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

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

When Shall These Things Be?

 
Chapter Four
The Eschatological Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be? 
Part 5 – Prophetic Telescoping Two Comings in Matthew 24-25?
Michael J. Sullivan
Copyright 2009 and 2013 – All rights reserved.  No part of this
book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission
in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing
or Michael J. Sullivan), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical
articles or reviews.

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


Response:
 
According to the two-section theory of interpreting the Olivet Discourse,
the coming of false christs and the revealing of the Son of Man as “in the
days of Noah” are two events that will take place at the end of world history
(in section two of the Olivet Discourse: Matt. 24:37–39). But this
causes a problem. Luke relates the events of the Olivet Discourse in a
slightly different order than Matthew, and he puts those two supposedly
end-of-world-history events in between the coming of the Son of Man “as
the lightning” (Lk. 17:24) and the fleeing of people from their housetops
and fields (Lk. 17:31). But those events are in the alleged “first section”
of the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24:17–19, 24). Luke thus has two “second section”
events (allegedly in the end of world history) sandwiched between
two “first-section” events that were fulfilled in the first century.
Luke was not aware of the theory of a “telescoped” Olivet Discourse.
We see this problem present itself again when Jesus prophesies that
one would be taken and one would be left. According to the two-section
theory, that event will take place at the end of world history (in section
two of the Olivet Discourse: Matt. 24:40–41). But Luke puts that event in
between the fleeing of people from their housetops and fields (Lk. 17:31)
and the vultures gathering at the corpse (Lk. 17:37). But those events are
in the alleged “first section” of the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24:17–18, 28)
and were fulfilled in the first century. Thus Luke again has a “second section”
event (allegedly in the end of world history) sandwiched between
two “first-section” events that were fulfilled in the first century.
 
According to the two-section theory, Luke 17:23–37 reads like this:
 
Lk. 17:23–24 (false christs; Son of Man as lightning in His day) AD 70
Lk. 17:26–30 (the days of Son of Man as the days of Noah) End of world history
Lk. 17:31–33 (people fleeing from housetops and fields) AD 70
Lk. 17:34–36 (one taken, one left) End of world history
Lk. 17:37 (vultures gathered at the corpse) AD 70
 
The absurdity that results in exegetically “ping-ponging” through
this text is most pronounced in the last four verses. In verses 34–36, Jesus
supposedly tells His disciples that at the end of world history, some
people will be “taken,” i.e., literally raptured into the clouds (Lk. 17:34–
36).[1] Then in verse 37, the disciples ask Him, “Where, Lord?” That
is, “Where will those people be taken?” According to the two-section
theory, Jesus answered His disciples’ question about the Rapture at the
end of world history by telling them about the corpses of Jews becoming
the food of vultures in AD 70.[2]
 
But, if it can be believed, the confusion deepens further still. In
his book, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope, Mathison actually
implies that Luke 17:20–37 was all fulfilled in AD 70. His argument in
that book is that we can know that Jesus was probably speaking of the
destruction of Jerusalem in Luke 18:7–8 partly because “in the preceding
chapter (Luke 17:20–37), he speaks of the coming destruction of
Jerusalem in A.D. 70.”[3]
 
Based on his argument in Postmillennialism, Mathison has it that
when Jesus prophesied that the judgment in the days of the Son of Man
would be as the judgment in the days of Noah, and when He prophesied
that some would be taken and others left, Jesus meant those prophecies
to refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in Luke 17 and simultaneously
meant them to refer to the end of world history in Matthew 24. Yet
Mathison says he believes that Matthew 24 and Luke 17 contain the
same subject matter (WSTTB, 176). How can these things be?
 
Mathison’s many contradictory exegeses result in mind-boggling
conundrums. But the word of God on this matter is clear enough.
Luke, in Luke 17:22–37, mixes the events of Matthew 24:17–28 (first
section) with the events of Matthew 24:37–41 (second section). In so
doing, Luke unifies Matthew 24:17–41, confirming it to be one prophecy
that would be fulfilled in one set of events in one generation. In
contrast, “two-section” theorists violently break the prophecy in pieces
to conform it to the futurist paradigm. There is no question that this
theory is unworkable and that Luke saw no “telescoping” in the Olivet
Discourse. Selah.
 
As a matter of fact, in Mathison’s latest book, From Age to Age, he
abandons his two-section view of the Olivet Discourse, finally conceding
that the prophecy was fulfilled in the first century. He is also more
consistent in that book in his preterist interpretation of “the coming
of the Son of Man.” He now sees every reference to the coming of the
Son of Man as referring to Christ’s Ascension/Coming in AD 70. This
includes Matthew 25:31—the prophecy of the sheep and goats. Not one
church father interpreted Matthew 25:31 as having been fulfilled in the
first century. But Mathison does.
 
Mathison disagrees with the unified testimony of the universal
church. How then can he continue to anathematize us for disagreeing
with the unified testimony of the universal church?[4] Furthermore,
Mathison is out of step with the church fathers, and with the Reformed
community, and with “hyper preterists,” all of whom “stand shoulder
to shoulder” in opposition to him on this point. We all agree with the
church fathers that the promises of the coming of the Son of Man refer
to Christ’s Second Coming, and that we cannot separate the coming of
the Son of Man from 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15.



[1] Though Mathison implies that this prophecy will be fulfilled at the
end of world history, he is silent in all of his books as to its meaning. We can
only surmise that he believes it refers to the futurist “Rapture.”
[2] “Jesus’ reference to the vultures in [Matt. 24:28] refers to Jeremiah
7:33. Again He is using Old Testament judgment imagery.” Keith A. Mathison,
Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God? (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R
Publishing, 1995), 142
[3] Postmillennialism (213)
[4] Postmillennialism, 117 (emphasis added)

 

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

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

When Shall These Things Be?

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

Michael J. Sullivan

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

All Things Written 

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

Response: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daniel 12:1-2

Olivet Discourse

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

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

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

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

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

“What Daniel is promised is that after his rest in Abraham’s bosom, he will stand up with all God’s saints and join Michael on a throne in heaven, as described in Revelation 20, an event that came after the Great Tribulation and in the year AD 70.[5]

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

“In Daniel 12:1-2 we find a passage that clearly speaks of the great tribulation in AD 70.”

“…But it also seems to speak of the resurrection occurring at that time…”

“Daniel appears to be presenting Israel as a grave site under God’s curse: Israel as a corporate body is in the “dust” (Da 12:2; cp. Ge 3:14, 19). In this he follows Ezekiel’s pattern in his vision of the dry bones, which represent Israel’s “death” in the Babylonian dispersion (Eze 37). In Daniel’s prophecy many will awaken, as it were, during the great tribulation to suffer the full fury of the divine wrath, while others will enjoy God’s grace in receiving everlasting life.”[6]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daniel 12

1 Corinthians 15

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

 

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

“Daniel 12 is not dealing with bodily resurrection but national resurrection (as does Eze 37). Dan 12 sees the ‘resurrection’ of Israel in the birth of the Christian Church, which is the New Israel.”

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 


[1] Dominion, 542.
[2] Keith A. Mathison, WSTTB 160–161; From Age to Age: The Unfolding of
Eschatology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2009), 281.
[3] James B. Jordan, THE HANDWRITING ON THE WALL A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2007), 620.
[4] Ibid., 621
[5] Ibid., 628
[6] Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. He Shall Have Dominion (Draper, VA: Apologetics Group Media, 2009 Third Edition), 538.  On Gentry’s Facebook page he answered my question on this text by writing, “Dan 12 is not dealing with bodily resurrection but national resurrection (as does Eze 37). Dan 12 sees the “resurrection” of Israel in the birth of the Christian Church, which is the New Israel.”  But when I challenged Gentry on how the NT develops the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3/Matt. 13:43/John 5:28-29/Acts 24:15/Rev. 20:5-15 at his Criswell lecture on the millennium, he changed his tune and is now claiming that the resurrection text of Dan. 12:2 has an AD 70 “type” fulfillment and an end of the history “bodily resurrection” fulfillment as well.  I told him that if he can do this with the resurrection of Dan. 12:2, then dispensationalists can double fulfill or have multiple types and anti-types fulfillments of prophetic material that Gentry says was only fulfilled in AD 70 – tribulation, abomination of desolation of a temple in Jerusalem, apostasy, etc…  Again partial preterists like Gentry and Mathison are arbitrary and inconsistent when they want something only fulfilled in AD 70 when debating futurists, but then want something fulfilled in the future when debating full preterists.
[7] Ibid., 235 n. 70, 243.
[8] Gary North, perhaps not knowing his own son-in-law’s position at the time, wrote in 2001: “Anyone who equates the fulfillment of [the parable of the wheat and tares] with A.D. 70 has broken with the historic faith of the church.”
http://www.preteristcosmos.com/garynorth-dualism.html
[9] Joel McDurmon, Jesus v. Jerusalem: A Commentary on Luke 9:51 –
20:26, Jesus’ Lawsuit Against Israel (Powder Springs, GA: The American Vision,
Inc., 2011), 48-49; see entire section 43-51. One of DeMar’s co-authors
Peter Leithart, has also conceded that the parable of the wheat and tares was
fulfilled in the first century: “Jesus has now come with His winnowing fork,
and before the end of the age, the wheat and tares will be separated. The end
of the age thus refers not to the final judgment but to the close of “this generation.”
Peter J. Leithart, The Promise of His Appearing: An Exposition of Second
Peter (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2004), 95.
[10] Beale, G. K., & Carson, D. A., Commentary on the New Testament use
of the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, UK: Baker Academic;
Apollos, 2007), 598.
[11] 30 G.K. Beale, A NEW TESTAMENT BIBLICAL THEOLOGY THE UNFOLDING
OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Academic, 2011), 131-132. This creates a huge problem for Partial Preterists
such as Gentry who not only take the resurrection of Dan. 12:2 as fulfilled
in AD 70, but also takes the eschatological “not yet” “hour” of (John 4:21-
24) as fulfilled in AD 70 (as Full Preterists do). Why? Because according to
Mathison (WSTTB, 172-174) Jesus is using the same eschatological “already”
and “not yet” pattern of this coming “hour” in both John 4:21-24 – 5:25-29 and
thus are referring to the same period of time. Once again when we combine
what Beale, Gentry, and Mathison are saying here on these texts, they form
the Full Preterist view in that the “not yet” resurrection “hour” of Dan. 12:1-2/
John 5:28-29 was fulfilled in AD 70. For more on why John 5:28-29 is not a
description of a fleshly end of time resurrection see David Green’s response to
Dr. Strimple.
[12] Kenneth L. Gentry, THE GREATNESS OF THE GREAT COMMISSION
(Tyler TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990), 142.

 

 

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

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

When Shall These Things Be?

 
Chapter Four
The Eschatological Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be? 
Part 3 – Double Fulfillments
Michael J. Sullivan
Copyright 2009 and 2013 – All rights reserved.  No part of this
book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission
in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing
or Michael J. Sullivan), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical
articles or reviews.

 
In this chapter, I will answer objections that Dr. Keith Mathison raised
against preterism in his chapter in WSTTB. Mathison’s chapter was
entitled, “The Eschatological Time Texts of the New Testament.” His
objections included:
 
• Prophetic imminence in the Old Testament
• The futurity of the last days
Prophetic double fulfillment (Part 3)
• Prophetic “telescoping”
• Jesus’ “in-like-manner” return
• “The Rapture”
• The creation groaning
• The abolition of death, pain, mourning, and Satan
• The salvation of “all Israel” in Romans 11
• The “thousand years” of Revelation 20
 
Mathison raised other objections in his chapter but they are addressed
elsewhere in this book. At the conclusion of this chapter, I will
offer a critique of Mathison’s tenuous and fragmented approach to the
eschatological time texts of the New Testament.

 
Double Fulfillments
 
On page 168, Mathison observes that Daniel’s prophecy of “the abomination
of desolation” was double-fulfilled. It was first fulfilled in the desecration
of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes in 168 BC. Then Jesus
spoke of its future fulfillment two hundred years later. The prophecy of
the birth of Immanuel was also double-fulfilled. It was first fulfilled in
Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz in Isaiah’s day. Then it was “ultimately fulfilled”
in the birth of Jesus many centuries later. Mathison’s conclusion: “New
Testament prophecies may also have multiple fulfillments,” first in AD 70
and then in the end of world history.
 
Response:
 
I think everyone agrees that many prophecies in the Old Testament
were typologically fulfilled and awaited full realization in the New Testament.
This phenomenon reflected the contrast between Old Testament
types and shadows, and the New Testament Anti-Type or Body,
i.e., Christ (Col. 2:17).
 
But this principle in no way implies or leads to the notion that New
Testament prophecies, which are fulfilled in Christ, will be fulfilled multiple
times over potentially millions of years of time. The fact that the
Old Testament was “typical” and “shadowy” in no way suggests that the
New Testament is of the same pre-Messianic character. The Cross of
Christ will not be fulfilled multiple times until the end of human history,
and neither will Christ’s Second Coming (Heb. 9:26–28).
 
Mathison’s co-author Ken Gentry teaches that the time texts of the
New Testament “demand” a fulfillment in AD 70, and that the theory
of “double fulfilling” Revelation, for example, is “pure theological assertion”
that has “no exegetical warrant.”[1] Another partial preterist colleague
of Mathison, Gary DeMar, rejects openness to the double fulfillment
theory in the Olivet Discourse:
 
Either the Olivet Discourse applies to a generation located
in the distant future from the time the gospel writers composed
the Olivet Discourse or to the generation to whom
Jesus was speaking; it can’t be a little bit of both. As we will
see, the interpretation of the Olivet Discourse in any of the
synoptic gospels does not allow for a mixed approach, a double
fulfillment, or even a future completion. Matthew 24:34
won’t allow for it.[2]
 
The New Testament is the revealing of the salvation promises contained
in the Old Testament, and those promises were to be realized and
found “in Christ” and in His Body the church (2 Cor. 1:20). Mathison
would have us believe that the New Testament is a further obscuring of
the meaning of kingdom prophecies (with more shadowy and typical fulfillments),
which will only become clear at the alleged end of the very age
that Christ died to establish, the age that Mathison—incredibly— calls
“evil” (188).
 
Mathison, while refuting Dispensationalism, writes, “We are no
longer under the old covenant.”[3] DeMar likewise teaches that the time
of the destruction of Jerusalem was “the end of the Old Covenant” and
“the consummation of the New Covenant.”[4]   But Mathison and DeMar
do not seem to realize what their teaching implies. If the old covenant
(“the Law”) is no more and the new covenant reached its consummation,
then according to Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:17–19, “the Law and
the Prophets” are fulfilled and “heaven and earth” passed away and we
now live in the new heavens and the new earth.
 
It irresistibly follows that if we are no longer under the old covenant,
it is because Christ’s Second Coming took place at the end of the
old covenant age and brought to consummation every “jot” and “tittle
of its promises (cf. Matt 5:18; Heb. 8:13, 9:26–28, 10:25–37). There is
no possibility of double-fulfilling or partial-fulfilling every jot and tittle
of the Law and the prophets.
 
Some of the best Reformed theologians have taught that “heaven
and earth” in Matthew 5:18 refers to the old covenant age which passed
away in AD 70. Reformed theologian John Brown:
 
But a person at all familiar with the phraseology of the Old
Testament Scriptures, knows that the dissolution of the Mosaic
economy, and the establishment of the Christian, is often
spoken of as the removing of the old earth and heavens, and the
creation of a new earth and new heavens.[5]
 
Evangelical theologian Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis agrees:
. . . [T]he principal reference of “heaven and earth” is the temple
centered cosmology of second-temple Judaism which included
the belief that the temple is heaven and earth in microcosm.
Mark 13[:31] and Matthew 5:18 refer then to the destruction of
the temple as a passing away of an old cosmology. . . .22
 
Mathison’s double-fulfillment-in-the-New-Testament theory opens
Pandora’s Box to double-fulfilling everything: The earthly ministry of
Christ, His sufferings, His death, His resurrection, His Ascension, His
pouring out of the Holy Spirit, and His Second Coming; even the allegedly
future millennium could be double-fulfilled. Even the casting of
Satan into the Lake of Fire could be double-fulfilled.
 
Every New Testament promise in the Bible becomes ultimately
uncertain in Mathison’s theory. The “Christ” of Christianity could
potentially be a type of a future, “actual” Christ (cf. WSTTB, 182,
n39). Therefore, unless we want to end up adopting a liberal, postmodern
approach to God’s word and turn all of His promises into
“yes and no,” Mathison’s double-fulfillment theory must be firmly and
finally rejected.
 



[1] Kenneth Gentry, Four Views on the Book of Revelation, ed. C. Marvin
Pate (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 43–44.
[2] Gary DeMar, The Olivet Discourse: The Test of Truth, http://www.
americanvision.org/blog/?p=190
[3] Keith A. Mathison, Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of
God? (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 1995), 31.
[4] Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church
(Atlanta, GA: American Vision, 1999), 55.
[5] John Brown, Discourses and Sayings of Our Lord (Edinburg: The Banner
of Truth Trust, 1990 [1852]), 1:170.