah, The End of All Things: A Defense of the Future (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2002).

These interpretations are, individually considered, “orthodox.” Yet when Full Preterists consolidate the most defensible elements of Reformed and Evangelical eschatology, anti-preterists unite in opposition to even some of their own statedviews. The Full Preterist combines the two competing “orthodox” views on the coming of the Lord and de-creation of Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 24-25 to form a consistently exegetical and historical position:

CLASSIC AMILLENNIAL VIEW: The coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 24-25 is the ONE second coming event as is the de-creation spoken of here.

PARTIAL PRETERIST VIEW: The coming of the Son of Man happened spiritually and the end of age, de-creation of verses 3, 29 and 35 are descriptive of the passing of the old covenant creation/age and the establishing the new by AD 70.

SOVEREIGN GRACE FULL PRETERIST VIEW (Synthesis/”CONSISTENCY”of above views – “Reformed and always reforming”): The coming of the Son of Man is the ONE second coming event (as is the de-creation spoken of in verses 3, 29, 35) whereby Christ came spiritually to end the old covenant creation/age in the events of AD 66 – AD 70 and establish the new.

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

Revelation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6).  Consider the following:

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

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

7).  Consider the following:

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

2). Logical fallacies, scare tactics and misrepresentations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

e). You claim Full Preterists are “angry”

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

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

f). Lack of godliness

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

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

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

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

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

h). The charge of “gnosticism”

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

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

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

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

David Green answers this charge of gnosticism in our book,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m ready to debate when you are Jeff:

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

Still in progress…

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

We are continuing our series observing how Christian (futurist) apologists to Muslims haven’t been able to deal with Muslims stealing liberal and Bible skeptic arguments concerning how an imminent (and in their view “failed”) Second Coming in the NT overthrows Jesus’ claims to be divine and a faithful prophet. As we have noticed, James White didn’t even TOUCH the issue in his debate with Shabir Ally and even Partial Preterists such as Anthony Rogers and Sam Shamoun are scrambling and incompetent to give a consistent exegetical answer to him.
Our series continues in Matthew 24 (critiquing White’s sermons on the passage & the various Reformed Partial Preterist views) with emphasis in this article being on the meaning of “this generation” and if Matthew 24-25 can be divided up into two sections or two comings of the Son of Man – one in AD 70 and another future end of world history coming.
“This Generation”
Not surprisingly, James White flies by on what the meaning of “this generation” is in (Matt. 24:34) in his Sunday School lessons to his Church. All he really says is that some have tried to teach that it means, “the race of Jews will not pass away until all these things have been fulfilled” and that this is a view he “wouldn’t feel comfortable defending in a debate.” But then again I don’t think White is competent or comfortable doing any kind of “debate” in Matthew 24 something I am challenging him on – Selah. So what is his view?  I don’t know because he doesn’t say. But he sure doesn’t even remotely touch what the “all these things” are in (Matt. 24:34) that would be fulfilled in Jesus’ “this generation” (as he avoided in his debate with Shabir Ally) because contextually he knows that would be the signs, the end of the age, and His coming in the previous and immediate verses/context. Mr. White apparently isn’t available for doing any real exegesis (mocking Dispensationalism yes, irrelevant “rabbit trails” yes, but actual exegesis of the passage, no). So sad. Let’s provide the Christian public and members of White’s Church with a real exegesis of our passage.
Lexical evidence
The Thayer Greek-English Lexicon and Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words defines genea here in Matthew 24:34 (and in the other relevant passages), as Jesus addressing His Jewish contemporary generation (AD 30-70) and therefore is the subject of the prophetic pronouncement,
the whole multitude of men living at the same time: Mt.xxiv. 34; Mk. xiii. 30; Lk. i. 48; xxi. 32; Phil. ii. 15; used esp. of the Jewish race living at one and the same period: Mt. xi. 16; xii. 39, 41 sq. 45; xvi. 4; xxiii.36; Mk. Viii. 12, 38; Lk. Xi. 29 sq. 32, 50 sq.; xvii. 36; Heb. iii. 10…” “…who can describe the wickedness of the present generation, Acts viii. 33 (fr. Is. Liii. 8 Sept.).”[1]
“…of the whole multitude of men living at the same time, Matt. 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 1:48; 21:32; Phil. 2:15, and especially of those of the Jewish people to the time in which they lived, the world came to mean age, i.e., a period ordinarily occupied by each successive generation, say, of thirty or forty years, Acts 14:16; 15:21; Eph. 3:5; Col. 1:26; see also, e.g., Gen. 15:16.”[2]
Although somewhat inconsistent, the most impressive Greek work and interpretation I have come across thus far comes from Collin Brown,
“In Matt. it has the sense of this generation, and according to the first evangelist, Jesus expected the end of this age (Time, art. aion) to occur in connection with the judgment on Jerusalem at the end of that first generation (see Mk. 9:1 and Matt. 16:28).”[3]
And again,
“But if these events were expected within the first generation of Christians (and “generation” is the most probable translation of genea), either Jesus or the evangelists were mistaken…” or “…there is an alternative interpretation of the passage which points out that insufficient attention has been paid to the prophetic language of the passage as a whole.
The imagery of cosmic phenomena is used in the OT to describe this-worldly events and, in particular, historical acts of judgment. The following passages are significant, not least because of their affinities with the present context: Isa. 13:10 (predicting doom on Babylon); Isa. 34:4 (referring to “all the nations”, but especially to Edom); Ezek. 32:7 (concerning Egypt); Amos 8:9 (the Northern Kingdom of Israel); Joel 2:10 (Judah). The cosmic imagery draws attention to the divine dimension of the event in which the judgment of God is enacted. The use of Joel 2:28-32 in Acts 2:15-21 provides an instance of the way in which such prophetic cosmic imagery is applied to historical events in the present (cf. also Lk. 10:18; Jn. 12:31; 1 Thess. 4:16; 2 Pet. 3:10ff.; Rev. 6:12-17; 18:1). Other OT passages relevant to the interpretation of the present context are Isa. 19:1; 27:13; Dn. 7:13; Deut. 30:4; Zech. 2:6; 12:10-14; Mal. 3:1. In view of this, Mk. 13:24-30 may be interpreted as a Son of man will be vindicated. Such prophecy of judgment on Israel in which a judgment took place with the destruction of Jerusalem, the desecration of the  Temple and the scattering of Israel – all of which happened within the  lifetime of “this generation.” “…Such an interpretation fits the preceding discourse and the introductory remarks of the disciples (Mk. 13:1ff. par.).”[4] (Brown, Ibid., 38-39).
Brown is at least attempting to allow the Bible to interpret itself.  And if I’m not mistaken, he seems to be consenting that the “rapture” or resurrection passage of 1 Thessalonians 4:16 can been seen as fulfilled by the “historical event” of AD 70 just as the language of Matthew 24 can or should be interpreted.  Unfortunately, Brown was inconsistent in interpreting 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 elsewhere in his writings with a Preterist or using an OT apocalyptic/figurative “in history” (not at the end of history) hermeneutic. I will provide the consistent hermeneutic of apocalyptic language pointing to AD 70 between Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 4-5 in another article in this series.
Relevant Translations
Other translations that understand the meaning of Jesus’ words here translate Matthew 24:34:
“Remember that all these things will happen before the people now living have all died.” (Matt. 24:34 GNT – cf. Matt. 16:27-28)
“Don’t take this lightly. I’m not just saying this for some future generation, but for all of you. This age continues until all these things take place.” (Matt. 24:34 The Message)
“I tell you the truth, all these things will happen while the people of this time are still living.” (Matt. 24:34 NCV – cf. Matt. 16:27-28)
Matthew 24:34 and its context is unequivocally clear. Jesus promises that “ALL” of the “THINGS” the disciples previously asked about and that He just got done answering/teaching on (the destruction of the Temple, with the end of it’s OC “age,” the signs, and His coming) would be fulfilled in their AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation.” The very FACT that as that AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation” was ending, the NT posits Christ’s Second Coming as “near,” soon,” “at hand,” etc…, IS further overwhelming evidence that this how the inspired NT authors understood Jesus’ teaching here in Matthew 24! This is an obvious point that James White didn’t want to address to his Church (because it would violate the London Baptist 1689 Confession of Faith) and one he didn’t want to respond to in his debate with Shabir Ally over NT imminence!
Division Theories Considered
Although I have focused a great deal of attention on James White’s interpretation of Matthew 24, I will now be focusing more on various Partial Preterist views and that of Sam Shamoun and Anthony Rogers. Remember, White’s embarrassing neglect to deal with Shabir Ally’s points on NT imminence is the reason (I believe) Shamoun posted Anthony Rogers Partial Preterist response to Shabir Ally (http://answeringislam.net/authors/rogers/rebuttals/ally.html). This being the case, I have to point out once again that Rogers (conveniently) unfinished article stops right around Matthew 24:34-36 – begging the question as to if Anthony Rogers (and Shamoun) believe Matthew 24-25 is describing one coming of Christ upon the clouds in AD 70 (the view of DeMar, McDurmon, Mathison, etc…) or if the Olivet Discourse is divided up having two comings – one in AD 70 and one at the end of history (the view of Kenneth Gentry)? This is indeed where the “rubber meets the road” so to speak and these men aren’t really dealing with the exegetical issues that would or would not address Shabir Ally’s points concerning Jesus’ and the NT’s teaching on imminence.
“Heaven and earth will pass away”
So far we have found contextual and grammatical reasons to interpret the “end of the age” as the old covenant age in vs. 3, the stars falling from the heavens in vs. 29 to be the religious and civil rulers falling from their places of power when Jerusalem and her Temple was destroyed in AD 70, but what of verse 35 which addresses the “heaven and earth” passing away?  Surely that is referring to the end of planet earth and a possible switch of subject in Jesus’ teaching?  Once again there is contextual and a historical hermeneutic within the Christian church that understands the phrase “heaven and earth” to be referring to the old covenant heaven and earth and its temple as such – and not to planet earth.
G.K. Beale’s research indicates,
“…that ‘heaven and earth’ in the Old Testament may sometimes be a way of referring to Jerusalem or its temple, for which ‘Jerusalem’ is a metonymy.”[5] Reformed theologian John Brown in identifying the passing of “heaven and earth” in Matthew 5:18 writes:
“But a person at all familiar with the phraseology of the Old Testament Scriptures, knows that the dissolution of the Mosaic economy, and the establishment of the Christian, is often spoken of as the removing of the old earth and heavens, and the creation of a new earth and new heavens.”[6] (John Brown, Discourses and Sayings of Our Lord (Edinburg: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1990 [1852]), 1:170).
Commentators are correct to identify the “heaven and earth” of (Matthew 5:18) as the “heaven and earth” of (Matthew 24:35), but the context of both point us to the old covenant system and not the planet earth passing by AD 70. According to Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5:17-18 if heaven and earth have not passed away, then we are currently under all of the “jots and tittles” of the old covenant law.
And now specifically of the passing of heaven and earth here in our text, Evangelical Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis makes the following comments on Mark 13:31/Matthew 24:35:
“The temple was far more than the point at which heaven and earth met. Rather, it was thought to correspond to, represent, or, in some sense, to be ‘heaven and earth’ in its totality.” And “. . . [T]he principal reference of “heaven and earth” is the temple centered cosmology of second-temple Judaism which included the belief that the temple is heaven and earth in microcosm. Mark 13[:31] and Matthew 5:18 refer then to the destruction of the temple as a passing away of an old cosmology.[7]
Some Partial Preterists such as Kenneth Gentry make a distinction between Matthew 24:3-34 being fulfilled in AD 70 and Jesus allegedly switching into a discussion about the end of planet earth based upon Jesus discussing the passing of “heaven and earth” in v. 35. This is odd indeed since Gentry takes the de-creation language in v. 29 as referring to the old covenant rulers and system passing in AD 70. Gentry’s Partial Preterist colleague Gary DeMar takes v. 29 the same way but believes v. 35 simply re-iterates the same AD 70 fulfillment and quotes Gentry’s favorite Partial Preterist John Lightfoot for support:
“Jesus does not change subjects when He assures the disciples that “heaven and earth will pass away.” Rather, He merely affirms His prior predictions which are recorded in Matthew 24:29-31.”[8]
“The darkening of the sun and moon and the falling of the stars, coupled with the shaking of the heavens (24:29), are more descriptive ways of saying that “heaven and earth will pass away” (24:35).”[9]
Jesus nor the NT writers ever predicted the end of the planet earth as is simply assumed by so many here in Matthew 24:3, 29, 35 and elsewhere in the NT. When we take a combined look at some of the best theologians within the Reformed and Evangelical communities, we find a preterist interpretation of virtually every eschatological de-creation prophecy in the Bible. Combined, men such as John Owen, John Locke, John Lightfoot, John Brown, R.C. Sproul, Gary DeMar, Kenneth Gentry, James Jordan, Peter Leithart, Keith Mathison, Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis, Hank Hanegraaff, and N.T. Wright teach that the passing away of heaven and earth (Matt. 5:17–18; 24:3, 29, 35; 1 Cor. 7:31; II Peter 3; I Jn. 2:17–18; Rev. 21:1) refers to the destruction of the temple or to the civil and religious worlds of men—either Jews or Gentiles; and that the rulers of the old covenant system or world, along with the temple, were the “sun, moon, and stars,” which made up the “heaven and earth” of the world that perished in AD 70.[10] (John Owen, The Works of John Owen, 16 vols. (London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1965–68), 9:134–135. John Lightfoot, Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica: Matthew – 1 Corinthians, 4 vols. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, [1859], 1989), 3:452, 454. John Brown, Discourses and Sayings of our Lord, 3 vols. (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, [1852] 1990), 1:170. John Locke, The Clarendon Edition of the Works of John Locke: A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St Paul Volume 2, (NY: Oxford University Press, 1987), 617–618. R.C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998). Kenneth Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion (Tyler TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1992), 363–365. Kenneth Gentry (contributing author), Four Views on the Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1998), 89. Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church (Powder Springs: GA, 1999), 68–74, 141–154, 191–192. James B. Jordan, Through New Eyes Developing a Biblical View of the World (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, 1998), 269–279. Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis (contributing author) Eschatology in Bible & Theology (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 1997), 145–169. Peter J. Leithart, The Promise of His Appearing: An Exposition of Second Peter (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2004). Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1999), 114, 157–158. N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996), 345–346. N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003), 645, n.42. Hank Hanegraaff, The Apocalypse Code (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2007), 84–86. C. Jonathin Seraiah, The End of All Things: A Defense of the Future (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2002).
These interpretations are, individually considered, “orthodox.” Yet when full preterists consolidate the most defensible elements of Reformed and Evangelical eschatology, anti-preterists unite in opposition to even some of their own stated views. The Full Preterist combines the two competing “orthodox” views on the coming of the Lord and de-creation of Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 24-25 to form a consistently exegetical and historical position:

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

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

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

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

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

The analogy of Scripture and these charts demonstrate that DeMar’s view that we are still in the millennium and that the end of the millennium resurrection is still unfulfilled (while believing that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 was fulfilled in AD 70) is creedally arbitrary.
Postmillennial partial preterism did not win the eschatological debate for Luther, Calvin and the WCF which have taught the coming of Christ in Matthew 24-25 is indeed the Second Coming (as Full Preterism teaches).  And what about today?  Mathison and DeMar didn’t win the battle over Matthew 24-25 in the Reformation Study Bible, which is in perfect harmony with Full Preterism in interpreting the parallel’s in Matthew 24:30-31 as being the same eschatological event with the following passages:
“But the language of [Matthew 24:31] is parallel to passages like 13:41; 16:27; 25:31, as well as to passages such as 1 Cor. 15:52 and 1 Thess. 4:14–17.  The passage most naturally refers to the Second Coming.” (see HD, 112).
Here are some of those exegetical “parallels” that Full Preterists and classic amillennialists agree upon:
Matthew 24-25/Luke 21 & Matthew 13 Parallels
Evangelism in the world takes place (Mt. 24:14/Mt. 13:38).
There is persecution, tribulation, apostasy, & faithfulness (Mt. 24:9-13/Mt. 13:19-30).
The subject is the growth and reception of the kingdom at which time the judgment at the “end of the age” takes place (Lk. 21:31-32/Mt. 13:43; Mt. 24:3/Mt. 13:40).
The Son of Man comes with His angels to gather the sheep/wheat into His barn/kingdom and the wicked goats/tares are gathered and thrown into the fire and burned (Mt. 24:30-31, 25:31-41/Mt. 13:39-42).
Matthew 24-25/Luke 21 & 1 Corinthians 15 Parallels
Christ’s coming/parousia and trumpet call (Mt. 24:27, 31/1 Cor. 15:23, 52).
This is the time of “the end” (Mt. 24:3, 14/1 Cor. 15:24).
At this time God judges His enemies (Mt. 21:43; 22:41-44; 24-25/1 Cor. 15:24-28).
This is the time for inheriting the kingdom (Lk. 21:31-32/1 Cor. 15:24).
Matthew 24 & 1 Thessalonians 4-5 Parallels
Christ returns 1 Thess. 4:16=Matt. 24:30
From heaven 1 Thess. 4:16=Matt. 24:30
Accompanied by angels 1 Thess. 4:16=Matt. 24:31
With a trumpet of God 1 Thess. 4:16=Matt. 24:31
Believers gathered to Christ 1 Thess. 4:17=2 Matt. 4:31, 40-41
In clouds 1 Thess. 4:17=Matt. 24:30
Time unknown 1 Thess. 5:1-2=Matt. 24:36
Coming like a thief 1 Thess. 5:2=Matt. 24:43
Unbelievers unaware of impending judgment 1 Thess. 5:3=Matt. 24:8
Judgment comes as pain upon an expectant mother 1 Thess. 5:3=Matt. 24:8
Believers not deceived 1 Thess. 5:4-5=Matt. 24:43
Believers to be watchful 1 Thess. 5:6=Matt. 24:37-39
Warning against drunkenness 1 Thess. 5:7=Matt. 24:49
As I pointed out in HD, it is more than arbitrary for men like Gary DeMar and Keith Mathison to make AD 70 parallels and fulfillments in Matthew 24=1 Thessalonians 5 or Matthew 24=2 Thessalonians 1-2, but avoid where most of the parallels are in Matthew 24=1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 because the resurrection is in view (see HD, 112-115).  It is amazingly arrogant for DeMar and AV to claim they are performing “exegesis” when comparing Matthew 24 with the eschatology of the NT in order to develop AD 70 fulfillments, but if Full Preterists do, AV wants to refer to us as “heretical.”  We are making the same “parallel’s” and appealing to the same “analogy of scripture” argument that the creedal amillennialists are.

Passage Mike SullivanFull Peterist Gary DeMarPartial Preterist Kenneth GentryPartial Preterist James WhiteTraditional Amillennialist
1 Thess. 1-3 A.D. 70 A.D. 70 Future Future
1 Thess. 4 A.D. 70 Future Future Future
1 Thess. 5 A.D. 70 A.D. 70 Future Future
2 Thess. 1 A.D. 70 A.D. 70 Future Future
2 Thess. 2 A.D. 70 A.D. 70 A.D. 70 Future

Some Partial Preterists such as author Mike Bull (a disciple of James Jordan) actually agree with Full Preterists that the parallels between Matthew 24=1 Thessalonains 4 are just too strong and therefore there was some kind of fulfillment for a resurrection in AD 70.  DeMar is now backed into a corner.  Since he and AV are now publishing that there was a spiritual, corporate, covenantal judgment and resurrection for the living and dead from AD 30 – AD 70 which resulted in Daniel’s soul being raised out of Hades or Abraham’s Bosom in AD 70, then Gary needs to prove that Matthew 24:30-31 (cf. Matthew 13:39-43/Daniel 12:2-3) isn’t Paul’s source in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 and thus this isn’t that AD 70 resurrection.  Or if Gary wants to make the kind of statements that Joel McDurmon has and that perhaps this passage along with other NT resurrection texts “could” have been fulfilled in AD 70 — then Gary needs to prove or explain why this could have two or multiple fulfillments.   Apparently Gary is unavailable for comment.   
Gary DeMar has referenced John Murray before as a Postmillennialist who most assuredly couldn’t be referred to as “heretical” and indeed performed exegesis.  Well, again like Full Preterists, Murray saw the coming of Christ and “redemption” in (Luke 21:27-28) to be the Second Advent and “redemption of the body” in (Romans 8:23):
“Now in Luke 21:28 . . . [t]his word ‘redemption’ (apolutrosin), when used with reference to the future, has a distinctly eschatological connotation, the final redemption, the consummation of the redemptive process (cf. Rom. 8:23; 1 Cor. 1:30; Eph. 1:14; 4:30). Hence anal-ogy would again point to the eschatological complex of events.” (see HD, 119).
And of course Murray understood Matthew 24:30-31 as most naturally referring to the Second Coming and resurrection as we do:
“…Verse 30, for several reasons to be adduced later, surely refers to the advent in glory, and the sign of the Son of man to the sign of the coming of Christ and the consummation of the age in the disciples question (vs. 3). (John Murray, COLLECTED WRITINGS OF JOHN MURRAY 2 Systematic Theology, Carlisle, PA:  THE BANNER OF TRUTH TRUST, 1977, 389)
“The terms of verse 30, that all the tribes of the earth ‘will see the Son of man coming upon the clouds of heaven with great power and glory’ (or ‘with power and great glory’) are terms that are quite definitely those of the second advent in the terminology of the New Testament (cf. Matt. 16:27; Mark 8:38; Matt. 25:31; Acts 1:9-11; 1 Thess. 4:17; 2 Thess. 1:7; Rev. 1:7.”  (Murray, Ibid., 390).
“There is ample allusion to the sound of the trumpet and to the ministry of angels elsewhere in the New Testament, in connection with Christ’s advent (cf. 1 Cor. 15:52; 1 Thess. 4:16).  Hence verse 31 can most readily be taken to refer to the gathering of the elect at the resurrection.” (Murray, Ibid., 391).
Murray also does a great job demonstrating that Matthew 24-25 is written with a “recapitulation” structure (Ibid., 388) and therefore we once again reach “the end”/“end of the age” with the disciples question associating the end of the age with His coming in Matthew 24:3, 30-31.  Matthew 24:30-31 is the Second Coming and resurrection/gathering event which takes place at the end of the [old covenant] age (cf. Matthew 13:39-43/Daniel 12:2-3) and is therefore, not some kind of second Great Commission “gathering” post AD 70 – per DeMar.
As I reference in HD DeMar takes the glory that was “about to be revealed” in Romans 8:18 YLT as a fulfillment in AD 70 (HD, 120-121) and McDurmon claims Jesus’ use of “this age” is the old covenant age and the “age to come” is the new covenant age arriving in AD 70 (HD, 91, n.28).  Yet Murray writes of these passages,
“The present time is “this age” or the “present age” in contrast with the “age to come” (cf. “…Luke 20:34….”).  “…The age to come is the age of the resurrection and of the glory to be revealed.”  “…And the glory to be revealed is so bound up with the resurrection (vs. 23)…” (John Murray, EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, 1 vol. edition, Eerdmans Publishing, 1968, 300-301).
After conceding that “this age” is the old covenant age and the “age to come” here is the arrival of the new in AD 70, McDurmon’s attempts to posit the resurrection of Luke 20:34 as biological at the end of time and beyond AD 70 in his debate with Preston was painful to watch and an embarrassment for AV in general.
For over a decade now I have also been asking DeMar to comment on another of his favorite partial preterists (John Lightfoot) who took the creation groaning from the bondage and decay in Romans 8 to have nothing to do with the planet earth (not even poetically) but is rather referring to men’s condition under sin in the mind and heart (HD, 116-117).  In essence this is a full preterist interpretation of the “creation” here.
So then according to John Murray, John Lightfoot, AV Gary DeMar/Joel McDurmon  — the glory that was “about to be revealed” was the Second Coming and resurrection/redemption of the body that would take place when “this [old covenant] age” gave way to “the [new covenant] age to come” in Jesus’ “this generation” ie. AD 70 (Luke 21:27-28=Romans 8:18-23=Luke 20:34-35).  This consummation/resurrection/restoration of creation event involved the hearts and minds of men and therefore does not necessarily involve a literal de-creation/literal re-creation and or literal resurrection of the dead to take place at the end of history.  We surely agree with the “exegesis” and logical conclusion of these men!
The following “parallel” chart confirms that the “redemption” of Christ’s disciples in the first century in Luke 21:28 was the redemption of “the body” “about to be revealed” in Romans 8:18–23:

Romans 8 Olivet Discourse & Luke 17
Present sufferings (Rom. 8:17–18) Suffering to come (Matt. 24:9)
Receive and share in Christ’s glory (Rom. 8:17–18) Christ comes in glory (Matt. 24:30)
Glory will be “in” them (Rom. 8:18) Kingdom will be realized “within”at Christ’s return (Lk.17:21–37; 21:27–32)
Redemption and salvation – resurrection (Rom. 8:23–24; cf. 11:15–27; 13:11–12) Redemption and salvation – resurrection (Lk. 21:27–28; Matt. 24:13, 30–31/Matt. 13:39-43)
Birth pains together (Rom. 8:22) Birth pains of the tribulation (Matt. 24:8)
This was “about to” take place (Rom. 8:18) This would all happen in “this generation”(Matt. 24:34)

Gary can run and Gary can hide, but the fact of the matter is — our parallel/analogy of scripture hermeneutic comparing Matthew 24-25 with the eschatology of the NT, is not only more consistent than DeMar’s, it is more creedal and confessional – Selah.
Concluding Matthew 24-25
James White – After critiquing White’s shallow handling of Matthew 24 to his Church (something he mentions in his debate with Shabir Ally), it is no wonder he didn’t want to address Jesus’ teaching here and in Matthew 16:27-28 as it pertained to NT imminence. White simply did not address Ally’s argument that Jesus and the NT predicted that the Second Coming would be fulfilled in their contemporary generation and before some of them died – period!
Between me posting my last article and this one James White moderated a debate between a Full Preterist (Don K. Preston) and a futurist (Michael Brown) over Romans 11. But my debate challenge to Mr. White remains. Mr. White – it is not enough to moderate debates with Full Preterists in them, you need to debate one. Selah.
Anthony Rogers / Sam Shamoun – Has published a series of articles attempting to respond to Shabir Ally from a Partial Preterist view. Rogers claims the “end of the age” is referring to the OC age ending in AD 70, but is shallow and arbitrary in his exegesis because he does not address that Jesus identifies the resurrection as taking place at the “end of the age” in other passages. And Rogers stopped his exegesis of Matthew 24 prior to verses 35-36ff. where the “rubber meets the road” so to speak and never delivered.
Gary DeMar / Keith Mathison / N.T. Wright – To be thorough I briefly critiqued other Partial Preterists that believe the coming of the Son of Man throughout Matthew 24-25 was fulfilled by AD 70 and is not divided up as other Partial Preterists have attempted to prove. As I pointed out earlier, there is almost unanimous agreement between all eschatological views that supports the idea that Matthew 24-25 is NT eschatology in a nutshell. Or simply put whatever your view of the OD is, will dictate your eschatology in the rest of the NT. This being said, DeMar, Mathison, and Wright fall miserably short in Matthew 24-25 being the foundation for 1 Thessalonians 4-5 (passages Shabir Ally pointed to that White did not address and neither has Rogers thus far) and Revelation 20 – to name just a couple.
Shabir Ally – If Shabir Ally wants to debate a Christian apologist that REALLY believes Jesus was and remains to be a faithful and true prophet and fulfilled His promises concerning His Second Coming, judgment, resurrection, and bringing an end to the age in which He and His contemporaries were living in (within the AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation”), then I suggest he debate me or the Full Preterist position. As I have demonstrated thus far, Shabir and other Bible skeptics will not get the answers they are looking for (or honest exegetical answers) from these other men and their positions when it comes to NT imminence. Selah.
PART 1 – Debate Challenge and Response to:  James White, Shabir Ally, Sam Shamoun, and Anthony Rogers – Matt. 16:27-28/Mark 8:38-9:1 https://fullpreterism.com/james-whites-embarrassing-failure-to-address-matthew-1627-28-matthew-24-and-1-thessalonians-416-17-in-his-debate-with-shabir-ally-and-my-public-challenge-to-debate-shabir-ally-james-whit/
PART 2 – Debate Challenge and Response to: James White, Shabir Ally, Sam Shamoun, and Anthony Rogers – “Time/Hour of the End” = “End of the Age” Resurrection (Dan. 12=Matt. 13=Luke 20:27-40=Matt. 24:30-31, 36=John 4-5) All Fulfilled In AD 70 https://fullpreterism.com/debate-challenge-and-response-to-james-white-shabir-ally-sam-shamoun-and-anthony-rogers-part-2-the-end-of-the-age-matthew-13-matthew-24/
PART 3a. – Debate Challenge And Response To: James White, Shabir Ally, Anthony Rogers, Sam Shamoun – All The Signs, Abomination That Causes Desolation, Tribulation, Times Of The Gentiles – “In Fulfillment Of All That Has Been Written” (Matt. 24:1-25/Luke 21:20-24) https://fullpreterism.com/part-3-a-debate-challenge-and-response-to-james-white-shabir-ally-anthony-rogers-sam-shamoun-matthew-241-25/
Part 3b. – Debate Challenge And Response To: James White, Shabir Ally, Sam Shamoun, And Anthony Rogers – The Coming Of The Son Of Man (Matt. 24:27—-25:31) Fulfilled By Ad 70 https://fullpreterism.com/part-3b-debate-challenge-and-response-to-james-white-shabir-ally-sam-shamoun-and-anthony-rogers-the-coming-of-the-son-of-man-matt-2427-2531-fulfilled-by-ad-70/
Part 3c. – Debate Challenge And Response To: James White, Anthony Rogers, Sam Shamoun, Shabir Ally: Matthew 24-25 “This Generation” And Division Theories Refutedhttps://fullpreterism.com/part-3c-debate-challenge-and-response-to-james-white-anthony-rogers-sam-shamoun-shabir-ally-matthew-24-25-this-generation-and-division-theories-refuted/
Part 4 – Debate Challenge And Response To: James White, Anthony Rogers, Sam Shamoun And Shabir Ally (1 Thess. 4:16-17 & Acts 1:9-11) https://fullpreterism.com/part-4-debate-challenge-and-response-to-james-white-anthony-rogers-sam-shamoun-and-shabir-alley-1-thess-416-17-and-acts-19-11/
[1] Joseph Henry Thayer, D.D., A GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1977), 112 (bold emphasis added).
[2] W.E. Vine (edited by F.F. Bruce), VINE’S Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Bible Publishers, 1981), 42 (emphasis added).
[3] Colin Brown, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology Vol. 2, (Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), 37-38 (bold emphasis added).
[4] Brown, Ibid., 38-39.
[5] G.K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission A biblical theology of the dwelling place of God, (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 2004), 25). See also a student of Beale’s – J.V. Fesko, Last things first Unlocking Genesis 1-3 with the Christ of Eschatology, (Scottland, UK, 2007), 70.
[6] John Brown, Discourses and Sayings of Our Lord (Edinburg: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1990 [1852]), 1:170.
[7] Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis a contributing author in, ESCHATOLOGY in Bible & Theology Evangelical Essays at the Dawn of a New Millennium, (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 1997), 157.
[8] Gary DeMar, Last Days MADNESS Obsession of the Modern Church, (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 1999, Fourth Edition), 189.
[9] Ibid., 190.
[10] John Owen, The Works of John Owen, 16 vols. (London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1965–68), 9:134–135. John Lightfoot, Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica: Matthew – 1 Corinthians, 4 vols. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, [1859], 1989), 3:452, 454. John Brown, Discourses and Sayings of our Lord, 3 vols. (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, [1852] 1990), 1:170. John Locke, The Clarendon Edition of the Works of John Locke: A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St Paul Volume 2, (NY: Oxford University Press, 1987), 617–618. R.C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998). Kenneth Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion (Tyler TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1992), 363–365. Kenneth Gentry (contributing author), Four Views on the Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1998), 89. Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church (Powder Springs: GA, 1999), 68–74, 141–154, 191–192. James B. Jordan, Through New Eyes Developing a Biblical View of the World (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, 1998), 269–279. Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis (contributing author) Eschatology in Bible & Theology (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 1997), 145–169. Peter J. Leithart, The Promise of His Appearing: An Exposition of Second Peter (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2004). Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1999), 114, 157–158. N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996), 345–346. N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003), 645, n.42. Hank Hanegraaff, The Apocalypse Code (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2007), 84–86. C. Jonathin Seraiah, The End of All Things: A Defense of the Future (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2002.
[11] DeMar, Last Days MADNESS, Ibid., 193-194.
[12] Keith A. Mathison, FROM AGE TO AGE THE UNFOLDING OF BIBLICAL ESCHATOLOGY, (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2009), 379.
[13] DeMar, Ibid., 200.
[14] DeMar, Ibid., 199.

PART 3a. DEBATE CHALLENGE AND RESPONSE TO: JAMES WHITE, SHABIR ALLY, ANTHONY ROGERS, SAM SHAMOUN – ALL THE SIGNS, ABOMINATION THAT CAUSES DESOLATION, TRIBULATION, TIMES OF THE GENTILES – "IN FULFILLMENT OF ALL THAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN" (MATT. 24:1-25/LUKE 21:20-24)

Introduction
Now I want to move on to another passage White virtually avoided altogether in his debate with Shabir Ally (ie. Matthew 24) and was the subject of Anthony Rogers unfinished article series responding to Shabir (since White “dreads” [his words] the subject).
I personally believe White was a bit deceptive with Shabir in that Shabir kept appealing to Matt. 16:27-28/Matt. 24/1 Thess. 4:12-17 to demonstrate that Christ’s COMING was predicted to take place within the first century – and all White really had to say was to use the term “in AD 70” and mentioned that back home he was teaching a study on Matthew 24. So it gave the impression that perhaps White was at least a Partial Preterist and believed that “a” parousia or coming of Christ was fulfilled in AD 70. But once you listen to those lectures on Matthew 24, White does NOT take the Partial Preterist view on the coming of the Lord being fulfilled in 70 for those passages. He appeals to the classic Amillennial view’s interpretation of Matthew 24 and the “Two-Age Model” (he claims to agree with Kim Riddlebarger’s view in A Case for AMILLENNIALISM UNDERSTANDING THE END TIMES, pp. 92-99, 157-179).[1] The only things White claims were kind-of-sort-of fulfilled by AD 70 are some of the signs. BUT Shabir’s argument was not addressing the signs but the coming of Christ, therefore, White was dishonest or at the very least misleading in his use of the term “AD 70.”
White’s Introduction
White makes mention of D.A. Carson and Kim Riddlebarger to help make some introductory points:

  1. Matthew 24 is one of or the most “difficult passages” to interpret in the NT. Therefore, White tells his church that he has been “secretly dreading” dealing with it.
  2. Whatever your view of Matthew 24 is, it will be (or should be) your interpretation in such NT books as 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Revelation and NT eschatology in general. Riddlebarger also correctly states that it will also form your “millennial view.”
  3. White claims the “truth is somewhere in the middle” between Dispensationalism’s futurism and Full Preterism.

My response
White’s admissions only make my case against him. It is true that the Olivet Discourse is a “difficult passage” for futurism because there is a stale-mate between the classical Reformed Amillennial position (James White’s position) in Matthew 24 (and NT imminence) with that of the Reformed Partial Preterist position (Anthony Rogers / Sam Shamoun’s position). White also makes my point when he claims that the “truth is somewhere in the middle of these two” which is really somewhere in the middle of the middle:
Classic Amillennialism (James White/Kim Riddlebarger) – The coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 24:27-30—chapter 25 is the ONE NT’s Second Coming event that takes place at the end of the ONE “end of the age” (Matt. 24:3) in our future.
Partial Preterism (Anthony Rogers) – The coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 24:27-30—chapter 25 was fulfilled spiritually to close “the end of the (old covenant) age” (Matt. 24:3) in AD 70.
Full Preterism (Michael Sullivan / synthesis “Reformed and always reforming”) – The coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 24:27-30—chapter 25 is the ONE NT’s Second Coming event fulfilled spiritually to close “the end of the (old covenant) age” (Matt. 24:3) in AD 70.
The difficulty is that without Full Preterism “Bridging the Gap” between the two and a willingness to reform the creeds on the timing and nature of fulfillment for the Second Coming, the two form a contradiction. And if one is truly Reformed, he or she will submit to the teachings of the Reformed creeds which state that they can be in error and are subject to an accurate exegesis of God’s Word (“The Scriptures only” — Bereans — “Reformed and always reforming” concepts).
I also agree with White, Carson, and Riddlebarger, that whatever ones view of the coming of the Son of Man is upon the clouds of glory in Matthew 24:27-30—25:31, it will (and should) dictate your interpretations of 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Revelation, and NT eschatology in general (ex. Acts 1:8-11; 1 Cor. 15).
Having stated where I agree with James White on the importance of understanding Matthew 24-25 (and how it will affect ones eschatology), I must clearly state that I disagree with him that the passage is “very difficult” to understand or a subject one should “dread.”
The Disciples Question(s) and End of the Age          
Critiquing James White’s position:
James White begins his study of Matthew 24 by making two foundational interpretive errors:
The disciples alleged “confusion”
First, he performs eisegesis (reading something into the text that is not there) and “question begging” when he assumes the disciples were “confused” in believing the Temple’s destruction end of the age, and Jesus’ Parousia/Second Coming would all be fulfilled together. Is this something the text tells us (as it does in other places of Matthew’s gospel when they are confused)? No. But is this doctrinal mantra used by White (and futurism) depicting the disciples as being allegedly “confused” a necessary inference necessary so that they he can then go on to create division theories (that he admits no one can really agree upon) as to which verses were fulfilled in AD 70 and which ones allegedly are end of time ones. In other words White NEEDS the disciples to be “confused” so that he can then try and “solve” that confusion by giving the OD two fulfillments – one in AD 70 and another at the end of world history.
“The Two-Age Model”      
White immediately tells us what has influenced him the most in his study of NT eschatology and in fact is his foundation upon which he builds – the “two-age model” of the Jesus’ teaching and that of the NT. For White “this age” is somehow the New Covenant or Church age and the “age to come” is when the Second Coming/New Creation/Eternal state arrives. White references Matthew 13:39-43 and Luke 20:27-40 for support.
My response to these two points:
First, I find it interesting that White quickly contradicts himself when he points out that the disciples correctly understood Jesus connecting His coming with the destruction of the Temple right before we enter into the OD in Matthew 23:38-39. So this immediately creates some interpretive questions White needs to respond to. If the disciples correctly connected Jesus’ future coming with the destruction of the Temple in Matthew 23:38-39, and this “sets the stage or context for Matthew 24,” then why isn’t the future coming the disciples asked about in connection with the Temple’s destruction in Matthew 24:3ff. (and the one Jesus refers to throughout) the same AD 70 judgment coming of Christ?!? If Jesus did “come in judgment” to destroy the Temple according to Matthew 23:38-39, then where else in Jesus’ teaching (if not in Matt. 16:27-28, Matt. 24; or the rest of the NT for that matter), is this “coming” of Jesus addressed? And if Jesus taught on his “coming” to destroy the Temple, was this teaching anticipated by any of the NT authors as being something that would happen “soon,” “quickly,” “at hand,” “shortly,” “about to be,” or in their “this generation” (cf. 23:36), etc… as AD 70 was approaching?!? In other words White just opened himself up to a two NT comings view of Partial Preterism and now the burden of proof is upon him to prove that not only the coming in Matthews 23:38-39 is not the coming of Christ in Matthew 24, but to tell us which NT future coming of Jesus passages are referring to AD 70 and which ones are allegedly future?
Here are some other problems White has that he doesn’t address:
First, In Part 2 of my response to White and Rogers I dealt with this subject of “this age” and the “age to come” in-depth and would refer the reader to that section if they haven’t read it already. In regards to White, he does no “historical” exegesis in that the Jews of Jesus’ day understood “this age” to be the Old Covenant age of the law and prophets, and the “age to come” to be the New Covenant age or the age Messiah would usher in. That being said, when Jesus in Matthew 13:39-43 states that the separation of the wheat and tares and the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 would be fulfilled at the end of their “this age,” He is referring to the commonly understood “this age” of the Old Covenant law and prophets. Jesus hadn’t even died and rose again, so while alive in addressing the crowd about something that would be fulfilled in their current “this age” (not having shed His blood ushering in the inauguration of the NC age), Jesus is teaching that the resurrection would be fulfilled at the end of the OC age – not the NC age. Another issue White avoids in Matthew 13:39-43, 51 is that after Jesus gives His teaching on the “end of this age,” He specifically asks the disciples if they understood His teaching on the time of this harvest at the end of their “this age” and they emphatically responded “Yes (vs. 51). Obviously the reason White avoided this text in his mention of Matthew 13 is that it contradicts his necessary theory that the disciples were confused as to what events would be associated with and fulfilled at the end of their “this age.”
Another issue related to a “historical” hermeneutic is where is White’s discussion of how others have interpreted “end of the age” in (Matt. 24:3) within the Reformed Church? Surely he knows that some throughout church history within the Reformed church have taught that the “end of the age” in Matthew 24 is the OC age and not the NC age (such as the view that Anthony Rogers is trying to defend in his response to Shabir Ally)? I think the answer is obvious why he doesn’t want that to be public knowledge for his church or the Christian community to think about.
Secondly, in the book of Daniel the consummation of the major eschatological events can be found in chapters 7, 9 and 12.  Daniel connected the eschatological “time of the end” (not end of time) events such as the desolation of the Temple, the resurrection, the tribulation, the coming of the Son of man, and the arrival of the kingdom to take place when the city and temple would be destroyed – or “when the power of the holy people would be completely shattered” (ie. “all these things” (not some of them) would be fulfilled together Dan. 7:13-14, 18, 27; Dan. 9:24-27; Dan. 12:1-7). Not to mention Daniel predicted that Messiah’s Kingdom would be fulfilled during the time of the fourth Kingdom (Rome) and this is exactly when Christ’s Kingdom and coming took place (cf. Luke 21:27, 31-32).The disciples had the OT Scriptures to guide them in that all these events would be fulfilled together (not thousands of years apart – ie. James White’s position). And thus far in Matthew’s gospel, Jesus has been consistent with this OT time frame for all of these events being fulfilled within some of their lifetimes. This leads us to our next point.
Thirdly, Jesus had previously taught that His coming would take place within some of their lifetimes (Matthew 10:22-23; 16:27-28/Mark 8:38-9:1). If Jesus has already taught the disciples that His coming would take place within some of their lifetimes and connects to the destruction of the Temple (Matt. 23:38-39), why would the disciples be “confused”? Maybe it’s really White and his futurism that is “confused” on this subject and not the disciples or Full Preterism?
Fourthly, although White briefly addresses Matthew 23 as forming the context of Matthew 24, he does not address that Jesus previously taught the disciples that all the blood from righteous Abel (from Genesis up to those He would send to them) would be avenged when the Temple was destroyed in their “this generation” (Matthew 23:30-36, 38)
Fifthly, Isaiah in his “little apocalypse” (Isiah 24-28) posits all of the eschatological events (judgment, de-creation, avenging the sin of blood guilt, the blowing of the trumpet, the resurrection, etc…) to take place together when the temple would be destroyed or “when he makes all the altar stones to be like chalk stones crushed to pieces” (Isaiah 27:9). So before we even get to Matthew 24, the disciples could have discerned from such prophets as Daniel and Isaiah, that all of the eschatological events would be fulfilled when the temple was destroyed.  The record clearly states that the disciples understood Jesus’ teaching on “the end of age” or the end of their “this age.”  And lastly, Jesus had already taught them that some of them would live to witness His return and the destruction of the Temple.  Therefore, they were NOT mistaken to associate and connect Jesus’ coming (to destroy the Temple [that they were looking at and discussing] in their generation) with His coming and the end of the age.
Sixthly, White and others trying to make the point that the disciples were confused on previous occasions is classic mistake of “proving too much.” Why? Because Matthew (as a responsible narrator) and or Jesus makes this clear when the disciples are confused or they need to be corrected (cf. Matt. 16:6-12, 21-23; 17:4-5; 19:13-15; 20:20-25). We don’t find that in Matthew 24:3ff.!
And lastly, it is understandable why James White “dreads” addressing Matthew 24 – because he can’t even begin addressing the first verses or the context of the passage without contradicting himself or performing eisegesis!
White’s “harmonization” apologetic against Shabir Ally
In White’s debate with Shabir Ally, Shabir tried to show how the gospels “contradicted” themselves at various points and that this somehow proved they had been corrupted. What was White’s response? He demonstrated that Shabir’s points (and the liberal theologians he was trying to use to discount the reliability of the gospels) could easily be solved through what he called the “harmonization” process of comparing the gospels in that each gospel was written to a different audience which accounted for some of the differences (not contradictions) between them. If White was willing to see that the “end of the age” in the context of the Temple’s destruction in (Matt. 24:3) is the end of the OC age, then he would be ready to see how and why Mark and Luke do not record “and the end of the age” in their versions and why a “harmonization” between them supports the Full Preterist position.
“Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign when all these things will be fulfilled?” (Mark 13:4)
“So they asked Him, saying, “Teacher, but when will these things be? And what sign will there be when these things are about to take place?” (Luke 21:7)
“Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” (Matt. 24:3)
Stuart Russell brings up the issue of “harmonization” to point out that all three are dealing with “different aspects of the same great event” in AD 70:
“They must have gathered from the Saviour’s language that this catastrophe was imminent; and their anxiety was to know the time and the tokens of its arrival. St. Mark and St. Luke make the question of the disciples refer to one event and one time—‘When shall these things be, and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?’ It is not only presumable, therefore, but indubitable, that the questions of the disciples only refer to different aspects of the same great event. This harmonizes the statements of St. Matthew with those of the other Evangelists, and is plainly required by the circumstances of the case.” (James Stuart Russel, The Parousia The New Testament Doctrine of Christ’s Second Coming, (Grand Rapids, MI:  Baker Book House Company, 1887 and reprinted again in 1990), 57 – 59).
The “end of the age” in the Greek, (syntéleia toú aiṓnos) is an expression found only in the gospel of Matthew and therefore suggests that it has a peculiar understanding to the Jewish mind. When we broaden this study beyond the gospels with that of the rest of the NT, we discover that syntéleia toú aiṓnos and tṓn aiṓnōn, are only used six times in the NT – five in Matthew’s gospel and once in the book of Hebrews (cf. Heb. 9:26) which again, is written to a highly Jewish audience. This is probably why Matthew also includes more parables than Mark and Luke do.
If the “end of the age” is referring to the end of planet earth, one would expect to find such crucial information not being omitted by Mark and Luke in the form of the disciples question since this sets the stage and makes an outline of sorts for Jesus’ teaching in the OD.
Perhaps a similar situation as to why something that seems at first to be very important and is omitted in one gospel but added to another, can be found in Jesus’ teaching on divorce. If “fornication” (some mistranslate this as “adultery”) is grounds for divorce, then why would Mark and Luke omit this exceptive clause from Jesus’ teaching in their accounts while we only find it in Matthew’s gospel? Again, it seems to lie in the different audiences being addressed that accounts for the differences.
In Jewish law the first part of the marriage contract was conducted through betrothal. The two were considered “husband and wife” during this period even before their sexual consummation. A betrothed husband could write his “wife” a certificate of “divorce” if she committed “fornication”/pornia (not “adultery”) during this time period. This is why Matthew mentions this in the case of Joseph and Marry and Mark and Luke do not (cf. Matthew 1:19). Since this aspect of “divorce” within the betrothal period (first part of the marriage contract) within Jewish law was only applicable for Matthew’s Jewish audience, Matthew records the exceptive clause, while Mark and Luke do not (written primarily to Gentiles). Also, in Jewish law a woman could not divorce her husband and this is why Matthew does not mention this while Mark does (cf. Mark 10:12 / Matthew 19:9).
Therefore, in essence the three harmonize well in that Jesus’ teaching on divorce agree – “what God has joined together let no man separate.” And when it comes to the disciples question in Matthew, Mark, and Luke (that is a reaction to Jesus telling them that the Temple would be destroyed) – all three accounts harmonize well because all three are dealing with the destruction of the Temple and the end of the Jewish or OC age – “nothing else” (as even Reformed Partial Preterist Gary DeMar has informed us).
Before leaving the subject of the “end of the age” I should point out that the only strength to White’s Amillennial position on the two age view, is just that – Jesus only really taught on “TWO ages.” White ridicules Dispensationalism for having “little mini ages” “here and there in-between the two ages” when no such exegetical warrant can be found in the teachings of Jesus or the NT. But why doesn’t White criticize the Partial Preterist position here as well? Is it because if we really do study what the two views “in the middle” (his Amillennialism and Partial Preterism) are on this subject we arrive at “the truth” of Full Preterism? However, Partial Preterism does need to be criticized for inserting within the teachings of Jesus and that of the NT: TWO Parousias of Christ, TWO Great Commissions, TWO arrivals of the New Creation, TWO Judgments and Resurrections of the living and dead, and TWO “end of the age” doctrines to support their double vision and double-talk eschatology. Selah.
Let’s now shift our attention from Mr. White to that of Anthony Rogers and Sam Shamoun.
Critiquing Anthony Rogers and Sam Shamoun
Unlike White, at least Anthony Rogers attempts to correctly identify the “end of the age” in Matthew 24:3 and “the end” throughout as the end of the OC age in AD 70 and quotes Milton Terry for support (as most Preterists have). Milton Terry following Russell’s lead was spot on in identifying Jesus’ teaching on the “end of the age” in the Olivet discourse and elsewhere in the NT (such as Hebrews 9:26-28) as the OC age ending in AD 70:
“The ‘end of the age’ means the close of the epoch or age—that is, the Jewish age or dispensation which was drawing nigh, as our Lord frequently intimated. All those passages that speak of ‘the end,’ ‘the end of the age,’ or ‘the ends of the ages,’ refer to the same consummation, and always as nigh at hand.” “…the writer regarded the incarnation of Christ as taking place near the end of the aeon, or dispensational period. To suppose that he meant that it was close upon the end of the world, or the destruction of the material globe, would be to make him write false history as well as bad grammar. It would not be true in fact; for the world has already lasted longer since the incarnation than the whole duration of the Mosaic economy, from the exodus to the destruction of the temple. It is futile, therefore, to say that the ‘end of the age’ may mean a lengthened period, extending from the incarnation to our times, and even far beyond them. That would be an aeon, and not the close of an aeon. The aeon of which our Lord was speaking was about to close in a great catastrophe; and a catastrophe is not a protracted process, but a definitive and culminating act.” (Milton S. Terry, Biblical HERMENEUTICS A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments, (Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), 441-442).
After all the “Second Appearing” or “Second Coming” of Christ to close the OC age is further described as Christ coming in an AD 70 imminent time frame: “…in a very little while” and “would not tarry” in the next chapter (Hebrews 10:37). But let’s think about this for just a moment. The very text by which Christianity has formed the term “The Second Coming of Jesus” Partial Preterism says was fulfilled at the end of the OC age in AD 70! This is why when I try and explain this position (even once being a PP), people look confused and say, “So they believe in a “second, second coming’”???
Reformed Partial Preterists such as Gary DeMar would agree with Full Preterism on three crucial points in interpreting Matthew 24-25 properly: 1. The disciples were not confused, 2. The “end of the age” is the OC age ending in AD 70, and 3. There are not two comings (one in AD 70 and one at the end of world history) described in these chapters. On the disciples question in Matthew 24:3 DeMar correctly writes,
“The disciples question involves three interrelated, contemporary events:  (1) the time of the temple’s destruction; (2) the sign that will signal Jesus’ coming related to the destruction of the temple; and (3) the sign they should look for telling them that “the end of the age” has come.  These questions are related to the destruction of the temple and the end of the Old Covenant redemptive system and nothing else.” (Gary DeMar, Last Days MADNESS Obsession of the Modern Church, (Powder Springs, GA:  Fourth revised edition, 1999), 68, bold emphasis added).
Explaining his position on the “end of the age” being the OC age, DeMar quotes George Hill to support its historical relevance of “this age” being the OC age and the “age to come” being the NC or Messianic age,
“Notice that the disciples did not ask about the end of the “world” (kosmos), as some Bible versions translate the Greek word aion. In context, with the temple and city as their primary focus, they asked about the end of the “age.”  They were asking when time would run out for the temple, the city of Jerusalem, and the covenant promises that were related to the Mosaic system of animal sacrifices, ceremonial washings, and the priesthood.
Time was divided by the Jews into two great periods, the age of the law and the age of the Messiah.  The conclusion of the one was the beginning of the other, the opening of that kingdom which the Jews believed the Messiah was to establish, which was to put an end to their sufferings, and to render them the greatest people upon the earth.  The apostles full of this hope, said to our Lord, immediately before his ascension, “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel? [Acts 1:6].  Our Lord uses the phrase of his coming to denote his taking vengeance upon the Jews by destroying their city and sanctuary.17
The “end of the age” refers to the end of the Old Covenant redemptive system with its attendant sacrifices and rituals.” (Ibid., 68).
Connecting this with the coming of the Son of Man upon the clouds throughout Matthew 24-25 DeMar writes,
Jesus never indicates that He has a distant coming in mind.  There is nothing in the Olivet Discourse that would give the reader the impression that a distant event [such as the end the planet earth or NC Christian age] is in view.” (Ibid., 68, brackets mine).
My response:
As helpful and as exegetical as these quotes are, the weakness of DeMar’s Partial Preterism should be apparent. As White and other Reformed Amillennialists have pointed out Jesus only taught on two ages “this age” and the “age to come.” As I covered in Part 2 of this series, Jesus places the ONE resurrection and judgment of the living and dead of Daniel 12:2-3 at the end of the OC “this age” or “end of the age” in Matthew 13:39-43 and Luke 20:27-40. And as we noted in Part 2, there is no exegetical evidence that Jesus uses Daniel’s “hour” (Dan. 12:1-4 (OG) LXX) in John 4-5 as being fulfilled literally at the end of world history either.
Like Gary DeMar, this is a subject Anthony Rogers wants to avoid (and has so far) in his series of articles trying to respond to Shabir Ally in areas White “dreaded” to address. The spiritual resurrection at the end of the ONE “end of the (OC) age” in AD 70 is the Achilles heel of Partial Preterism and is something that continues to lead its readers into the Full Preterist movement. They want one foot in sound exegesis while trying to keep the other in the WCF on the “end of the age” and that “dog just won’t hunt” as they say around here.
General and Specific Signs
Critiquing James White
As I recall White gives most of the signs a dual type fulfillment. He criticizes Dispensationalism for giving a futuristic view of the signs and yet his double-type fulfillment on most of them leaves the door right open for Dispensationalism to do the very thing White criticizes.
False Christ’s / Messiah’s (vss. 5, 11, 23-24)
Because James White debates many views and professing “Christian” cults he points out that this passage could be applied to events prior to AD 70 but claims it is still being fulfilled today (example all of the cults he debates etc…). I don’t really see much of a difference between James White’s interpretations here and say that of David Hunt’s.
Jesus predicted that false messiahs would come in the generation of the first century and they did:  Theudas (Acts 5:36; 13:6), Judas of Galilee (Acts 5:37), and Simon (Acts 8:9-11) to name a few.  In the epistles of John, John writes (as that generation was ending) the first century Church that they knew it was “the last hour” because the Antichrist’s had arrived (1 John 2:17-18). For those who understand the “Antichrist” and “Man of Sin” to be the same person, we should point out that this individual was alive and “already at work” during the time of Paul (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:3-8).  As I discussed in Part 2 of this series, John’s “last hour” was the “hour” of Jesus’ teaching on the resurrection and judgment upon Jerusalem and that of Daniel 12 in (Matt. 24:36; John 4:20-24; John 5:24-29/Dan. 12:1-2 (OG) LXX). James White has the Church living in a very LONG “it is the last hour” that should be a sign of Christ’s coming upon the clouds of heaven in the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.
The Jewish historian Josephus writes of a false prophet during the destruction of Jerusalem which deceived the Jews to stay and fight the Romans:
“Of so great a multitude, not one escaped. Their destruction was caused by a false prophet, who had on that day proclaimed to those remaining in the city, that “God commanded them to go up to the temple, there to receive the signs of their deliverance.” There were at this time many prophets suborned by the tyrants to delude the people, by bidding them wait for help from God, in order that there might be less desertion, and that those who were above fear and control might be encouraged by hope. Under calamities man readily yields to persuasion but when the deceiver pictures to him deliverance from pressing evils, then the sufferer is wholly influenced by hope. Thus it was that the impostors and pretended messengers of heaven at that time beguiled the wretched people.” (Josephus, Wars, 6.3.6.).
“Wars and Rumors of Wars” (vss. 6-7)
If I recall White spends most of his time here pretty much mocking Dispensationalists for claiming the “end is near” every time there is a war (which is all the time), famine, earthquake, persecution of Christians, etc…. Yet White seems to miss the significance to all of the signs (even the general ones) being fulfilled within the AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation” time period. As John L. Bray wrote:
“In AD 40 there was a disturbance at Mesopotamia which (Josephus says) caused the deaths of more than 50,000 people. In AD 49, a tumult at Jerusalem at the time of the Passover resulted in 10,000 to 20,000 deaths.  At Caesarea, contentions between Jewish people and other inhabitants resulted in over 20,000 Jews being killed.  As Jews moved elsewhere, over 20,000 were destroyed by Syrians.  At Scythopolis, over 13,000 Jews were killed.  Thousands were killed in other places, and at Alexandria 50,000 were killed.  At Damascus, 10,000 were killed in an hour’s time.” (John L. Bray, Matthew 24 Fulfilled, p. 28)
“Famines” and earthquakes (vss. 7-8)
Again, the Bible and history record famine and pestilences during “the last days” (AD 30 – AD 70) of the Mosaic old-covenant age and generation (Acts 11:27-29).  In AD 40 and AD 60 there were pestilences in Babylon and Rome where Jews and Gentiles alike suffered.
The book of Acts records for us an earthquake occurring in the Apostolic generation (Acts 16:26).  “…just previous to 70 AD there were earthquakes in Crete, Smyrna, Miletus, Chios, Samos, Laodicea, Hierapolis, Colosse, Campania, Rome, and Judea.” (Gary DeMar, ibid., 64)
“Put to death,” “The love of many will grow cold” “He who endures till the end shall be saved” (vss. 9-13) 
The first century Christians were to expect tribulation, to be brought before kings and rulers, imprisonment, beatings, for the sake of Jesus. Please read the book of Acts 4:3,17; Acts 5:40; Acts 7:54-60; Acts 8:1; Acts 9:1; Acts 12:1-3; Acts 14:19 to see the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy in Luke 21:12.   In fulfillment of our Lord’s words, Paul and Silas were beaten (Acts 26:23) and Paul was brought before rulers and kings – Gallio, (Acts 28:12), Felix (Acts 24), Festus and Agrippa (Acts 25).   Peter and Paul were put to death in the persecution of Nero.
Now White references a lot of these NT passages as well and discusses Nero’s persecutions etc…, but then again claims this has no real significance to a fulfillment of Christ’s return in the passage and the end of the age since the Church has always been persecuted throughout Church history.
But White seems to miss the golden thread of the NT’s teaching on: The preaching, persecution, power (charismata present), before the parousia.
We now enter the “persecution” before “the end.” White claims “the end” here is nothing more than the “end” of an individual’s life which could be fulfilled for any persecuted group of Christian’s pre or post AD 70. But contextually “the end” should be seen as the fulfillment to “the end of the age” the disciples asked about in (v. 3). But if this wasn’t clear enough, we need only go back earlier in Jesus’ teaching on the same subjects in Matthew 10:17-23:
“And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matt. 10:7)
“I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.” (Matt. 10:15)
“And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.” (Matt. 10:22-23)
I find it interesting that James White refers to the book When Shall These Things Be? in hopes that someone can refute Full Preterism – since he is unwilling to debate and respond to us. Yet here in this book Mathison (my opponent) references D.A. Carson (someone White appeals to often as well) as someone applying the fulfillment of this passage to AD 70 (WSTTB?, 175, fn. 23). Ironically, Mathison’s source for all the main views on this passage ends up taking a Preterist one! Carson finds view #7 to be the most contextually accurate in light of the limited cultural and local indicators connected with this persecution and the coming of the Son of Man:
“7. The “coming of the Son of Man” here refers to his coming in judgment against the Jews, culminating in the sack of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple (so France, Jesus, p. 140; Feuillet, “Les origines,” pp. 182–98; Moule, Birth, p. 90; J.A.T. Robinson, Jesus and His Coming [London: SCM, 1957], pp. 80, 91–92; and others).” (Carson, D. A. (1984). Matthew. In F. E. Gaebelein (Ed.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Vol. 8, pp. 252–253). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House).
“Against this background the coming of the Son of Man in v. 23 marks that stage in the coming of the kingdom in which the judgment repeatedly foretold falls on the Jews. With it the temple cultus disappears, and the new wine necessarily takes to new wineskins (see on 9:16–17). The age of the kingdom comes into its own, precisely because so many of the structured foreshadowings of the OT, bound up with the cultus and nation, now disappear (see on 5:17–48). The Son of Man comes.
Above all this interpretation makes contextual sense of v. 23. The connection is not with v. 22 alone but with vv. 17–22, which picture the suffering witness of the church in the post-Pentecost period during a time when many of Jesus’ disciples are still bound up with the synagogue. During that period, Jesus says in v. 23, his disciples must not use the opposition to justify quitting or bravado. Far from it. When they face persecution, they must take it as no more than a signal for strategic withdrawal to the next city (W. Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, 2 vols. [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975], 1:378–80) where witness must continue, for the time is short. They will not have finished evangelizing the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes in judgment on Israel.” (Carson, Ibid.).
In addition to Carson’s comments, I would argue that the coming of the Son of Man in verse 23 is not just connected to verses 17-22, but would include Jesus’ announcement that the Kingdom was “at hand” in verse 7 and “the judgment” coming upon the “villages” and “towns” of 15 also point to Christ coming upon Jerusalem in AD 70.
Herman Ridderbos is partially correct when he tries to say that it is not the mission of the disciples that is the issue, but the persecution in this passage (Herman Ridderbos, The COMING of the KINGDOM, (P&R pub., 1962), pp. 508-509). But the truth of the matter is that both go hand in hand. The OT echo and background here is the “city of refuge” in which individuals unjustly convicted of crimes could flee to for safety when wrongly accused or persecuted (cf. Ex. 21; 13; Num. 35:6, 11, 14; Deut. 21:2, 9; Josh. 20:1-9). With this being the background some have actually translated the text as,
“But whenever they persecute you in one city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you will not finish fleeing to all the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes.”
These cities being evangelized would obviously fall under the umbrella of the gospel having been preached to “every creature under heaven” and in “all the world/earth” and to “all nations” Cols.1:5-6, 23; Rms.10:18; Rms.16:25-26 prior to AD 70. Not all the cities would have persecuted them during their missionary journeys but when they were, they were promised to have a city to flee to for safety. We also know from history that the Christians fled to Pella (a city of refuge) when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by armies as predicted and directed by our Lord Luke 21:20ff.
While briefly here in Matthew 10:17-23, I should point out that a lot of Rreformed theologians try and say that this coming of the Son of Man was fulfilled in the resurrection or ascension events. Yet, as Carson observed, the text is inseparably linked to the preaching and persecutions that precede it. Therefore, the challenge for this is to demonstrate where is it EVER recorded in the NT that the disciples were: 1) “delivered up to councils” in verse 17, 2) “scourged in the synagogues” in verse 17, and 3) given the Holy Spirit to be “brought before governors and kings as a testimony to them and the Gentiles” vs. 19-20, prior to the resurrection and ascension? All of these events are recorded for us in the book of Acts and took place AFTER the resurrection and ascension of Christ and not before it. Selah. However, all of these events occurred before Christ came on the clouds to make an “end” of the Jewish or OC age in AD 70 and “save” His people from the wrath that was to engulf Jerusalem. The persecution and fleeing passages are inseparably linked to the time of “the end.” The chapter ends with those among Israel whom will receive a “prophet’s reward” Matt.10:40-42. These “prophets” in the context, are the disciples (cf. Matt. 23:34-36) whom some of which were promised to be alive to witness the Son of Man coming to reward every man (Matt.16:27-28/Rev. 22:12) as I proved in Part 1 of this series
The persecution connected to “the end” here in Matthew 10:22-23 and that of Matthew 24:3, 12, 14 is once again pointing us back to Daniel’s “time of the end” or “the end” of the Seventy Sevens which again find their fulfillment in AD 70 (cf. Dan. 9:24-27; 12:1-13). In connection with the coming of the Son of Man in Daniel 7:13 the contextual setting was prophesied that the little horn would wage war against the saints (thus inferring martyrdom) before they could poses and inherit the kingdom. This is what we are seeing in both Matthew 10:7, 17-23 (persecution takes place in light of the fact that the “kingdom is at hand” — connected to the coming of the Son of Man) and Matthew 24/Mark 13/Luke 21:27, 31-23 (persecution, kingdom at hand or at the door, and coming of the Son of Man predicted to take place within their “this generation”).
Here are some of the other parallels:

Matthew 10:17-23 Olivet Discourse
1.     Delivered up to local councils and synagogues – Matt. 10:17 1.     Delivered up to local councils and synagogues – Mark 13:9
2.     Brought before governors and kings to be witnesses to the Gentiles – Matt. 10:18 2.     Brought before governors and kings to be witnesses to the Gentiles – Mark 13:9
3.     Holy Spirit would speak through them – Matt. 10:19-20 3.     Holy Spirit would speak through them –    Mark 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 – Matt. 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” – Mark 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. Matt. 10:23 5.     The disciples (and later Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles) 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. Matthew 24:14/Mark 13:10

D.A. Carson claims that the coming of the Son of Man and “the end” in Matthew 10:17-23 have to refer to Christ coming in judgment upon Jerusalem in AD 70 because of the unique cultural and temporal indicators describing the disciples persecutions (“local councils” and “synagogues” etc…) that are inseparably connected to the time frame of the coming of the Son of Man. But these SAME cultural and temporal indicators are inseparably connected to the coming of the Son of Man in the Olivet Discourse – which pose a problem for both Carson and White!
It is ultimately Carson working from a creedal bias and faulty assumptions that the coming of the Son of Man in judgment upon Jerusalem in Matthew 10:17-23 cannot be the Second Coming event as is described in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 that forces him to not see Full Preterism. This causes him to hastily brush aside these parallels and Jesus’ teaching in the OD in which Christ coming in judgment upon Jerusalem is the Second Coming event which brought about “the end” of her age or OC age in AD 70. Where is Carson’s exegetical work on Jesus’ OT echo here for “the end” which posit the destruction of the Temple and City (in AD 70) to be the time for the judgment and resurrection of the dead to take place (ie. Daniel 12:1-13)?
In allowing Jesus to interpret Himself in comparing the persecution of the first century pre-AD 70 disciples in our text Matt. 24:13 with that of “the end” in (Matt. 10:17-23/Mark 13) we see that “the end” is not the end of an individual’s life pre or post AD 70 as White merely assumes, but Daniel’s “time of the end” and in the immediate context “the end of the age” the disciples asked about. White did absolutely no paralleling (“harmonization”) with Mark 13 or addressed this same subject in the gospel of Matthew in chapter 10. Sloppy use of hermeneutics and exposition on White’s part and his church need to be Bereans and challenge him on his “dreaded” approach to Matthew 24.
We will revisit what this “the end” is once we get to verse 14 – where White creates all kinds of problems for himself. But first let’s address the sign of the apostasy in this passage.
At this point we are getting into what Riddlebarger observed in that how one interprets the OD will form ones “millennial view” to some extent (Riddlebarger, Ibid., 157). What are the “days” (plural) that lead up to “the day” (singular) of Christ’s coming and judgment throughout Matthew 24? White’s Amillennialism and that of the “Two-Age Model” would teach these are describing the NT’s use of the “last days” of the Church age in which the “last day” of the Second Coming takes place. So for Amillennialists is Matthew 24 and say 2 Timothy 3 teaching an “optimistic Amillennial view” or what some call a “pessimistic Amillennial view?” Now some Reformed Partial Preterists have taken the NT’s use of the “last days” to be exclusively from roughly from AD 30 – AD 70 referring not to the last days of the Church or NC age, but the last days of the Jewish or OC age ending in AD 70 (Chilton, DeMar, etc…). However, some like Kenneth Gentry and Keith Mathison like to try and “have their cake and eat it to” when it comes to the “last days” and persecution or apostasy is the subject. Why? Because Postmillennial Partial Preterists in debating “pessimistic Dispensationalists” or “pessimistic Postmillennialists” here in Matthew 24:12 and 2 Timothy 3 would like to get this fulfilled in a Preterist “past” time frame so that they can promote an “optimistic Postmillennialism.” Since their eschatology has the vast majority of the nations of the world being Christianized right before the Second Coming takes place, passages like these HAVE to be already be fulfilled in the past or in throws a monkey wrench into their eschatology. I addressed this “doubletalk” in my response to Keith Mathison in our book:
“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.” (Sullivan, Green, Hassertt, House Divided, Ibid., pp. 81-84).
Recently, Mr. Gentry has sought to take issue with White’s Amillennialism in 2 Timothy 3 and is arguing for a first century fulfillment of the passage while at the same time trying to be more “orthodox” on the “last days” claiming the Church is still in those days. For Gentry’s form of Partial Preterism (and apparently that of Mathison), he has ONE eschatological “last days” period that spans through TWO eschatological “already not yet” periods which end two ages (OC age in AD 70 and the Churches at the end of world history). Of course Gentry is extremely arbitrary in this construction that is neither creedal nor Biblical (as White, Riddlebarger, Strimple, and Full Preterists have pointed out). As I pointed out Gentry and Mathison have other problems with these passages in that they describe “signs” in Matthew 24 that they say were fulfilled in AD 70, while trying to claim 2 Timothy 3 and 2 Peter 3 need to have a future fulfillment when in fact these chapters are inseparably connect to the same AD 70 fulfillment signs! They should have listened to their Partial Preterist brethren and that of Full Preterists on these passages but they would not.
And because White fails to understand that this specific sign of apostasy here in Matthew 24:12 was to be fulfilled in the AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation” (not in the Church age post AD 70) and that the “last days” and apostasy described in 2 Timothy 3:1-5 is describing the “last days” of the Jewish or OC age, he too incorrectly interprets these passages. Since White has already told us that “the truth can be found in the middle (of classical Amillennialism & Partial Preterism) let’s solve this tiff between Gentry and White on these passages:
James White (Classic Amillennialism) – The “last days” span between the “Two-Age-Model” of Jesus’ and the NT’s teaching on the signs of persecution, apostasy, and false teachers found in Matthew 24; 2 Timothy 3; and 2 Peter 3.
Gary DeMar (AV Partial Preterism) – The “days” leading up to “that day” in Matthew 24 and the NT’s use of the “last days” are describing, leading up to, and were fulfilled when the OC age ended in AD 70 and therefore Matthew 24; 2 Timothy 3; and 2 Peter 3 were fulfilled by AD 70.
Michael Sullivan (Full Preterism synthesis “truth is in the middle”) – The “last days” of the OC age ended in AD 70 and were a span of time that that were between the NT’s “Two-Age-Model” (not three per Gentry and even DeMar – both claim “the end of the age” in Matt. 28:18-20 is still future) found describing the signs of persecution, apostasy, and false teachers found in Matthew 24; 2 Timothy 3; and 2 Peter 3. Therefore, all three passages have already been fulfilled (cf. Luke 21:22/1 Peter 1:4-12/2 Peter 4:5-7/2 Tim. 4:1YLT).
But having taken a necessary and exegetical “rabbit trail” here in looking at the “last days” signs found in 2 Timothy 3:1-5 and 2 Peter 3 in developing Matthew 24:9-13, it would be nice to hear how Gentry believes the living and dead were judged in AD 70: “I do fully testify, then, before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who is about to judge living and dead at his manifestation and his reign” (2 Tim. 4:1YLT/1 Peter 4:5-7). Selah. It’s always fun to watch a Partial Preterist squirm and address that topic – trying to explain to Amillennialists and Full Preterists how the NT supposedly teaches TWO judgments and resurrections from the dead. All the while they try and keep a straight face and tell you that they are creedal and their views don’t lead to Full Preterism – lol.
“And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.” (Matthew 24:14)
Based upon everything you hear up to this point in listening to James White’s treatment of  Matthew 24 up to this point is a lot of eisegesis and very disappointing. But once he gets to Matthew 24:14 he catches you a bit by surprise. White actually claims that in interpreting this passage and (Mark 13:10) we should understand the terms “whole world” and “all nations” in a “local” first century context in relation to the Roman world or the world as they knew it — and for support he goes to Colossians 1:5-6, 23 in fulfillment of these passages in Paul’s day! You would think you are listening to a Partial Preterist or Full Preterist at this point. But what White says of this passage creates some exegetical problems for him.
First, “the end” in verse 14 is referring contextually to “the end of the age” the disciples asked about in v. 3. This is the same problem White ran into with “the end” in 24:13. Even Kim Riddlebarger (whom White claims he is following for the most part) admits “In verse 14, Jesus gave another sign of the end of the age…” (Riddlebarger, Ibid., 166). Well, if v. 14 is a “sign of the end of the age” the disciples asked about, then contextually one of the signs of “the end of the age” was fulfilled in Paul’s day. That being the case, then “the end of the age” or “the end” refers to the OC age that Paul identified as “shortly” coming to an end in his day (1 Cor. 7:29, 31; 1 Cor. 10:11).
Secondly, if the sign (of the end of the age) concerning the Gospel being preached to the “whole world” and to “all nations” was fulfilled just prior to AD 70 (White citing Cols. 1:5-6, 23), then “the end” or “the end of the (OC) age” is what the disciples asked about and clearly what Jesus is saying would be fulfilled within their AD 30 – AD “this generation” (Matt. 24:34). But to do this, it takes White out of his “Two-Age-Model!” So what do you do? One might substitute “the end” or “end of the age” with the “apostolic age”? Since White claims he is following Riddlebarger for the most part let’s quote him a bit more on this verse. I want you to pay attention to his use of the “apostolic age” and also his references to the “Roman Empire” and Acts 1:8:
Clearly, this sign (of the end of the age), extended not only to the apostolic age, in which the gospel was proclaimed throughout most of the Roman Empire by A.D. 70 (cf. Acts 1:8). But this same gospel which Jesus preached must be preached to all nations before the end of the age. This idea applies to the end of the age and second coming advent, not the events of A.D. 70.” (Ibid.)
“Clearly” Riddlebarger must know that the NT does not mention anything about an “apostolic age” since we have to remind him that he only holds to a “Two-Age-Model.” If Acts 1:8 is referring to the Roman Empire, then the gospel had been preached throughout the Roman Empire just prior to the end of the OC age in AD 70. So when you compare what White is saying of Matthew 24:14/Mark 13:10/Colossians 1:5-6, 23 as referring to the “known world at that time” / “Roman world” / “nations” being “local” not global, and Riddlebarger claiming the “ends of the earth” is referring to the Roman Empire in (Acts 1:8) – you have to kind of scratch your head a bit. “Clearly” Riddlebarger and White are confused. Every Greek word Jesus uses for the fulfillment of the GC, the Apostle Paul turns right around and uses (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) to teach that the GC had already been fulfilled in his day:
PROPHECY            FULFILLMENT

“And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world   (Greek oikumene) for a witness unto all nations; and then shall   the end come” (Matthew 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)” (Romans 10:18)
“And the gospel must first be published among all nations (Greek ethnos)” (Mark 13:10) “…My gospel… has been made manifest, and by the   prophetic Scriptures has been made known to all nations (Greek ethnos)…” (Romans 16:25-26)
“And He said to them, ‘Go into all the world (Greek kosmos) and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15) “…of the gospel, which has come to you, as it   has also in all the world (Greek kosmos), as   is bringing forth   fruit…,” (Colossians 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” (Colossians 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(Greek ge)” (Acts 1:8). “But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed: ‘Their sound has gone out to all the earth (Greek ge), and their words to the ends of the world” (Romans 10:18)

Jesus nor the Apostle Paul meant nor understood these phrases of “into all the world,” “all nations,” “every creature,” or “end of the earth,” to be global terms but rather the nations of the Roman Empire or “the inhabited world as they knew it” in the first century as Riddlebarger and White have admitted to these Biblical definitions!
“Clearly,” Paul in Colossians 1:5-6, 23 and in Romans 10:18 does not say that the gospel had been preached into “most” of the “end of the earth” – just that it had been preached to “all the earth” and to “the ends of the earth” just as the end of the OC age was approaching. And “clearly” within the context of Matthew 24:14 there is no mention of this being fulfilled by the “apostolic age” – the only “the end” is referring to the “end of the (OC) age” connected to the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. I would rather follow the Paul’s inspired teachings and thus his development of NT imminence (that is really imminent) than Riddlebarger and White who feel way to comfortable “going beyond what is written.”
Although I would disagree with John Murray and what he views as fulfilled in AD 70 and what is allegedly future, I would agree with his observations that like other prophetic material (such as the book of Revelation), Jesus in the OD is using the commonly practiced use of “recapitulation” throughout:
“1. The discourse, as to structure, is recapitulatory to a considerable extent. It is not, therefore, continuously progressive. We are repeatedly brought to the advent and informed of its various features, concomitants, and consequences (vss. 14, 29-31, 37-41, 25:31-46).” John Murray, COLLECTED WRITINGS OF JOHN MURRAY 2: Systematic Theology, (Carlisle, PA: THE BANNER OF TRUTH TRUST, 1977), 398-399).
Murray’s structure is spot on and creates problems for White’s exegesis so far in what he and Riddlebarger have said of the GC described in Matthew 24:14 and Mark 13:10 in their appeals to Colossians 1:5-6, 23 and Acts 1:8 with how Paul understood these terms of the commission being fulfilled just prior to the end of the OC age asked about in Matt. 24:3 (not the “apostolic age”) approaching AD 66 – AD 70. It also creates problems for Partial Preterists who claim Matthew 24:30-31 is descriptive of a second GC commission (removed from v. 14) gathering post AD 70 and not the actual ONE “Second Advent” or “end of the age” gathering and resurrection described for us in Matthew 13:39-43/Matthew 24:30-31. Matthew 24:30-31 is not a second GC, but is the “recapitulation” of the consummation or fulfillment found in v. 14! Again, let me stress, the gathering of the elect at the Second Coming (the fulfillment of the harvest) fulfills the GC of v. 14.
But I think Murray misses that Matthew 24:15-20/Luke 21:20-23 is also a recapitulated consummation scene to the disciples question in v. 3 as well. And to that subject we now turn our attention to.
“The abomination that causes desolation” “Then let those who are in Judea flee” (vss. 15-20) “For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written” (Luke 21:20-22)
We finally reach some passages that James White is willing to admit have been 100% fulfilled by AD 70 (at least in Matthew’s account). In the previous passages White criticizes and mocks Dispensationalism’s futuristic treatment of the signs and yet we have found that White ironically gives them the same kind of futuristic double-type fulfillments that fuels the “extremes” of newspaper Dispensational eschatology! But now it is safe to say White is separating himself from Dispensationalists when it comes to agree with Partial Preterists and Full Preterists that these verses have been fulfilled by AD 70.
White at this point of his exegesis of Matthew 24 finally wants to do some “harmonization” between Matthew 24:15-20 with other parallel accounts to the OD such as Luke 21:20-23. Why? Well, mostly it is to further mock Dispensationalism. But putting that aside, White is correct to point out to Dispensationalists that there is no need for a future re-built Temple to fulfill this passage. Nor is their understanding of trying to identify a future to us “anti-Christ” (“alive and well on planet earth”) to do abominable acts in this future to us re-built Temple in hopes of fulfilling this passage. Why? Because a “harmonization” of Matthew 24:15-20 with that of Luke 21:20-23 concerning this “desolation” makes it plain that the Roman armies on Jerusalem’s land (surrounding the City and Temple area) would be an “abomination” to the Jew, and thus a fulfillment of the Daniel 9:27 Jesus references.
White is correct to point out the clear AD 70 local and temporal indicators within the (Matt. 24:15-20/Luke 21:20-23) passages such as:

  1. The surrounding of Jerusalem being the Romans in AD 66.
  2. The flight of the Christian Jews from Jerusalem to the city to Pella.
  3. References to “Judea” and pre-AD 70 cultural references to one being on a “roof.”

For White, Partial Preterists and Full Preterists this is sound hermeneutical ground to see these passages as being fulfilled in the events of AD 66 – AD 70.
But of course it is my job as a “Berean,” thorough exegete, and a Full Preterist theologian to bring up and address issues White did not address on these passages:

  1. If I recall there was no mention or exegesis of what the, “For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written” passage means (Luke 21:22) which of course is sandwiched in-between the abomination and desolation/flight of (Matt. 24:15-20/Luke 21:20-23).
  2. Since White appealed to D.A. Carson on how “difficult” and yet significant and important Matthew 24 is to how one will interpret his eschatology say in 1 and 2 Thessalonians, we should ask ourselves where else could this AD 66 – AD 70 “wrath” be described in Thessalonians? This is especially relevant as it pertains to passages that have been brought up in Muslim debates and articles addressed to Sam Shamoun etc…
  3. There was no real exegesis from White on the OT echo or reference Jesus brings up in Daniel 9:27 which is the fulfillment of the Seventy Sevens of Daniel 9:24-27 and how those verses could have been fulfilled by AD 70. Exegetically speaking, anytime a NT author quotes or alludes to an OT reference, it is the Christian exegete’s responsibility to develop that OT context to see how, what, when, and where that context applies to the NT author’s use of the passage in the NT.

Daniel 2 / 7 / 9 / 12 recapitulation and Matthew 24:15/Luke 21:22 “all things written”
As the book of Revelation and Matthew 24-25 are written in a common prophetic “recapitulation,” structure understood in the context of Jesus’ day, so too was the prophetic book of Daniel. So if Jesus says that Daniel 9:27 would be fulfilled by AD 70 that isn’t exactly the end of the issue. Because in context, Daniel 9:27 is the climax of the redemptive events being fulfilled for the entire Seventy Seven’s prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27. And have some of these same events been recapitulated previously in say chapters 2 and 7, and will they be recapitulated again in chapter 12 with indicators that they too would all be fulfilled by AD 70 – ie. “all things written” (the coming of the Son of Man, the judgment, and resurrection) (Luke 21:22/Matt. 5:17-18)?
Daniel 2 – Nebuchadnezzar has a dream which troubles him. He seeks to have his wise men to tell him what he dreamt and its interpretation. No one could do this except the God of Daniel. The dream was of a statue which represented four world powers (1. Head of gold = Babylon, 2. Chest and arms of silver = Medo-Persia, 3. Belly and thighs of bronze = Greece, and 4. Legs of iron and feet of clay = Roman (and possibly the Hasmonean dynasty). It is revealed that the God of heaven will establish His everlasting Kingdom that will never be destroyed through the use of a “stone cut out of a mountain without hands” that will strike the feet of the statue (during the time of the Roman Kingdom).
Daniel 7 – This is the time for the eschatological judgment when the Ancient of Days would open the books. In verse 13 in the (OG) LXX it depicts one like a Son of Man coming with/upon the clouds of heaven “as the Ancient of days.” Daniel wants to understand more about this and is given an angelic interpretation in vss. 19-27. We are told that a “little horn” from the “fourth beast” (Rome) would wage war against the saints (implying persecution and martyrdom) before the Ancient of Days would come in judgment and the saints could “poses” or inherit the kingdom.
Jesus and the book of Revelation depict Christ coming as the Son of Man upon the clouds and as the Ancient of Days in His Second Advent (Matt. 16:27-28; Matt. 24:30-31—25:31; Rev. 1:7-18). The Second Advent of the Son of Man and His Kingdom (cf. Luke 21:27, 31-32; Matt. 16:27-28/Mark 8:38-9:1) is described to take place within some of lifetimes of Jesus’ first century audience and in their “this generation.” This is consistent with an AD 70 imminent “shortly” fulfillment of Christ’s coming as the Ancient of days in judgment found in the book of Revelation (Rev. 1:1—-22:20).
So before getting into Daniel 9:27, we can see that there has been a “recapitulation” of progressive development of how and when God’s everlasting Kingdom will come during the time of the Roman Empire. In chapter 2 why find out that it comes during the time of the fourth kingdom (Rome) and that it comes in the form of a Stone (Jesus Christ the Chief Corner Stone) bringing an end to the times of the Gentiles (we will get into that when approaching Luke 21:24 – shortly). Recapitulation in the form of progressive revelation (or description of this same event) further describes the coming Stone as a Son of Man coming upon the clouds “as the Ancient of Days” in judgment upon the little horn of the fourth beast (Rome) at which time the Kingdom is established. But here we are given further information about the same end time judgment event in that there is persecution for the saints before they can inherit this spiritual and eternal kingdom.
Daniel 9:24-27 – As I stated earlier, since there is no disagreement between myself, White, Rogers, and Shamoun, on the fulfillment of Matthew 24:15-20/Luke 21:20-23 being fulfilled by AD 70, I want to develop the context and spend a little more time on the immediate context of Daniel 9:24-27.
This too is one of those allegedly “difficult” passages to interpret but it really isn’t. As we have seen so far in Matthew 16:27-28 and Matthew 24, the truth is easy to see and has been a synthesis or combination of the Classical Amillennial view and the Partial Preterist views. The truth of the matter is that a easy explanation of the Seventy Sevens is found “in the middle” of two Christian views that have been seen as contradictory (working within the box of the creeds), but when combined together actually form the Biblical view.
View #1 – Many of the early church fathers and even exegetes today (even Partial Preterists) find the fulfillment of Daniel 9:24-27 in Christ’s appearance in the flesh, His death, and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70 – closing the OC age. Many within this view try and make the prophecy be a literal 490 years.
View #2 – Other church fathers and even modern theologians have interpreted the prophecy from the Babylonian Exile to the kingdom’s arrival attended by the Second Coming of Christ – at the end of the days or end of the Church age. This view understands the Seventy Sevens (or as some call them “The Seventy Weeks”) not to be a literal 490 years, but a prophetic and symbolic period of time.
My View – (synthesis “Reformed and always reforming”) – The Seventy Sevens is a prophetic and or symbolic period of time from God calling His people back into their land from the Babylon captivity (through Cyrus’ decree – under Nehemiah and Ezra leadership), to Christ in His Second Advent gathering His elect “in Him/the Kingdom/Heavenly Land” from Babylonian captivity (out from among the OC apostate “Great City” Jerusalem) at the close of the OC age in AD 70.
As we have seen thus far, Jesus identifies the judgment and destruction of Jerusalem and Her Temple with the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 (Dan. 9:24a, 26-27/Matt. 24:15/Luke 21:20-22). Daniel 9:27 is brings an “…the end that is decreed” – that is it is the climatic event or the last seven that fulfills “Seventy sevens decreed for” Daniel’s people and their city of (Dan. 9:24). So whatever these six redemptive (from cross to parousia) events are depicted in this decree and these verses, they will be (in a nut-shell) the fulfillment of “all things written” (Luke 21:22). And as this information will be progressively built upon through recapitulation into Daniel 12:1-13, we will see that this is clearly the time of the judgment and resurrection of the dead as well (“all things written”).
The strengths of view #1 or the Partial Preterist view is that it tries to honor Christ’s teaching that the prophecy somehow must be fulfilled with a reference to AD 70 but it doesn’t exactly know how to get there.
But the problems for this view are two-fold.
First, the argue for a literal 490 years chronology of fulfillment claiming the seventy sevens (filled with redemptive material) were fulfilled in the life, death and resurrection of Christ (roughly in AD 26 – AD 30) and then reference the destruction of AD 70 as kind of addendum or exclamation mark to it. After all how could AD 70 be considered a redemptive event that would bring an end to sin?
Secondly, seeing that the problem in that the math doesn’t work, some have had to suggest a 40 years “gap” in the chronology from AD 30 – Christ coming in judgment upon Jerusalem in AD 70. This is ironic because these same individuals criticize Dispensationalism for taking the prophecy for a literal 490 years (like they do) and placing a “gap” of thousands of years between the 69th and 70th. Weeks. Taking this prophecy with a literal 490 years is the first error, and the second is creating a “gap theory” (of 40 or thousands of years).
The strengths of view #2 is that it eliminates and solves the math problem by demonstrating that a more symbolic period marked by the number (seventy sevens) makes more sense. Its other strength is that it sees some of the redemptive aspects contained in Daniel 9:24-27 to be referring to Christ’s Second Coming at “the end of the age.” After all the Second Coming does have redemptive aspects to it – not just the cross and resurrection of Christ.
There are at least 5 problems I see with view #2.
It errs in failing to acknowledge that Christ posits His redemptive “end” or the unfolding of the kingdom to be fulfilled:  1. During the time of the Roman Empire (not at the end of world history), 2. During the time of the destruction of the Temple and City (Dan. 9:24, 26-27/Matt. 24:15/Luke 21:20-22), 3. “the end” or “end of the age” in (Matt. 24:3, 14) is referring to the end of the OC age in AD 70 (again not the end of world history) 4. Jesus posits the fulfillment of redemption and the arrival of His Kingdom and Second Coming to take place within the same AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation” time period (Luke 21:27-32).
Let’s now turn our attention to the Biblical view. Commenting on the seventy sevens prophecy as being a symbolic period of time marked by the number 7 and tying it into God’s Sabbath rrest Lee Irons and Meredith Kline write:
“The seventy “weeks” (literally “sevens”) comprise a definite period of time until the coming of the Messiah and the destruction of Jerusalem…a period that is actually longer than a literal 490 years.”
“…the point of the seventy weeks is not to provide a precise chronological prediction but to make the profound theological point that the coming of Christ and the abrogation of the Old Covenant order will usher in the eschatological Sabbath rest for the people of God.” (Lee Irons, Meredith Kline, J. Ligon Duncan, David W. Hall, Hugh Ross, Gleason L. Archer, THE GENESIS DEBATE Three Views on the Days of Creation, (Mission Viejo, CA:  Crux Press, Inc., 2001), 227).
I would also agree with Keil and Delitzsch on the point that this is not a reference to a literal 490 years of chronology:  “That by this word common years are to be understood, is indeed taken for granted by many interpreters, but a satisfactory proof of such a meaning has not been adduced. Moreover, in favour of year-weeks (periods of seven years) it has been argued that such an interpretation was very natural, since they hold so prominent a place in the law of Moses; and the Exile had brought them anew very distinctly into remembrance, in as much as the seventy years’ desolation of the land was viewed as a punishment for the interrupted festival of the sabbatical years: 2 Chron. 36:21 (Hgstb., Kran., and others).  But since these periods of seven years, as Hengstenberg himself confesses, are not called in the law שָׁבֻעִים or שָׁבֻעֹות, therefore, from the repeated designation of the seventh year as that of the great Sabbath merely (Lev. 25:2, 4, 5;26:34, 35, 43; 2 Chron. 36:21), the idea of year-weeks in no way follows. The law makes mention not only of the Sabbath-year, but also of periods of seven times seven years, after the expiry of which a year of jubilee was always to be celebrated (Lev. 25:8ff.). These, as well as the Sabbath-years, might be called שָׁבֻעִים. Thus the idea of year-weeks has no exegetical foundation. Hofmann and Kliefoth are in the right when they remark that שָׁבֻעִים does not necessarily mean year-weeks, but an intentionally indefinite designation of a period of time measured by the number seven, whose chronological duration must be determined on other grounds.” (Keil,C. F., & Delitzsch, F. (1996). Commentaryon the Old Testament (Vol. 9, pp. 717–718). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
Irons and Kline also point out that symbolism using sevens is not an unusual way of communicating within the Jewish world and give the genealogy of Matthew 1:1-17 (whereby evidence is given that Jesus is the long awaited Messiah) as an example:
“Similarly, in his genealogy of Christ, Matthew employs sabbatical theology to structure history.  He purposely dropped at least four names and counted David twice to construct a sabbatical structure of the history of redemption from Abraham to the Messiah.  He states that from Abraham to David is 14 generations; from David to the captivity is 14 generations; and from the captivity to Messiah, 14 generations (Matt.1:17).  This was intentional:  the author purposely wanted to stress this numerical system, primarily because of its sabbatical symbolism (3×14 = 6×7); the generations of the Messiah represents the seventh seven, thereby showing that it is He who inaugurates the ultimate Sabbath rest for the people of God, the eschatological age.  Matthew employs sabbatical symbolism to underscore one of his major themes:  the Messiah’s advent constitutes the apex and fulfillment of redemptive history.” (Irons and Kline, Ibid., 227).
The book of Hebrews in chapters 3-4 tells us that entering the land and Sabbath rest were typological pointing to “another day” of Sabbath rest coming. This is the second appearing or “the Day approaching” in (Heb. 10:25, 37) that was coming in a “very little while” and would “not be delayed” in which God’s raging fire was “about to” consume the enemies of God – “his people” (Heb. 10:27 YLT, 30).  In Hebrews 9:26-28 we are told that Jesus appeared in Israel’s “last days” “at the end of [the OC] age” (this is in “the end” or “the end that is decreed” for the seventy sevens to be fulfilled) “to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself…” “…sacrificed to take away the sins of many;” (cf. Dan. 9:27) and “bring salvation to those who are waiting” “a second time.”  Hebrews 9:26-28 so accurately describes the work of Messiah in the last seven of the seventy sevens (his redemptive work being accomplished from His First and Second Appearings as the Churches Great High Priest).
Simply put, the prophecy of the seventy sevens symbolizes a period between the imminent fall of Babylon in Daniel’s day (in 538 BC) to the imminent fall of “Babylon” (the old order or old covenant “Jerusalem” the apostate “Great City” or “Harlot” of Revelation) in John’s day (in AD 70) – a period covering roughly 608 literal years (not 490).  The book of Revelation is outlined with the number 7 representing perfection/completion, Sabbath rest and New Creation motifs (7 churches, 7 seals, 7 trumpets, 7 angels with 7 plagues, 7 bowls of God’s wrath, etc…  Revelation 22 depicts entering into this Sabbath or New Creation rest after Babylon’s/Jerusalem’s fall in an imminent AD 70 time frame (the same imminent time frame we see in the book of Hebrews):  “…sent his angel to show his servants the things that must soon take place,” “Behold I am coming soon,” “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, because the time is near,” (cf. Rev. 22:6-7, 10-12, 20).
Daniel 9:24 – Here are the main elements of the seventy sevens in Daniel 9:24-27 to be fulfilled for the people and her city Jerusalem:

  1. Finish transgression – Jerusalem “filled up” or “finished transgressions” against God and His Messiah within Jesus’ “this generation” (Mt. 23:31-38; Dan. 9:24a).
  2. Put an end to sin – As we have seen in our brief discussion of entering into the sabbath rest in the book of Hebrews, Christ put an “end to sin” at His imminent “in a very little while” Second Appearing as the Great Anointed High Priest fulfilling the NC promises made to Israel and to close the “last days” of the OC age in AD 70 (Heb. 9:26-28/10:37; Rom. 11:26-27/13:11-12; Dan. 9:24b.).
  3. To atone for wickedness or the covering over of iniquity – See references in #2.  In the New Creation our sins are remembered no more and covered in the depths of the sea (Isa. 65-66; Micah 7:19).
  4. To bring in everlasting righteousness – At Christ’s return in AD 70, He brought in “everlasting righteousness” or a “world of righteousness” in 2 Peter 3 – the “end of all things” being “at hand” in Peter’s day (1 Peter 4:5-7). “but also on ours, to whom it [righteousness] is about to be reckoned — to us believing on Him who did raise up Jesus our Lord out of the dead,” (Romans 4:24).  “For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope.” (Galatians 5:5).
  5. To seal up vision and prophecy –  Jesus teaching is clear, all of Israel’s promises and prophetic material concerning His redemptive work  would be accomplished within the AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation” (Luke 21:22-32).  Prophecy would “cease” when “that which is perfect” (the Second Coming and arrival of the New Creation) arrived in AD 70 (1 Cor. 1:7-8/13:8-12/Rev. 21-22:6-7, 10-12, 20).  The NT bears witness that all would be fulfilled imminently in AD 70 (cf. 1 Cor. 10:11; 1 Pet. 1:4-12; 4:5-7).  Therefore, all the eschatological promises made to Israel concerning vision and prophecy were fulfilled or sealed up by AD 70 in fulfillment of the seventy sevens prophecy.  This effective destroys all of the “last days” cults and Islam whom claim that they were given divine revelation and that their “prophets” (Muhammad, Joseph Smith, the Watchtower, etc…) have legitimacy.
  6. To anoint the most holy – Christ anointed and consummated the New Covenant Church as His Most Holy Place and Bride in AD 70 (Ex. 20, 29-31, 40; cf. Hebrews 9:6-10; Revelation 11:18-19, 19–21:16). The New Jerusalem is pictured as the anointed and perfected Most Holy Place (a perfect cube) coming down from heaven to earth in Revelation 21. This was all to be fulfilled in an AD 70 “at hand,” “soon,” “shortly,” “quickly” “about to be” time period (Rev. 1:1—22:6-20).

Daniel 9:25 – The “decree (of Cyrus) to restore and re-build Jerusalem” is found in (2 Chron. 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-4; Isa. 44:24, 26, 28; 45:13; cf. Josephus, Antiquities, xi, 6, 12).  It’s rebuilding in the “difficult times” of Ezra and Nehemiah can be read in those OT books.  The first 62 sevens represents a period from the rebuilding of Jerusalem by Nehemiah and Ezra to the first coming of Jesus – the “Anointed One.”  Jesus was anointed by the Father to preach the good news of the Gospel to Israel.
Daniel 9:26 – The Anointed One/Prince/Ruler/Leader/Messiah (Jesus the Christ), would be “cut off” after the 62 sevens.  Isaiah 53 teaches us the same about a coming Messiah who would be cut off and have nothing (with some Jews conceded Isa. 53 is Messianic).  “The people (the Jews or Roman soldiers) of the Ruler (Jesus), will destroy the city and the sanctuary.  The end (of the seventy sevens) will come like a flood:  War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.”  Between AD 66 – AD 70 not only did the Romans surround the city, but the Idumeans (Jewish Zealots) did as well and entered Jerusalem resulting in the city being divided into three warring sects – all shedding blood over the Temple area and for control of Jerusalem.  War and blood shed took place within the Temple and thus it was subject to abominations.  The Romans (who were also under the control of Christ) did very little except wait it out and let “the people” that rejected their Messiah to devour (sometimes literally) each other.  Also through the imprecatory prayers of the Christians (people of the Prince), Jerusalem was destroyed and it’s mountain removed and thrown into the Lake of Fire (Matthew 21:18-22; Revelation 8:8).
Daniel 9:27 – The “He” here is still the Messiah (not an alleged “Anti-Christ”) and through His sacrifice He established the New Covenant for the “many” (ie. the Church the new Israel of God).  This last seven was from the anointing of Jesus in His first coming to His anointing the Church in His Second in AD 70.  His Wife and or New Jerusalem is described as a perfect cube as the MHP place was (cf. Rev. 21:16 & “the first” [Holy Place] representing the OC community being removed in AD 70 and “the second” [the Most Holy Place] representing the NC community and its establishment during the time of the “new order” fully arriving at the end of the OC age in AD 70 in a “very little while” cf. Heb. 9:6-10, 26-28; 10:37).  Christ came and overshadowed Jerusalem with desolation and determined wrath upon the desolate in AD 70 (cf. Matthew 24:15ff/Luke 21:20-24).
As we can see, if Jesus fulfilled Daniel 9:27, then He fulfilled the last seven – ALL of the redemptive events from His First Coming to His Second when He came upon the clouds of heaven to judge Jerusalem in AD 70. This was not just a physical “salvation” and flight to Pella. That was an outward show of a physical salvation that demonstrated what Christ Had done within His people in atoning for their Sins.
So from the birth of Israel’s King and Messiah (Jesus the Christ) to His Second Appearing at the end of her OC age in AD 70 is roughly another more significant 70 years for her coming out of bondage and slavery from OC “Jerusalem/Babylon” (an administration of death) into the freedom/rest and salvation found not “in the land” but “in Christ” – in the NC or New Jerusalem wherein is eternal life.  Selah.
I want to turn our attention to how Daniel 12 now recapitulates events within chapters 7 and 9 and makes clearer that AD 70 would be the time of the resurrection to be fulfilled – thus “all that is written” would be fulfilled when God would judge OC Jerusalem.

Daniel 7 & 9 Daniel 12
Dan. 7 – Time of persecution – “war” with saints and they are “defeated” for a time before Son of Man comes and they inherit the Kingdom. Time of great distress – persecution before judgment and resurrection takes place.
Dan. 7 – Time of judgment – books were opened Time of judgment – Those written in the book would be delivered.
Dan. 9:24-27 – finish transgression, put an end to sin, atone for wickedness, bring in everlasting righteousness, seal up vision and prophecy, anoint the most holy (Christ as HP – redemption accomplished and applied – from First to Second Comings – last seven). Here is made more clear that the six redemptive events in the seventy sevens was the time of the resurrection
Dan. 7 – When? – “Time, times and half a time” (3 ½)  Dan. 9 – in the middle of the last 7 (3 ½). When? – “Time, times, and half a time” (3 ½)
Dan. 9 – “end of decree” “the end” of the seventy sevens. Time of the end.”
Dan. 9 – When destruction of Jerusalem takes place, is when all the redemptive events of the seventy sevens are fulfilled. When destruction of Jerusalem takes place (“when the power of the holy people is completely shattered”) “all these things” (including judgment and resurrection) – all is fulfilled.

As one can see, Daniel and Jesus placed the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 to be the time frame when:   1).  the Son of Man would come upon the clouds, 2).  the judgment and resurrection of the dead,  and 3).  the time that the saints would inherit the Kingdom.  Jesus in Matthew 24/Luke 21 states that all of these events would be fulfilled in His AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation” (see chart in Part 2 comparing Daniel 12 with OD).
Concluding meditations upon Matthew 24:15-20/Luke 21:20-23 – If the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 fulfilled the seventy sevens prophecy, then Christ as the Churches Great High Priest came a “Second Time” to the eagerly awaiting congregation to accomplish/fulfill and apply (sprinkle the blood) His redemption (from sin) for Her. Anthony Rogers believes Hebrews 9:26-28/10:37 was fulfilled in AD 70, therefore, AD 70 was much more than just a physical salvation or deliverance. If we didn’t get this in Daniel 7-9 God makes it even clearer in chapter 12 in which it is unambiguously taught that when the destruction of the City takes place – it is the time for the judgment and resurrection to be fulfilled. Thus this is how we are to understand how “all things written” were fulfilled by Jesus in AD 70 (cf. Luke 21:20-22). I will have more to say upon this subject once we discuss the “heaven and earth” passing away of Matthew 24:35 and connecting this as the time Jesus fulfilled ALL the law and prophets in Matthew 5:17-18.
If I recall, White avoids any discussion or harmonization of Luke 21:22 in his treatment of Matthew 24:15-20. Nor does he do any exegesis of Daniel 9:24-27 of which Jesus references in Matthew 24:15. And if I recall Anthony Rogers does not address these issues either. I find this to be sloppy and inadequate exegesis – to say the very least.
So if you turn to one of the authors White recommends and is following (Kim Riddlebarger), you will quickly see that he quotes Kline favorably. Concerning the last 3 ½ or broken seven period he quotes Kline:
“The last week is the age of the church in the wilderness of the nations for a time, a times, and half a time (Rev. 12:14). Since the seventy weeks are ten jubilee eras that issue in the last jubilee, the seventieth week closes with angelic trumpeting of the earth’s redemption and the glorious liberty of the children of God. The acceptable year of the Lord which came with Christ will then have fully come. Then the new Jerusalem whose temple is the Lord and the Lamb will descend from heaven (Rev. 21:10, 22) and the ark of the covenant will be seen (Rev. 11:19), the covenant the Lamb has made to prevail and the Lord as remembered.” (Ibid., 155).
And Riddlebarger commenting on this,
“Although he has wrought the blessings of the jubilee, including the forgiveness of sins and everlasting righteousness, that which has been accomplished by Christ remains yet to be consummated. The final three-and-one-half years of the seventieth week as interpreted by John is symbolic of the church on earth during the entire time of its existence. It also is a reference to the tribulation depicted in Daniel.” (Ibid., 156).
First, the second exodus motif as developed in the NT is not a period depicting the NC Church age (ie. thousands of years), but as I pointed out in Hebrews, it is rather a transition AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation” period between the passing of the OC age (separating from literal land), awaiting the AD 70 “in a very little while” “another day” of inheriting a spiritual city, mountain, heavenly land “in Christ” at the end of the OC age (Heb. 3-4; 9-10:37; 11-13:14YLT).
Secondly, the Church was taken and delivered from the wrath of the Dragon when they fled Jerusalem in AD 66 in obedience to Christ’s warnings in Matt. 24:15-20/Luke 21:20-23.
Thirdly, yes the 3 ½ years is symbolic of a period of time (not a literal 3 ½ years) that has something to do with the tribulation period. The Church did undergo some tribulation and persecution prior to AD 66, but were delivered from the “wrath” that soon befell the city. As we will soon see, the Great Tribulation was a specific historic event connected to the fall of Jerusalem and has already been fulfilled. Even Anthony Rogers points this out in his article response to Shabir Ally.
Fourthly, the events of Revelation 11, 12, and 21 have already been fulfilled with the last trumpet being blown at Christ’s “at hand” “soon” coming in AD 70. We will cover that more when getting into Matthew 24:30-31 and a little of Revelation 11 when discussing “Jerusalem being trampled” as being the “times of the Gentiles” be fulfilled (Luke 21:23-24). The Church is not in the “already and not yet” – we are in the “face to face” fulfillment of enjoying God’s presence in His eternal NC glorious Kingdom/New Creation/Age (Rev. 21-22:4-6ff.).
The Great Tribulation in “those days” (vss. 21-25) “Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled” (Luke 21:23-24)
Well, right when you think there is ray of hope in White’s attempts at exegeting Matthew 24 by finally giving verses 15-20 a 100% AD 70 fulfillment (not a dual fulfillment as he has up to this point), White apparently get’s sucked back into regurgitating Kim Riddlebarger’s theory that the Tribulation may have had some fulfillment in the events leading up to AD 70, but in reality it is to be stretched out throughout the entire Church age. Really?
Apparently once again we need to remind White to do that “harmonization” thing that he chided Shabir Ally on not doing in his debate with him and compare this passage with its parallel in Luke 21:23-24 since there it is even clearer the time frame for the abomination that causes desolation and the tribulation period are inseparably connected to the same historical events leading up to AD 70. And since Luke covers “the times of the Gentiles” (and Matthew does not) we should spend a little time on that as well.
“Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath. For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect’s sake those days will be shortened. “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.  See, I have told you beforehand. “Therefore if they say to you, ‘Look, He is in the desert!’ do not go out; or ‘Look, He is in the inner rooms!’ do not believe it.” (Matt. 24:21-25).
“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” (Luke 21:20-24).
Argument #1 – Grammatically the phrase “For then…” or “For these are the days…” connects the historically unique days of the abomination that causes desolation period leading up to AD 70 with the historically unique days of the tribulation period. Therefore, if White is going to argue with Dispensationalists that the abomination of desolation cannot have a future or double fulfillment, White can’t then turn around and make the same misstate with the tribulation period!
Argument #2 – Local and cultural indicators – previously White argued that Matthew 24:15-20 was 100% and uniquely fulfilled in the days leading up to AD 70 (and could not have a double type fulfillment) because of some of the local and cultural indicators within the text such as “Judea,” “fleeing to the mountains,” being on the “house top,” farming, etc… He is obviously following Kim Riddlebarger and D.A. Carson on these verses,
“As D.A. Carson points out, the details of what follows are too limited “geographically and culturally to extend this beyond A.D. 70.” (Riddlebarger, Ibid., 168).
I would add the “flight” on “the Sabbath” to be among these limited cultural indicators, but since James White is a Reformed Baptist he no doubt still legalistically thinks this is still in place today (he and Chantry would consider the wrong Sabbath a “delight” – see my previous comments on when the anti-type Sabbath arrived in AD 70 in Hebrews). But notice that Luke describes the tribulation period with similar local and cultural indicators – “great distress (tribulation) in the land and wrath upon this people.” And that “this people” would “fall by the edge of the sword and be led away captive into all nations.” Obviously “Judea” and “in the land” “this people” are all equivalents describing the same time period. And “falling by the edge of the sword” and being “led captives” were uniquely cultural practices of the Roman Empire and fulfilled in the events leading up to AD 70 and shortly thereafter.
Argument #3 – In understanding the recapitulation structure of Daniel 7, 9 and 12, we saw that the time of the abomination of desolation with that the tribulation period would be fulfilled together at the end of the seventy sevens and when Jerusalem would be destroyed in AD 70 – “when the power of the holy people is completely shattered.” To claim the abomination of desolation was fulfilled in AD 70 but give the tribulation period some kind of double or expanded fulfillment is purely arbitrary and eisegetical.
It shouldn’t surprise us that Kim Riddlebarger (whom White is following for the most part) ends up speaking out of both sides of his mouth on the tribulation period. Previously I documented him stretching out the Great Tribulation period throughout the “Church age” when interpreting Daniel and his 3 ½ years period. And let’s watch him struggle once again on the tribulation period as described in the OD,
“The reason people were to flee the city was that the horrors to come upon Jerusalem in A.D. 70 were the worst that Jerusalem had ever experienced. It would be greater than the destruction of the temple in 583 B.C. It would be greater than the desolation of 163 B.C. at the hands of Antiochus Epiphanes. This would be Israel’s darkest hour.” (Ibid., 171).
“Yet Jesus continued to speak, not of the final judgment at the end of the age, but of God’s grace in restraining the evil forces which would fall on the inhabitants of Jerusalem. In verse 22, Jesus said, “If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.” Even as Israel would become desolate and the temple destroyed, God would shorten the days of judgment for the sake of his elect, a reference to Christians living in Jerusalem at the time of the city’s destruction. Israel would be cut off, and the Jews dispersed but God would preserve his people, even under the worst circumstances.
Yet the possibility of double fulfillment surfaces again. Is this prophecy of horrible tribulation limited to the destruction of Jerusalem and the events of A.D. 70? Indeed, it is possible that the events of A.D. 70 pointed beyond historical fulfillment to the great tribulation to be faced by God’s people during the apostasy, which will come immediately before the end of the age.” (Ibid., 172, bold emphasis mine).
So the Amillennialism of White and Riddlebarger argue against the Dipsensationalist that the abomination of desolation was a unique event fulfilled in AD 70 that cannot have double fulfillments and yet once they get into the Great Tribulation period they want to do the very thing they condemn Dispensationalists of! And of course Postmillennial Partial Preterists argue that they have no right to do this,
“As Christ pointed out in Matthew, the Great Tribulation was to take place, not at the end of history, but in the middle, for nothing similar had occurred “from the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall.” Thus the prophecy of the Tribulation refers to the destruction of the Temple in that generation (A.D. 70) alone. I cannot be made to fit into some “double-fulfillment” scheme of interpretation; the Great Tribulation of A.D. 70 was an absolutely unique event, never to be repeated.” (David Chilton, THE GREAT TRIBULATION, (Ft. Worth, TX: Dominion Press, 1987), 14, bold emphasis mine).
So what have we seen so far? White and Riddlebarger (Amillennialism) claim the Dispensationalist can’t have a future fulfillment or double-fulfillment for the abomination of desolation period but want to have one for the Tribulation period (which contextually is describing the same period)! Then the Postmillennial Partial Preterist comes along and claims the Dispensationalist nor the Amillennialist can have a future or double-fulfillment for the abomination of desolation and Great Tribulation period, because they are fulfilled together. But once the Postmillennial Partial Preterist gets into Daniel 12:1-7, they want to give the resurrection a future or double-fulfillment when debating the Full Preterist, even though verse 7 clearly says the Tribulation and the Resurrection would be fulfilled together at the same historical event – ie. the destruction of Jerusalem. Consistency thou rare jewel.
Times of the Gentiles and Revelation 11 
“And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” (Luke 21:24). 
James White does not really deal with Luke’s account of the times of the Gentiles and them trampling Jerusalem. Riddlebarger doesn’t really address this issue either in his treatment of the OD. But since Riddlebarger has mentioned Revelation 11 being representative of Daniel’s 3 ½ years or the “Church age,” we should spend a little time on Revelation 11 as it pertains to our text here. This is an excerpt from my response to Simon Kistemaker on Revelation 11 in our book:
Revelation 11
Kistemaker spends a substantial portion of his chapter interpreting Revelation 11:2:
And leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the nations; and they will tread under foot the holy city for forty-two months.
Kistemaker says that according to this verse, the new covenant church on Earth (“the holy city”) is destined by God to be trampled underfoot for the entire church age (“forty-two months”) while “Satan and his henchmen” “rule the world” and “have full sway on the face of this earth” until the end of time (238, 249).
One does not need to be a “hyper-preterist” to see a problem here. Kistemaker’s interpretation of Revelation 11:2 is what happens when we mysticize the time statements of the New Testament so that the imminence that saturates it is not really “imminence” at all. We take an obvious historic-prophetic reference to the trampling of Jerusalem that culminated in its destruction in AD 70 and turn it into a trans-historical “ideal” of defeat for the church (cf. Rev. 13:5–7) throughout the entirety of world history until the end of time. Again we see Kistemaker’s doctrine being cruel news for the people of God.
Let us compare Revelation 11:2b with Luke 21:24 (which was fulfilled in AD 70):
[A]nd they [“the nations”] will trample under foot the holy city for forty-two months. (Rev. 11:2b)
. . . Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the nations until the times of the nations [“forty-two months”] be fulfilled. (Lk. 21:24)
In both of these verses, the nations trample Jerusalem for a period of time. There is more than similarity of language here. Jesus and John prophesied the same event —an event that was “near” and that took place in Christ’s “generation” (Lk. 21:32; Rev. 1:3; 22:10). Therefore, “forty-two months” does not signify 2,000+ years. It signifies some months or years between AD 66 and 70, the years of the war that ended in the destruction of the city and the sanctuary. That was the same period of time that the angel called “a time, times, and half a time” in Daniel 12:7 and which was consummated when the power of the Old Testament “holy people” was shattered in AD 70.
Kistemaker moves on to Revelation 11:8. He says that “the great city” (“Babylon”) in that verse was “not the earthly city of Jerusalem,” even though the verse specifically states that “the great city” was “where also their Lord was crucified.”
One of the reasons Kistemaker rejects earthly Jerusalem as being “the great city” is that, according to Kistemaker, “God’s enemies inhabit the great city, which cannot be one particular place, but ‘the worldwide structure of unbelief and defiance against God’” (226). But this argument can be quickly dismissed, because there is no indication that all unbelievers lived in “the great city.” When the city fell in chapter eighteen, the kings of the earth who had committed adultery with her stood from afar and mourned over her (Rev. 18:9–10).
The historical referent is clear enough in that the “great city” is “where also their Lord was crucified” (Rev. 11:8). “It is Jerusalem that is guilty of the blood of the old covenant witnesses; she is, par excellence, the killer of prophets (Matt. 21:33–43; 23:34–38). In fact, Jesus said, ‘it cannot be that a prophet should perish outside of Jerusalem’ (Luke 13:33).”[1] Compare Revelation 18:24 with Matthew 23:35.
Kistemaker also argues that “the holy city” in Revelation 11:2 cannot be Old Testament Jerusalem because that city was no longer holy after the veil was ripped in two in about AD 30. In this argument, Kistemaker is implying that the holy covenant that was established with terrible and blazing fire, an earthquake, darkness, gloom, fear, trembling, whirlwind, and the staggering blast of a trumpet (Heb. 12:18–21) came to a final end in God’s sight with the tearing of the veil (which was later sewn back together). And therefore earthly Jerusalem ceased to be holy at that time.
In contrast to this futurist myth, the author of Hebrews taught that the covenant that began with momentous signs was going to end with momentous signs in the near future:
And His voice shook the earth then [at Mount Sinai], but now He has promised, saying, “Yet once more I will shake not only the earth, but also the heaven.” And this expression, “Yet once more,” denotes the removing of those things which can be shaken, as of created things [the old covenant world], in order that those things which cannot be shaken [the kingdom of Christ] may remain. Therefore, since we receive a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us show gratitude, by which we may offer to God an acceptable service with reverence and awe; for our God is a consuming fire. (Heb. 12:26–29)
The old covenant did not vanish when Christ died on the Cross (Heb. 8:13). Therefore Jerusalem was still holy after Christ died because it was still the covenant city of God, even though it was being “shaken” and was being nullified (2 Cor. 3:7, 11–12) through the age-changing power of the Cross. It was still the holy city of God even though it had become “Babylon,” “Sodom,” and “Egypt” because of its sins.
To the holy-yet-hardened Jewish nation belonged “the adoption as sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises” (Rom. 3:2; 9:4). Those blessings were all still intact even after the Jews murdered the Lord and persecuted His church (1 Thess. 2:15). The unbelieving Jewish nation was still in the kingdom of God after the death and resurrection of Christ; but its days were numbered. It was soon to be cast out of the kingdom in the Parousia of Christ in the consummation of the ages (Matt. 8:12; 13:41; Gal. 4:21–31).
The tearing of the veil was a sign of the coming judgment upon that generation and its temple and world. The biblical record is clear that the old covenant law remained in force for the Jews, both believing and nonbelieving, even after the Cross, until “heaven and earth” passed away in AD 70 (Heb. 8:13; 2 Cor. 3:7–18; Matt. 5:17–19; Acts 21:20–26; 24:17).
Finally, Kistemaker feels he has a valid objection in the fact that “the great city” was called “Egypt” (Rev. 11:8), while old covenant Jerusalem/ Israel was never described in Scripture as “Egypt” (226–227). But as David Chilton eloquently observed, this is to miss the forest for the trees: Commentators are generally unable to find Bible references comparing Israel (or Jerusalem) to Egypt, but this is the old problem of not being able to see the forest for the trees. For the proof is contained in the whole message of the New Testament. Jesus is constantly regarded as the new Moses (Acts 3:20–23; Heb. 3–4), the new Israel (Matt. 2:15), the new Temple (John 1:14; 2:19–21), and in fact a living recapitulation / transcendence of the entire history of the Exodus (cf. 1 Cor. 10:1–4).”[2] (Ibid., HD, 144-147).
So Jerusalem being trampled by the Nations/Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles would be fulfilled refers us back to Daniel’s prophetic material. The OC Kingdom/Jerusalem was subject to the rule of the four Gentile earthly kingdoms, but in AD 70 the OC literal Kingdom/Jerusalem would be consummatively changed into and “given” up to be a NC spiritual Kingdom/Jerusalem “from above” “not of this world” (Gals. 4/Heb. 12/Rev. 21; Matt. 21:33-45). Post AD 70 the NC Kingdom of God is not subject to “the times of the Gentile” nor can be as the OC Kingdom had. In Revelation 11:15 we have God’s spiritual NC Kingdom (the fifth and everlasting kingdom of Daniel 2) taking over. It is now universalized in that it is no longer a predominately Jewish and localized kingdom.
This is all taking place at the sound of the last and seventh trumpet at which time two other events take place – 1. time for the judgment and rewarding of the dead to take place (Rev. 11:18; cf. Matt. 24:30-31; 25:31-46/1 Thess. 4:15–17) and 2. the “rapture” of the Church symbolized by the two witnesses being caught up to heaven (Rev. 11:3-12).
There of course has been many different views as to who these two witnesses are: 1) Enoch and Elijah, 2) Moses and Elijah, 3) Jeremiah and Elijah, 4) Joshua and Caleb, 5) Peter and Paul, 6) John the Baptist and Jesus, 7) John and his brother James, 8) Stephen and James of Zebedee and 9) Peter and James and 10) representative of the Jewish and Gentile church. Commentators are divided on if this is referring to two individuals or the two witnesses are symbolic of the churches testimony.  I prefer the view that the two witnesses represent the testimony of the Church in fulfilling the Great Commission through the images of Moses (the law) and Elijah (the prophets) and then in 11:4 with the imagery of Zechariah’s two olive trees and a golden lampstand (Zech. 4:2-3) bring to bear the imagery of Joshua the high priest and Zerubbabel the governor – to be representative of the Church as a kingdom of Priests and Kings.
Chapter 10 just finished issues pertaining to the mystery (Jew / Gentile union) and the Great Commission with there being no more “delay” because the time of fulfillment was “near” during the time John was writing.  In chapter 10 we have both the OC prophets and the message of the NC believers through the gospel coming together as a testimony against the OC apostate City for rejecting her message. Just as the 24 elders previously represent the OC 12 tribes and the NC 12 apostles upon which the church is built represents the fulfillment of the message of the mystery of the Church; so we have here in chapter 11 with the imagery of the two witnesses coming together bearing testimony against Jerusalem. Jesus said that the OT Scriptures and Moses himself, were sufficient to condemn them (cf. John 5:45).  Jesus and Paul taught no other things than that which were written in the law and the prophets (Acts 26:22; 28:23). So it is the Church as the NC Israel of God (of which the OC Law and Prophets bore testimony of), condemning OC Jerusalem through the message of the gospel.  Fire comes out of their mouths consuming their enemies, because the Word of God is described as “fire” (Jer. 23:29).  This is also why the sword (also depicting the word or testimony of God) comes forth from Jesus’ mouth and how He conquers (Rev. 19:15/Heb. 4:12).  A literal interpretation of these witnesses in the midst of a self-proclaimed symbolic book is totally misguided to say the least.
These two witnesses are being described with hyperbole to represent the Church in the first century as the persecuted martyrs of God first described for us in chapter 6. This same group will be consistently depicted throughout the book – even into chapter 20. Probably the best commentary on this section especially in light of the immediate context of chapter 10’s themes of the great commission, the mystery, and the message of the prophets, can be found in Colossians 1:23-29. Here we see the Apostle Paul filling up in his flesh what was still lacking in regards to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of the Church. And Paul and the Church were dying daily to the old-covenant age/law in hopes of further attaining the resurrection (Rms. 5-8; Phil. 3).  The Church is now recapitulating the eschatological suffering, death and resurrection of Christ. G.K. Beale notes that the use of “body” and “bodies” still represent the church as a corporate body,
“…(the body)” could be a collective singular.” “…But we must ask why singular forms of (“the body”) in vv 8a and 9a are followed by the plural (“the bodies”) in v 9b.” “…The likely reason for the change in number is to connote the corporate nature of the witnesses.” (G.K. Beale, The New International Greek TestamentCommentary The Book of Revelation, (Eerdmans pub. 1999), 1018-19, (emphasis added).
And what of the loud voice calling the two witnesses to “come up here” and their ascent into heaven in verse 12? Is this a proof text for the literal rapture or a defense for a literal biological resurrection of corpses at the end of history?  I would agree in connecting the ascent of the two witnesses with God gathering the Church into His kingdom at His parousia/coming in Matthew 24:30-31/Luke 21:27-32/1 Thessalonians 4:16-17/1 Corinthians 15.  After all, this is the time of the seventh and final trumpet Revelation 11:15-19 in which 1. The dead are judged, 2.  The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ,” and 3. Access into the Most Holy Place presence of God is fully granted.  Clearly, this is the same end time trumpet being blown in these passages accomplishing these eschatological goals.  The blowing of the trumpet had a lot of salvific and covenantal imagery connected with it. It was the blowing of the trumpet at which God gathered Israel at Mount Sinai. The anti-type being God now consummately gathering the new covenant Israel up to Mount Zion. The trumpet sounded at the Harvest time. The anti-type being this was the time of the consummative harvest and resurrection of Israel to take place at the end of the OC age. The trumpet would sound when the groom came for the bride. The anti-type being the consummation in which Christ was coming to gather His Bride the New Jerusalem. The trumpet would sound as a battle cry to bring down God’s enemies as the last and seventh trumpet brought down the walls of Jericho. The anti-type here being old covenant Jerusalem is now the enemy of God being destroyed for not heeding the Churches message.
However this “rapture” of the two witnesses is no more literal than fire coming out of their mouths.  I will give a more detailed exposition of 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 later on in this series demonstrating that a literal interpretation of this passage is also not accurate.  The corporate testimony and resurrection of the two witnesses symbolically represent the resurrection and transformation of the new Israel of God – the Church emerging from the glory of the OC economy to the NC one. Just as the passing of the “heaven and earth” in (Matt. 24:35) implies that this is the time the new arrives (with the coming of the Son of Man), so too OC Israel being a dead corporate carcass implies the time for a raised and glorified Israel emerging from its ashes (Matt. 24:28). As Gentry says of Israel being a carcass in Matthew 24:28:
“…in the events of AD 70, the true Israel will arise from old Israel’s carcass, as in a resurrection.” (Kenneth Gentry, HE SHALL HAVE DOMINION A POSTMILLENNIAL ESCHATOLOGY, (Draper, VA: Apologetics Group Media, Third Edition, 2009), 540, see also 539).
Concluding Part 3a. –
As we have seen thus far, all of the signs preceding Christ’s coming to end the OC age were fulfilled prior to the events leading up to AD 66 – AD 70. James White and Kim Riddlebarger are more than inconsistent to argue against Dispensationalism that the abomination that causes desolation cannot have a double-fulfillment (it was 100% fulfilled by AD 70), and then turn around and give the Tribulation period (during the same time frame of those days) a double-fulfillment. And there is also a beam in the eye of Postmillennial Partial Preterism when it claims these two events in Matthew 24 cannot have double or typological fulfillments for our future, and then turn around and do that very thing with the resurrection in Daniel 12:1-7. Jesus tells us that in fulfilling the abomination of desolation and the Tribulation period, would be when “all that has been written” would be fulfilled. Our study of Daniel 7, 9, and 12 confirms this to be the time when the coming of the Son of Man, the judgment, and the resurrection – thus “all that has been written” would be fulfilled at the end of the OC age in AD 70.
In Part 3b. we will look at the de-creation and coming of the Son of Man. White correctly tells us in his Matthew 24 series that this is “where the rubber meets the road!”
PART 1 – Debate Challenge and Response to:  James White, Shabir Ally, Sam Shamoun, and Anthony Rogers – Matt. 16:27-28/Mark 8:38-9:1 https://fullpreterism.com/james-whites-embarrassing-failure-to-address-matthew-1627-28-matthew-24-and-1-thessalonians-416-17-in-his-debate-with-shabir-ally-and-my-public-challenge-to-debate-shabir-ally-james-whit/
PART 2 – Debate Challenge and Response to: James White, Shabir Ally, Sam Shamoun, and Anthony Rogers – “Time/Hour of the End” = “End of the Age” Resurrection (Dan. 12=Matt. 13=Luke 20:27-40=Matt. 24:30-31, 36=John 4-5) All Fulfilled In AD 70 https://fullpreterism.com/debate-challenge-and-response-to-james-white-shabir-ally-sam-shamoun-and-anthony-rogers-part-2-the-end-of-the-age-matthew-13-matthew-24/
PART 3a. – Debate Challenge And Response To: James White, Shabir Ally, Anthony Rogers, Sam Shamoun – All The Signs, Abomination That Causes Desolation, Tribulation, Times Of The Gentiles – “In Fulfillment Of All That Has Been Written” (Matt. 24:1-25/Luke 21:20-24) https://fullpreterism.com/part-3-a-debate-challenge-and-response-to-james-white-shabir-ally-anthony-rogers-sam-shamoun-matthew-241-25/
Part 3b. – Debate Challenge And Response To: James White, Shabir Ally, Sam Shamoun, And Anthony Rogers – The Coming Of The Son Of Man (Matt. 24:27—-25:31) Fulfilled By Ad 70 https://fullpreterism.com/part-3b-debate-challenge-and-response-to-james-white-shabir-ally-sam-shamoun-and-anthony-rogers-the-coming-of-the-son-of-man-matt-2427-2531-fulfilled-by-ad-70/
Part 3c. – Debate Challenge And Response To: James White, Anthony Rogers, Sam Shamoun, Shabir Ally: Matthew 24-25 “This Generation” And Division Theories Refutedhttps://fullpreterism.com/part-3c-debate-challenge-and-response-to-james-white-anthony-rogers-sam-shamoun-shabir-ally-matthew-24-25-this-generation-and-division-theories-refuted/
Part 4 – Debate Challenge And Response To: James White, Anthony Rogers, Sam Shamoun And Shabir Ally (1 Thess. 4:16-17 & Acts 1:9-11) https://fullpreterism.com/part-4-debate-challenge-and-response-to-james-white-anthony-rogers-sam-shamoun-and-shabir-alley-1-thess-416-17-and-acts-19-11/
[1] . David Chilton, Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (Ft. Worth, TX: Dominion Press, 1987), 281.
[2] . Chilton, The Days of Vengeance, 281 (emphasis added).
 
 
[1] http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1211111247417 http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=21912203751
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=22612125672
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=41121345334
 

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

I am continuing my series in challenging to debate and giving a response to James White, Shabir Ally (Muslim), Sam Shamoun, and Anthony Rogers concerning the Islamic charge that Jesus was a “false prophet” in that He allegedly taught that His Second Coming connected to “the end of the world” would take place in some of the lifetimes and generation of His first century audience and that the NT continued teaching this failed hope (Matt. 16:27-28/Matt. 24/1 Thess. 4-5).
In my last article I gave 8 exegetical arguments from Matthew 16:27-28 which proved Christ was faithful in fulfilling His Second Coming promise to come and close the end of the Old Covenant (OC) age (not end planet earth) in AD 70.  This not only refutes Shabir Ally’s charges (and that of liberals and atheist critics), but these exegetical arguments destroy James White’s Amillennialism and the Partial Preterist views of Anthony Rogers and Sam Shamoun. In this article, I will further develop that neither White’s Amillennialism nor Roger’s and Shamoun’s Partial Preterism have a sound “apologetic” against their Muslim critics as we enter a study on Daniel’s “time/hour of the end” (not end of time) judgment and resurrection event, and how Daniel 12 is developed in Jesus’ teaching on the “end of the age” or coming resurrection “hour” in Matthew 13:39-43/Matthew 24:3, 30-31/Luke 20:27-40/John 5:28-29.
The timing of the resurrection of the dead is the Achilles heel of creedal Partial Preterism and Amillennialism. I can and will prove that Muslim Shabir Ally’s “prophet” Muhammad was a false prophet on three points. First, by demonstrating that the last hour was not fulfilled when Muhammad taught it would be – in the lifetimes of those he was speaking to. Secondly, Muhammad was a false prophet because the Quran places the event in the future when Jesus in fact has already fulfilled the end of the [OC] age resurrection hour event in AD 70. And lastly, Muhammad was a false prophet because he claimed the end time resurrection would be physical when in fact the NT teaches it to be a spiritual one to be fulfilled by AD 70. And by the same standards I can prove that the eschatological NT Jesus James White, Anthony Rogers, David Wood, Robert Spencer, Robert Morey bring into their debates with Muslims (on this topic) – is also unfortunately a false prophet. Therefore, it is necessary that they repent from their views and accept the “Faithful and True Witness” of the Scriptures and not a failed creedal Jesus who did not accomplish what, when, and how He said He would fulfill the end of the age resurrection. Selah.       
I will begin addressing my Christian futurist brethren first and then address Shabir Ally and Islam’s false prophet Muhammad at the end of this article. Anthony Rogers quoting Milton Terry in his article agrees with Full Preterists such as myself that the “end of the age” or “the end” throughout Matthew 24 is not discussing the end of world history or the end of planet earth – but contextually it is referring to the end of the old covenant (OC) age in AD 70. This destroys the faulty premise of Shabir Ally and all those liberals which he quotes from that merely assume Jesus was predicting “the end of the world” or end of world history to take place within His generation. But as I will demonstrate claiming Matthew 24-25 is about the “end of the old covenant age” also destroys Anthony Roger’s Partial Preterism!
I reached out to Anthony Rogers and asked him why in his article he spent no time on how Jesus uses “the end of the age” in the rest of Matthew’s gospel (cf. Matthew 13:39-43 and Matthew 28:18-20)? I asked him if he agreed with other Partial Preterists (such as Joel McDurmon and Gary DeMar) that the end of the age in Matthew 13:39-43 is identified as the end of the OC age in AD 70? And if so does he realize that Jesus is referencing the resurrection of Daniel to be fulfilled at the end of the OC age in AD 70 (cf. Matt. 13:39-43/Dan. 12:2-3)? What was Anthony Roger’s response? He told me he was too busy to answer my question, referred me to ask Mr. Gentry these questions, and eventually “blocked” me from asking any further challenging questions directed at his article! Wow, what a bold public “apologist” he is – right up there with White and Shamoun apparently. He follows the same cowardly approach as Kenneth Gentry (whom he says lives just 10 miles from him – big deal is my response). I asked him to ask Ken to respond to questions and challenges we have given to him in our book which to this very day Ken has avoided answering (6 years and counting). What follows are the arguments and challenges that Partial Preterists such as Anthony Rogers and Kenneth Gentry want to literally block me from challenging them on and if they can block you from seeing (and is also the one that Amillennialists such as James White don’t want you to see or have them to address in a public setting with a Full Preterist theologian being present):
Partial Preterism (Anthony Rogers/Kenneth Gentry/Joel McDonald/James Jordan) – The “time of the end” resurrection of Daniel 12:2 was spiritually fulfilled in AD 70 at Christ’s parousia.  The “end of the age” is the end of the OC age in AD 70 in Matthew 13 and Matthew 24.  Jesus references the resurrection and glorification of Daniel 12:2-3 to be fulfilled at the end of the OC age gathering/judgment in Matthew 13:39-43 (ie. in AD 70).
Classic Amillennial view of the two ages (James White) – The “time of the end” resurrection takes place at Christ’s ONE Second Coming or “the parousia” event.  Jesus picks back up this “end of the age” “gathering” judgment/resurrection motif from Matthew 13:39-43 in Matthew 24:30-31 to be fulfilled at His One Second Coming event (ie. Dan. 12:2-3=Matt. 13:39-43=24:3, 30-31).
Full Preterism (Michael Sullivan/David Green) – Jesus teaches that the one “end of (the OC) age” resurrection and judgment gathering of (Dan. 12:2-3=Matt. 13:39-43=Matt. 24:3, 30-31) was fulfilled in AD 70 at His ONE Second Coming or “the parousia” event.
Here is the challenge in my chapter that I gave Partial Preterists such as Kenneth Gentry and Keith Mathison (authors of WSTTB? – the book James White ironically recommends which he alleges refutes Full Preterism) from my/our book response to them (in House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology…”):
“The fulfillment that has been wrought in Christ is no piecemeal fulfillment that has remained a “yes and no” fulfillment/non-fulfillment for 2,000 years, as futurists such as Mathison imagine. The Law of Moses does not remain “imposed” as it did between the Cross and the Parousia (Heb. 9:10, NASB). Rather, Christ returned and the old covenant vanished in His Presence forty years after His Cross (Heb. 8:13). If He did not return, and if the dead were not raised in Him, then the old covenant never vanished, and we are still in our sins. This is the inevitable implication of denying that literally “all things written” (Luke 21:22) have been fulfilled in Christ today.
A comparison of Daniel 12:1–2 with the Olivet Discourse proves that literally every eschatological prophecy in the Scriptures would be fulfilled in AD 70:
Daniel 12:1-12 Olivet Discourse

Daniel 12:1-2 Olivet Discourse
1. Tribulation and Abomination that causes Desolation (Dan. 12:1, 12) 1. Tribulation and Abomination that causes desolation (Matt. 24:15, 21; Lk. 21:20-23)
2. Judgment and Deliverance (Dan. 12:1) 2. Judgment and Deliverance (Lk. 21:18-22, 28; Matt. 24:13)
3. Resurrection (Dan. 12:2-3) 3. Resurrection (Matt. 13:39-43; 24:30-31; Lk. 21:27-28)
4. The End (Dan. 12:4, 6, 8-9, 13) 4. The End (Matt. 24:3, 13-14)
5. When would all this take place? “. . .when the power [The Law] of the holy people [Israel] has been completely shattered [the destruction of the city and the sanctuary in AD 70], all these things [including the judgment and resurrection] shall be finished.” “But you, go your way till the end; for you shall rest, and will arise to your inheritance at the end of the days.” (Dan. 12:7, 13)  5. When would all this take place?“There shall not be left here onestone upon another, that shall notbe thrown down” [the destructionof the city and the sanctuary in AD70].” “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things [judgment & resurrection] be fulfilled.” (Matt. 24:1, 34) Daniel was told he would not live to witness the resurrection and judgment while Jesus and Paul instructed that some of their contemporary’s would live to witness this event (Matt. 13/Matt. 16:27-28/Matt. 24-25/1 Thess. 4-5).

Mathison believes that the majority of scholars “rightly understand” the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 as being a future biological resurrection of all believers.[2] But he has not explained how that resurrection can be separated from the first-century great tribulation, abomination of desolation, and destruction of Jerusalem in Daniel 12:1, 7, 11. Daniel 12:7 says that when the power of the holy people would be completely shattered (in AD 70), then “all these things would be finished” –not “some” of them.
Partial Preterist James Jordan now understands the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 (and Daniel’s personal resurrection in verse 13) as being a spiritual and corporate resurrection that took place from Jesus’ earthly ministry to AD 70. Jordan actually sees this past resurrection as being the resurrection of Revelation 20: “The death of the Church in the Great Tribulation, and her resurrection after that event, were the great proof that Jesus had accomplished the work He came to do. The fact that the Church exists today, nearly 2000 years after her death in the Great Tribulation, is the ongoing vindication of Jesus work.”[3] “Revelation takes up where Daniel leaves off, and deals mostly with the Apostolic Age and the death and resurrection of the Church.”[4] “What Daniel is promised is that after his rest in Abraham’s bosom, he will stand up with all God’s saints and join Michael on a throne in heaven, as described in Revelation 20, an event that came after the Great Tribulation and in the year AD 70.[5]
Mathison’s co-author Gentry has also finally come to the conclusion that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 was fulfilled in AD 70:
“In Daniel 12:1-2 we find a passage that clearly speaks of the great tribulation in AD 70.”
“…But it also seems to speak of the resurrection occurring at that time…”
“Daniel appears to be presenting Israel as a grave site under God’s curse: Israel as a corporate body is in the “dust” (Da 12:2; cp. Ge 3:14, 19). In this he follows Ezekiel’s pattern in his vision of the dry bones, which represent Israel’s “death” in the Babylonian dispersion (Eze 37). In Daniel’s prophecy many will awaken, as it were, during the great tribulation to suffer the full fury of the divine wrath, while others will enjoy God’s grace in receiving everlasting life.”[6]
We commend Gentry for his recently developed full preterist exegesis of Daniel 12:1-3. However, it presents a problem for him. Gentry stated, in the same book, that the resurrection in the parable of the wheat and tares is not yet fulfilled.[7] Yet Jesus taught that Daniel 12:2-3 would be fulfilled at the same time as that parable (Dan. 12:2-3; Matt. 13:39-43).
Nevertheless, some of Gentry’s partial preterist colleagues have come to the conclusion that the parable of the wheat and tares was also fulfilled in AD 70. For example, Joel McDurmon (Gary North’s sonin-law, and Director of Research for Gary DeMar’s American Vision)[8]:
It is clear that Jesus did not have in mind the end of the world, nor did He mean the final judgment. Rather, Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43 describe the judgment that would come upon unbelieving Jerusalem. During this time, the angels would “gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity” (13:41) and these would be judged with fire. Many of them literally were burned in fire during the destruction of Jerusalem. During this same time, however, the elect of Christ—“the children of the kingdom” (v. 38)—will be harvested. While the explanation of the parable does not tell us their final end, the parable itself has the householder instructing the harvesters to “gather the wheat into my barn.” In other words, they are protected and saved by God.
This, of course, is exactly what happened to the Christians. Not only were they saved in soul, but they mostly fled Jerusalembefore the Roman siege. This was consequent to Jesus’ advice to flee and not look back once the signs arose (Matt. 24:16-22); indeed this would correspond with the angels’ work of harvesting the elect (24:30).[9]
Curiously, McDurmon does not mention that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 is quoted by Jesus in Matthew 13:39-43. Partial preterists such as McDurmon also ignore the fact that Paul, in agreement with Daniel and Jesus, also taught that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 was imminent in the first century:
having hope toward God, which they themselves also wait for, that there is about to be a rising again of the dead, both ofrighteous and unrighteous (Acts 24:15, YLT & WEY; cf. Matt. 13:39-43).
There is only one passage found in “the law and prophets” that explicitly speaks of a resurrection of believers and unbelievers, and that is Daniel 12:2-3. This is Paul’s source in Acts 24:15, as virtually any commentary or scholarly work agrees. As G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson wrote on Acts 24:15:
The resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous is based on the prophecy of the end in Dan. 12:2-3, which indicates two groups of people, some being raised to eternal life and others to eternal reproach and shame, and then refers to the “righteous” (Θ) or to “righteousness” (MT). Clearly this passage lies behind Paul’s statement, although the wording is different.[10]
Partial Preterists such as Gentry who admit the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 was fulfilled in AD 70 need to not only address the issue of this being Paul’s source for his resurrection doctrine in Acts 24:15, but other places in the NT. Again Beale points out in one of his most recent works, that Jesus is following the (OG) LXX of Daniel 12:1-2, 4 as His source for His teaching on “eternal life” and the coming resurrection “hour” (or “the hour of the end”) of both believers and unbelievers in (John 5:28-29).[11]
And clearly the books being opened in judgment and the resurrection of all in Daniel 12:1-2 is the judgment and resurrection of Revelation 20:5-15. Gentry at one point seeking to refute the Premillennial Dispensational theory of two resurrections cited Daniel 12:2/John 5:28-29/John 6:39-40/Acts 24:15 as evidence of “one resurrection and one judgment, which occur simultaneously at the end…”[12] We couldn’t agree more with Gentry #1 – that these texts are descriptive of “one” and the same resurrection and judgment which take place at the same time in history. And yet we also agree with Gentry #2 – Daniel 12:2 was fulfilled in AD 70.
Another question or challenge for partial preterists who see the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 as being fulfilled in AD 70 is this: How many times must Daniel be raised unto, and receive, “eternal life?”

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

To be fair and thorough I should point out a recent development in Gentry’s understanding of how the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 is fulfilled.  As we saw above, Gentry, in order to refute the two-resurrection theory of premillennial dispensationalism, claimed that the resurrection of this text is the one and same, yet-future resurrection as described by Jesus and Paul in John 5:28-29; John 6:39-40; and Acts 24:15 (and no doubt Revelation 20).Then later, Gentry changed his interpretation when responding to a full preterist (apparently realizing that he could no longer arbitrarily sever the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 from the first century Great Tribulation in verse 1, and the first-century “time, times and half a time” and “shattering of the holy people” in verse 7). On Gentry’s Facebook wall, he wrote regarding Daniel 12:2 that it has nothing to do with a biological resurrection:
“Daniel 12 is not dealing with bodily resurrection but national resurrection (as does Eze 37). Dan 12 sees the ‘resurrection’ of Israel in the birth of the Christian Church, which is the New Israel.”
But later, following his lecture on the millennium at Criswell Bible College, Gentry gave a slightly different response.  After being challenged on how the New Testament develops the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 in Matthew 13:39–43; John 5:28-28; Acts 24:15 and specifically in Revelation 20:5–15, he responded by saying that Daniel 12:2 was typologically and spiritually fulfilled in AD 70 and that it will be anti-typically and ultimately fulfilled in a literal “bodily resurrection” at the end of world history.
Besides this not being taught by Daniel or any New Testament author, my question and challenge to Gentry’s new explanation of this passage is this:  If Gentry can give Daniel 12:2 two fulfillments (one in AD 70 and one in our future), then what is to stop the dispensationalist from saying something like this:
There may have been some kind of fulfillment of the Great Tribulation in an AD 66–70 (Dan. 12:1; Matt. 24:21) and in the “desolation” of Jerusalem and her temple in AD 70 (Dan. 9:27; Matt. 24:15), but those events were only typological fulfillments.  The ultimate fulfillments will be in our future when Israel rebuilds her temple.
Or why should Gentry oppose the amillennialist teaching that, while the Great Tribulation may have had some aspect of fulfillment in the events leading up to AD 70, we should not consider it as one historic event but an “already but not yet” process the church goes through until the end of history?
Gentry gives Daniel 12:2 two fulfillments but won’t allow dispensationalism or any other futurist system to do the same thing with the Great Tribulation, the three and a half years, or the Abomination of Desolation in Daniel 12 and Daniel 9:27. Jesus in Luke 21:20-22 and Matthew 13:3943 did not say that all Old Testament prophecy or the resurrection and glorification of Daniel 12:2–3 would be fulfilled in two totally different ways spanning thousands or millions of years from AD 70 to the end of world history.  He said that these things would all be fulfilled in His generation (“this generation”) at the end of the old covenant age.” (Taken from Michael Sullivan’s chapter 4: The Eschatological Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be?) in my/our book, House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to When Shall These Things Be?; (Ramona, CA: Vision Publishing, Second and Expanded Edition, 2014) pp. 89-95).
James White and our Amillennial opponents in WSTTB? would agree with Full Preterists that the gathering/judgment/resurrection described in the parable of the wheat and tares taking place at the “end of the age” is the same eschatological event described for us in Matthew 24:

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

This is obviously a problem for the Reformed community in that Partial Preterism agrees with Full Preterism that the “end of the age” in both Matthew 13 and Matthew 24 are referring to the OC age in AD 70.  Therefore, once again our opponents don’t refute us, they have formed us “Reformed and always reforming”:
Amillennialism:  The judgment, resurrection “gathering” at the “end of the age” in Matthew 13 and Matthew 24 are the same ONE eschatological event depicting the ONE Second Coming “the parousia” event.
Partial Preterism:  There was a spiritual and corporate resurrection and judgment of the living and dead that took place at the “end of the (OC) age” at Christ’s Parousia in AD 70.
Full Preterism:   The ONE Second Coming (“The parousia”) was fulfilled at the end of the (OC) age in AD 70, at which time there was a spiritual and corporate resurrection and judgment of the living and dead.
Let’s get back to Mr. Anthony Rogers and his unfinished response to Shabir Ally.  So in my brief communications with Anthony Rogers, he referred me to Kenneth Gentry (since Anthony couldn’t finish his articles and didn’t have time to answer my questions).  As one can see, I have addressed and challenged Gentry on these issues in our book and in several of my article online, and no in-depth scholarly article or book response to my/our challenges have been given. In fact NONE of the authors of the book James White recommends (WSTTB?) have attempted to refute my/our book that I just quoted from. Selah.
Again, since the “last hour” is a key element to Islamic eschatology and the failed predictions of the “prophet” Muhammad (a serious problem for Shabir Ally) and it is sticking point between creedal Reformed eschatology and Reformed or Sovereign Grace Full Preterism, I want to spend some time on John’s development of the judgment and resurrection in Daniel 12. Commentators have long understood that Daniel 12:2 is the source for Jesus’ teaching on the resurrection in John 5:28-29 because the only OT passage which mentions a resurrection for both the righteous and the wicked is Daniel 12:2 and the only OT passage addressing “eternal life” is Daniel 12:2.  And as I already addressed G.K. Beale points out an additional connection – in that Jesus is following the (OG) LXX of Daniel 12:1-2, 4 when it comes to this coming resurrection “hour” of both believers and unbelievers:
AD 30

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

AD 70

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

AD 30

  1.   Daniel 12:2:  “Many of those who sleep in the width of the earth will arise   [anatesontai]…some unto eternal life and others to reproach…and to eternal shame.”
  1. John 5:24:  “…he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into   life.”

AD 70

  1. Daniel 12:2:  “Many of those who sleep in the width of the earth will arise   [anatesontai]…some unto eternal life and others to reproach…and to eternal shame.”
  1. John 5:29:  “and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection   [anatasin] of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection [anatasin] of judgment.” (also related:  1 John 2:18: “Dear children it is the last hour…” and Revelation 14:7:  “…the hour of His judgment has come.”).

David Green wrote the following in our book on the coming resurrection hour of John 5:28-29:
“In order to understand John 5:28 and 29, we must first look three verses above it, in John 5:25, where Jesus said that the hour “now is” when “the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live.”  As most Reformed interpreters agree, Jesus in that verse was referring to the preaching of His death and resurrection.  The preaching of that message commenced at Pentecost.  “The dead” were physically living people who were spiritually dead in sin, and “the voice of the Son of God” was the gospel.  Having heard the gospel, those who were spiritually “dead” were spiritually resurrected.  They lived in that they received eternal life through faith in the gospel (“the voice of the Son of God”).
Then, in verses 28 and 29, Jesus expanded His teaching on the resurrection to include those who were not only spiritually dead, but who were also physically dead.  He did not call them “dead” (as He had already called the living who were spiritually dead), but He referred to them through another figure of speech as “all who are in the graves.”  They were not literally in their graves or tombs, of course, but were in Hades/Sheol.
What is often missed in this passage is that, like the physically living in verse 25, the physically dead in verse 28 were also going to live by means of hearing Christ’s “voice.”  As we know from verse 25, that “voice” is the gospel.  The physically dead therefore were going to hear the gospel (cf. 1 Pet. 4:6.) and were, as a result of hearing the gospel, going to be resurrected (regenerated, born from out of death and Hades).  This means that the physically dead were, like the physically living, spiritually dead.  And this inescapably means that both the physically living and the physically dead were going to be spiritually resurrected by means of the gospel-voice of the Son of God.  One resurrection in two main stages:  First, the last days saints; then, the Old Testament dead (“the rest of the dead” in Revelation 20:5). Note the parallels between John 4:21, 23 and John 5:25, 28:

  1. . . . [T]he hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth. . . . (Jn. 4:23)
  2. . . . [T]he hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. (Jn. 4:21)
  1. . . . [T]he hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. (Jn. 5:25)
  2. . . . [T]he hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice. . . . (Jn. 5:28)

These two sets of prophecies are parallel.  They speak of the same timeframes, which were these:
Pentecost (AD 30)

  1. The true worshipers would worship the Father in spirit and in truth.
  1. The dead would hear the voice of the Son of God, and live.

Fall of Jerusalem (AD 70)

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

After hearing the gospel, the dead were raised out of their Adamic graves (Hades) in the end of the age.  And those among them who believed the gospel received eternal life in the kingdom of God.  But those who hated the gospel (those who had done evil) were raised out of Hades only to stand before God and to enter into “eternal punishment” / “the second death” (Matt. 25:46; Jn. 5:28-29; Rev. 20:14).” (David Green, Chapter 7: The Resurrection of the Dead, House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology, pp. 178-179).
Another exegetical challenge for Anthony Rogers and his friend Ken Gentry is that Partial Preterism agrees with Full Preterism that Jesus’ “already and not yet” eschatological “hour” in John 4:20-24 is between AD 30 – AD 70 when the era of old covenant mountain / temple worship is removed and the new was established (Kenneth Gentry, FOUR VIEWS ON THE BOOK OF REVELATION, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 46.  Kenneth Gentry, THREE VIEWS ON THE MILLENNIUM AND BEYOND, (Grand Rapids MI:  Zondervan, 1999), 246 footnote 45). But then Gentry asserts with no exegetical justification that Jesus’ same phrases depicting an eschatological “already and not yet” coming “hour” in John 5:24-29 allegedly deal with a literal resurrection at the end of world history?!?  We again find this arbitrary and exegetically unconvincing. The inconsistency of the Partial Preterist hermeneutic should be clear enough from these texts:
OT echo / reference to John 5:24-29:  The coming resurrection hour of Daniel 12:1-2 was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70.
Same phrases in previous context:  This “already and not yet” coming “hour” of John 4:20-24 was fulfilled spiritually in AD 30 – AD 70.
The immediate context of John 5:28-29:   It is admitted that the “already” aspect to the resurrection “hour” of John 5:24-26 is a spiritual resurrection, but unlike what we find in John 4:20-24 (the “not yet” of this “hour” that was fulfilled in AD 70), the “not yet” “hour” of Daniel 12:1-2 in John 5:28-29 is now mystically moved to be a literal/biological resurrection at the end of time?!?
Gentry and Partial Preterism in general, have painted themselves into a corner.  Based upon the above exegetical points, why can’t someone believe the resurrection of John 5:28-29 was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70 (“the time of the end”=”the end of the (OC) age”) since Partial Preterism teaches us that its source of fulfillment (Dan. 12:2) has a spiritual fulfillment in AD 70? This is more than terrible logic, it is horrendous and arbitrary exegesis designed to try and attempt to honor NT imminence on the one hand (and deal with critics such as Shabir Ally), while on the other hand try to please man and not violate what the Reformed creeds teach on a literal resurrection – supposedly to take place at the end of world history.
Before leaving John’s development of the coming judgment and resurrection of Daniel 12:1-2 let’s briefly address his teaching on the judgment and resurrection in Revelation 20:

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

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

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

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

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

An Exposition of Matthew 16:27–28 

For the Son of Man is about to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.  Assuredly, I say to you there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.
Anthony Rogers agrees with me that the coming of Christ in Matthew 16:27 was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70 and is exegetically connected to verse 28. Sam Shamoun claims that verse 27 is the “Second Coming.” So between the two of them they form my position – The Second Coming in verse 27 was spiritually fulfilled in some of the lifetimes of Jesus’ first century audience in verse 28!
But since Rogers didn’t do an in-depth exegsis of the passage showing how they are connected and Sam claims the coming of Christ in Matthew 24 was fulfilled in AD 70, let’s show how these two verses are connected (not separated as Sam is attempting to do).
Argument #1 (immediate context) – For the Son of Man is about to Come
I don’t remember Rogers doing any work on mello in Matthew 16:27. Young’s Literal Translation (YLT), the Darby Bible, Wuest’s Expanded Translation of the New Testament, and Weymouth’s New Testament in Modern Speech all translate Jesus’ return here as “about to come” or “soon to come.” These translations reflect the consistent usage of the Greek word mello in Matthew’s gospel, and its predominant usage in the New Testament. Most Partial Preterists don’t really want to get into translating mello as “about to be” or “soon” unless they are in the book of Revelation debating Dispensationalists or other futurists. But as I documented in my chapter in HD we showed their problems with mello in Romans 8:18-23 and Acts 24:15. We will be visiting those texts later.
My point here is that Christ’s imminent coming in verse 27 is consistent with Christ’s coming in the lifetime of “some” in the crowd who were listening to him in verse 28.
After having waited thousands of years for the coming of the Messiah and His kingdom, the span of forty years (AD 30–70) was a relatively short time.
Argument #2 (immediate context) – Verily I say unto you
Again, I didn’t see Rogers really spend any time here developing Jesus’ phrase “verily I say unto you” which tightens and unites verses 27-28 together even further (destroying Sam and White’s position on this text). Jesus uses the term “verily,” “truly,” or “most assuredly” many times in the gospels. The Greek word is “amen,” and it means “absolutely,” “really,” “may it be fulfilled.” It is never used to introduce a new subject (an empty claim that some futurists have tried to make with no evidence).  Dispensational author and editor of another multi-authored book seeking to refute preterism, Thomas Ice, says of Matthew 16:27 and 28 that these “are two separate predictions separated by the words ‘truly I say to you.’” (Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice, The End Times Controversy: The Second Coming Under Attack (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2003), 87). But Mr. Ice fails to produce a single passage in which Jesus’ phrase, “Verily I say unto you,” separates one subject from another. Maybe Sam or White can produce one?
To the contrary, the phrase always signals an amplification of the previous thought – thus more exegetical evidence that the two verses are referring to the same AD 70 fulfillment and event!
Argument #3 (immediate context) – Some standing here shall not taste of death until
Some (such as Thomas Ice) have made the mistake in thinking that Jesus was only talking to the 12 disciples but according to Mark’s account, “ . . . He called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said . . . ” (Mk. 8:34–9:1).  This is the background to Peter’s questing of the Lord as to if John was going to be alive to witness His return (while he would be martyred) in John 21:21-23.  Some standing there listening to Christ would die of natural causes before the end of the OC age in AD 70 and others would be martyred prior to His Second Coming and the arrival of the Kingdom (cf. Matt. 10:17-23; Matt. 24:9; Dan. 7:21-22).
Rogers (in the article Sam ironically recommends on this subject) has already done a good job refuting Sam’s position, in that it makes no sense to apply verse 28 to the transfiguration event or others which were so short in duration from the time He spoke these words – that it would make very little sense for Jesus pointing out that some would obviously die before they would see verse 28 fulfilled.
Argument #4 (immediate context/parallels) – Until they see the kingdom of God already come in power
“…There, are, certain of those here standing, who shall in nowise taste of death, until they see the kingdom of God, already come in power.” (Mark 9:1 Rotherham Translation).
Rogers relies on the work of Kenneth Gentry so I was surprised to see him not deal with the Greek of Mark 9:1.
According to Mark’s account, Jesus’ teaching is that some of the disciples within the crowd he was addressing would live to actually be able to looked back on this historic event, knowing that Christ’s Second Coming and His kingdom had already come in power. (Literally, “until they see the kingdom of God having already come in power.”). Another of our critics Kenneth Gentry at least concedes this point citing J.A. Alexander:
Here “come” is “not, as the English words may seem to mean, in the act of coming (till they see it come), but actually or already come, the only sense that can be put upon the perfect parti-ciple here employed.” (Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., He Shall Have Dominion (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1992), 215–216, emphasis added).
The Greek word here for “see” is eido. As with the English word, eido not only refers to physical sight, but it can also mean “perceive” or “understand.”
Through observing with the physical senses, “some” of Jesus’ contemporary audience would be able to look back on the destruction of the old covenant kingdom’s temple and city in AD 70 and “perceive” that Christ’s Second Coming and His kingdom had arrived among and “within” them (Lk. 17:20–37; Col. 1:27; Jn. 14:2–3, 23, 29).
Jesus tells us that the Church would be alive on the earth post AD 70 (no literal “rapture” teaching folks) and be able to look at the historical events of AD 66 – 70 and know that He already fulfilled His Second Coming promise (contrary to the Muslim, skeptic, and Atheist claims that He didn’t fulfill His promise). We have the sure words of Jesus, not just historical references from Josephus and others (which Rogers references). Selah.
Argument #5 – (immediate context/parallel) – Christ comes within the shameful AD 30 – AD 70 “this adulterous and sinful generation”
Another caveat while here in Mark 8:38-9:1 is that Jesus addresses that His coming would take place within His contemporary “this adulterous and sinful generation.” Sam claims that the coming of Christ in Matthew 24 was fulfilled in the AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation” (Matt. 24:27-34) and therefore it should not be a strange thing for Sam to understand that he is teaching the same thing here in Mark 8:38/Matthew 16:27 as well.
That contemporary generation rejected God/Jesus as their Messiah and eschatological Groom (and High Priest) committing “adultery” (“we have no king but Caesar”) and therefore according to the OT Law she was to be stoned and burned to death in the events of AD 66 – AD 70 (Rev. 17-19). Sam Shamoun, was not the “coming” of Christ throughout the book of Revelation said to be fulfilled as that contemporary generation (Matt. 24:27-34/Mark 8:38-9:1) was ending or in an AD 70 “soon,” “shortly,” “at hand” time period (Rev. 1:1, 3:11, 22:6-7, 10-12, 20)? Therefore, we can know that the coming of Christ in Matthew 16:27/Mark 8:38 was fulfilled in AD 70, in that this is when Christ came and was ashamed of that adulterous Jewish generation!
Argument #6 (broader context of Matthew) – The analogy of Scripture teaches us that Matthew 16:27-28 is Jesus’ same teaching in Matthew 24 but condensed
Matthew 16:27–28 (and its parallels, Mark 8:38–9:1; Luke 9:26–27) cannot be divided into two different events, according to the typical futurist approach (Sam’s and probably James White’s position). Using the analogy of Scripture we can see from the chart below, Matthew 16:27 is united to Matthew 16:28. Both verses speak of the same timeframe and event that Jesus spoke of in His undivided Olivet Discourse.

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

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

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

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