House Divided Chapter Four The NT Time Texts Partial Preterist Keith A. Mathison Vs. Full Preterist Michael J. Sullivan Part 6 The Coming of the Son of Man

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

When Shall These Things Be?

 
Chapter Four
The Eschatological Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be? 
Part 6 – The Coming of the Son of Man  
Michael J. Sullivan
Copyright 2009 and 2013 – All rights reserved.  No part of this
book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission
in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing
or Michael J. Sullivan), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical
articles or reviews.
 
 
The Coming of the Son of Man
 
On pages 181–182, Mathison offers this argument: Whenever Jesus referred
to “the coming of the Son of Man,” He “seems to have been alluding to
Daniel 7:13–14,” which refers not to the Second Coming but to His ascension
to the heavenly throne of God to receive His kingdom. “ . . . [T]he possibility
must be kept open that Jesus wasn’t referring to his Second Advent
at all when he used this language. He may have been referring instead to
his ascension to the throne of God, his receiving of his kingdom, and the
judgment on Jerusalem that would prove he had received the kingdom
and was who he claimed to be. . . . ” It may be that “Jesus had very little to
say about his actual second coming.”
 
Response:
 
Let us assume for the moment that the premises of Mathison’s argument
above are true. Let us grant for the sake of argument that Daniel 7:13–14
refers to the Ascension of Christ, and that Christ was somehow alluding
to Daniel’s reference to His Ascension whenever He spoke of His future
coming in AD 70. Even if these premises are true, they in no way prove
that the coming of Christ in AD 70 was not “His actual second coming.”
Whenever Jesus spoke of the future coming of “the Son of Man,”
He could have been referring, as Mathison said, “to his ascension to the
throne of God [in Daniel 7:13–14], his receiving of his kingdom, and the
judgment on Jerusalem that would prove he had received the kingdom
and was who he claimed to be”; and at the same time, it could be that
His coming in AD 70 was also “His actual second coming.”
 
Mathison’s interpretation does not create an either/or choice. It
does not conflict with the “hyper-preterist” framework. “Hyper-preterists”
can embrace Mathison’s interpretation, wrong though it is, and
remain “hyper-preterists.” Mathison’s argument therefore is moot.
Though there is no need to refute Mathison’s explanation of Daniel 7:13,
I will briefly offer three other possibilities:
 
The presentation of the Son of Man to the Ancient of Days in Daniel
7:13 is perhaps a reference to Christ in His Parousia delivering up the
kingdom (“the saints”) to the Father (“the Ancient of Days”) in AD 70.
 
Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom
to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all
rule and all authority and power. (1 Cor. 15:24)
 
Or, as David Green has suggested, perhaps “the Son of Man” in Daniel
7:13 signifies the Body of Christ (the saints, “the fullness of Christ”)
in His Parousia (Eph. 4:13). In this view, the universal church (“the New
Man,” “the Son of Man”) was presented to Christ (“the Ancient of Days”)
and united with Him in the end of the age, in His Parousia in AD 70 (2
Cor. 4:14; 11:2; Eph. 5:27; Col. 1:22, 28; Jude 1:24).
 
My preferred interpretation is similar to that of F.F. Bruce. According
to the Old Greek Septuagint translation of Daniel 7:13, the Son of
Man came “as the Ancient of Days” on the clouds of heaven, not “to the
Ancient of Days.” This translation is in harmony with verse 22, which
says that it was the Ancient of Days Himself who came in judgment and
gave the saints the kingdom.
 
Also, the New Testament does not give the slightest hint that “the coming
of the Son of Man” on the clouds of heaven would be fulfilled in the
Ascension. And as Keil and Delitzch commented regarding Daniel 7:13-14,
 
…it is manifest that he could only come from heaven to earth.
If the reverse is to be understood, then it ought to have been
so expressed, since the coming with the clouds of heaven in
opposition to the rising up of the beasts out of the sea very distinctly
indicates a coming down from heaven. The clouds are
the veil or the “chariot” on which God comes from heaven to
execute judgment against His enemies; cf. Ps. 18:10f., 97:2–4;
104:3, Isa. 19:1, Nah. 1:3. This passage forms the foundation
for the declaration of Christ regarding His future coming,
which is described after Dan. 7:13 as a coming of the Son of
man with, in, on the clouds of heaven; Matt. 24:30; 26:64; Mark
18:26; Rev. 1:7; 14:14.[1]
 
I would agree with Keil and Delitzch that the context of Dan. 7:13 and
how the NT develops it, forms the foundation for the Second Coming
event with Him coming down from heaven in judgment upon His enemies
(who are upon the earth rising in opposition to Him) and not Him
going “up” at the ascension event.
 
It is also important to point out that John in the book of Revelation
alludes to Dan. 7:9, 13 in his description of Christ as being both the Son
of Man who comes on the clouds to judge those whom had pierced Him
(first century Jews) and as the eternal Ancient of Days in Rev. 1:7, 13-17.
Again the context is developing Christ’s future “soon” (Rev. 1:1) Second
Coming not His ascension.
 
Matthew 16:27–28
 
For the Son of Man is about to come in the glory of His Father with
His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.
Assuredly, I say to you there are some standing here who shall not
taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.
 
Not surprisingly, Mathison is the only author in WSTTB who
touched upon this key prophecy, and he offered no exegesis of it. Instead,
he threw it to the wind of the various speculative, futuristic in-
terpretations. Let us now demonstrate that Matthew 16:27–28 (and its
parallels, Mark 8:38–9:1; Luke 9:26–27) cannot be divided into two different
events, according to the typical futurist approach. As we can see
from the chart below, Matthew 16:27 is united to Matthew 16:28. Both
verses speak of the same timeframe and event that Jesus spoke of in His
undivided Olivet Discourse.
 

Matthew 16:27-28 & Parallels

The Olivet Discourse

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

 
For the Son of Man is about to Come
 
Young’s Literal Translation (YLT), the Darby Bible, Wuest’s Expanded
Translation of the New Testament, and Weymouth’s New Testament in
Modern Speech all translate Jesus’ return here as “about to come” or “soon to
come.” These translations reflect the consistent usage of the Greek word mello
in Matthew’s gospel, and its predominant usage in the New Testament.
Christ’s imminent coming in verse 27 is consistent with Christ’s coming in
the lifetime of “some” in the crowd who were listening to him in verse 28.
After having waited thousands of years for the coming of the Messiah and
His kingdom, the span of forty years (AD 30–70) was a relatively short time.
 
Verily I say unto you
 
Jesus uses the term “verily,” “truly,” or “most assuredly” 99 times
in the gospels. The Greek word is “amen,” and it means “absolutely,”

really,” “may it be fulfilled.” It is never used to introduce a new subject.
Dispensational author and editor of another multi-authored book
seeking to refute preterism, Thomas Ice, says of Matthew 16:27 and 28
that these “are two separate predictions separated by the words ‘truly
I say to you.’”[2] But Mr. Ice fails to produce a single passage in which
Jesus’ phrase, “Verily I say unto you,” separates one subject from another.
To the contrary, the phrase always signals an amplification of the
previous thought.
 
Some standing here shall not taste of death until
 
Thomas Ice says of this verse: “A further problem with the preterist
view is that our Lord said, ‘some of those standing here . . . .’ It is clear
that the term ‘some’ would have to include at least two or more individuals.
. . . Peter notes that John only survived among the 12 disciples
till the destruction of Jerusalem” (Ice, Controversy, 88).
 
In other words, according to Ice, Jesus said that “some” would survive,
but the reality is that among His twelve disciples only John survived.
Ice’s argument would possibly have some validity if Jesus had
been speaking only to His twelve apostles; but He was not. According
to Mark’s account, “ . . . He called the crowd to him along with his disciples
and said . . . ” (Mk. 8:34–9:1). So much for Ice’s arguments.
 
Until they see the kingdom of God already come in power
 
According to Mark’s account, some of the disciples would not die until
they looked back on this event, knowing that the Lord and His kingdom
had come in power. (Literally, “until they see the kingdom of God having
come in power.”) According to Jesus, some of those who were listening to
Him that day would see His Parousia, look back on the event, and afterwards
die. Gentry concedes this point citing J.A. Alexander:
 
Here “come” is “not, as the English words may seem to mean, in
the act of coming (till they see it come), but actually or already
come, the only sense that can be put upon the perfect parti-ciple here
employed.”[3]
 
The Greek word here for “see” is eido. As with the English word,
eido not only refers to physical sight, it can also mean “perceive.”
Through observing with the physical senses, “some” of Jesus’ contemporary
audience would be able to look back on the destruction of the old covenant
kingdom’s temple and city in AD 70 and “perceive” that Christ’s kingdom
had arrived among and within them (Lk. 17:20–37; Col. 1:27; Jn. 14:2–3, 23, 29).



[1] Keil, C. F., & Delitzsch, F., Commentary on the Old Testament.
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), (Daniel 7:13-14), bold emphasis MJS.
[2] Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice, The End Times Controversy: The Second
Coming Under Attack (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2003), 87.
[3] Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., He Shall Have Dominion (Tyler, TX: Institute
for Christian Economics, 1992), 215–216 (emphasis added).

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

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

When Shall These Things Be?

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

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


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



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

 

Exposing and Refuting Sam’s Sloppy “Exegesis” of Matthew 16:27-28 Part 2: ​Cherry-Picking John Calvin ​& "Verily I Say Unto You"

Exposing and Refuting Sam’s Sloppy “Exegesis” of Matthew 16:27-28 Part 2:

Cherry-Picking John Calvin & “Verily I Say Unto You”

By Michael J. Sullivan

In part one of this refutation we examined Sam Frost’s inability to even cite or mention let alone  interact at all with passages that reformed theologians (along with Full Preterists) consider parallel passages or same time eschatological events to Matthew 16:27 such as Matt. 13:39-43/Dan. 12:2-3; Matt. 24:30-31—25:31ff.  Then these teachings of Christ on His Second Coming and judgment are then the foundation upon which the Apostle Paul develops them in 1 Thess. 4:15—5:11/1 Cor. 15:23-24, 51-52.  Frost attempted to downplay these powerful parallel passages by not mentioning them and acting as if paralleling these as the same events were something unique to Full Preterism or Dispensational “Left Behind” hermeneutics.  I of course pointed out how absurd and inaccurate this was.  We also examined how Partial Preterists on a regular basis parallel their Preterist interpretation of Matthew 24-25 with other NT passages in order to refute Dispensationalism, but then fail to address the parallels between Matt. 24-25/1 Thess. 4:15—5:11 or say Matt. 25:31-46/Rev. 20:10-15.          
We shall now turn our attention to other aspects of Sam’s article. 
Sam writes,
Step One: Harmony
Luke 9.26-27 states, “For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my saying, of him likewise will the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come  in his own majesty, and in the majesty of his Father, and of the holy angels. 27. And I say to you, There truly are some standing here who will not taste death, till they see the kingdom of God.”
Instead of “the son of man coming in his kingdom” we find, “the kingdom of God”.  This may or may not have significance in terms of emphasis on the meaning of Matthew‘s “son of man coming in his kingdom”.  We will consider the Greek text in a moment.
Mark 8.38-9.1 reads, “For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him likewise will the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. 1. And he said to them, Verily, I say to you, There are some among those who stand here that will not taste death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.”
Here we have yet a third rendering, “kingdom of God come with power.”  Is seeing the kingdom of God, have seen the kingdom of God come in power, and the son of man coming in his kingdom all equatable terms?  If so, which one has the emphasis of meaning?  That is, is “seeing the kingdom of God” the same as “the son of man coming in his kingdom”, where the emphasis is on kingdom instead of the the coming of the son of man?  What is meant, then, by the coming of the son of man?  That I am be frivilous here over the details is countered by eminent scholar, Krister Stendahl (Harvard), who asks, “But coming in what sense”?, in noting the variations here.  We will note the Commentaries in a moment as well.
Well, yes there are parallel accounts to Matthew 16:27-28 in Mark and Luke with slight variations.  This of course proves nothing.  So let’s move on:
Step Two: The Greek Text
As with any thorough exegesis, we must consult the Greek text together with any differing manuscripts (copies) that have come down to us to the present time.  In Mat we have an issue with “works” over the other consideration, “deeds”.  Not really a gigantic problem.  Mark has “with” instead of Luke‘s “and” in the phrase, “with the holy angels”/”and of the holy angels”.  Again, not a large problem.  The sense of the text is not lost once we can recover the sense, and it is here that the real problem occurs: the variations of the phrases, “son of man coming in his kingdom”, “see the kingdom of God” and “have seen the kingdom of God come with power”.  I will consider other aspects of syntax in the Commentary section.
First Sam says there isn’t a problem then he claims there is.  As in “Step One” there is nothing here even worth responding to. Sam goes on:
Step Three: Asking the Right Possible Questions
As with any exegesis, asking the right questions is key.  With Stendahl has already asked one: “coming in what sense?”  Secondly, although it is obvious (and everyone agrees) that whatever Jesus is speaking of here was to “come” within the time span of those “standing” there at the time of Jesus’ utterance (roughly 31-33 AD), the nature of this “coming” and “seeing” is what is targeted.  Is this a single event?  Would it be a series of events?  Would it be an event with an inaugural consideration (that is, in Greek, ingressive).  For example, Calvin commented: “By the coming of the kingdom of God we are to understand the manifestation of heavenly glory, which Christ began to make at his resurrection, and which he afterwards made more fully by sending the Holy Spirit, and by the performance of miracles; for by those beginnings he gave his people a taste of the newness of the heavenly life, when they perceived, by certain and undoubted proofs, that he was sitting at the right hand of the Father.”  Taken all together, Calvin understood that these several events (resurrection, ascension, sending of the Spirit, miracles of the Apostles, et al) represents the ways in which the kingdom of God came with “power” – the coming of the son of man in his kingdom.  In other words, AD 70 is not even in consideration here.
We must ask, though, more questions.  What is meant by “rewarding each person according to his deeds”?  Surely, contests the Hyper Preterist, this is an end time event?  And, here, he would be able to appeal to a usual modern, Christian, cultural way of understanding this expression innundated with Left Behind popularizations.  This assumes, however, that the cultural understanding is the biblical understanding, and we must always be careful not to reread our culture back into the texts.  The Christian has normally heard (popularly) that the “rewards” of the saints that happens only once, only at one time: at the end of the world and the final judgment.  This is supposedly supported by appealing to Revelation 20:11-15 where we find, indeed, “they were judged, each man, according to his works” (not quite the same phrase as “rewarded”).  Then, on top of this, it is assumed that this event in Rev is the same event as spoken of here since, as I have already pointed out, the same language is used.  But, to jump from Mat to Rev based on a string of words, then to say, they must be talking about the same thing is a logical leap with several steps missing!  That’s what Hyper Pretersists do a lot: take huge hurdles.
However, it is a good question since it is raised within the popular understanding of “final judgement”.  The Hyper Preterist wants you to think, then, that Jesus is unequivocally saying here: “some of you standing here before me will not die until the Final Judgement has happened!”  But, is this the true (or only) sense of the passage?  The fact that the Hyper Preterist is confident that it is does not make it true.  The fact that he or she can even make some sort of exegetical case (based on popular understandings) that it is does not make it true.  I can make a case for baptismal regeneration.  It doesn’t make it true, says the Reformed, who can make a case for infant baptism.  And so on.
First, as I pointed out in part 1 and in the introduction to this article our culture or “Left Behindism” has nothing to do with how the reformed historic Christian Church has connected Matt. 16:27 with the Second Coming and final judgment at the end of the age in Matt. 13:39-43/Dan. 12:1-3; Matt. 24:30-31—25:31-46; Rev. 20:10-15, 22:10-12.  Sam is just not being honest here and his desperation is more than glaring.  Even John Calvin whom Frost cherry-picks and appeals to in Matt. 16:28 (but not verse 27) makes these same kind of Full Preterist connections.  Was Calvin guilty of being influenced by “Left Behind” eschatology and hermeneutics as Frost charges the Full Preterist?  Per Frost he must have been influenced by a view that wasn’t even invented yet!
Secondly, Sam (nor Calvin whom he cherry picks on v. 28 and not on v. 27) deals with Jesus’ phrase, “Verily I say unto you” in the beginning of Matt. 16:28a. which He uses to connect and emphasize a subject already being discussed.  In other words Christ in verse 28 is bringing home the point and teaching of v. 27 with an additional important and startling point – some of you will be alive to witness this very coming (that He just discussed in v. 27)!  So exegetically, this statement connects the two comings as one, so whatever your understanding of Christ’s coming is in verse 27 is the proper understanding one should have in v. 28.  Since the phrase connects the two comings as the same event, it is interesting that Sam doesn’t want to deal with this issue in connection with quoting Calvin on the “coming” in Matt. 16:28 while neglecting to address what he says of Christ’s coming in v. 27:
“…he shall appear as the judge of the world.” 
For Calvin, this is the final Second Coming event.  Interestingly enough Calvin also interprets Matthew 13:39-43/Dan. 12:2-3 in the same way:
Then will the righteous shine. What a remarkable consolation! The sons of God, who now lie covered with dust, or are held in no estimation, or even are loaded with reproaches, will then shine in full brightness, as when the sky is serene, and every cloud has been dispelled. The adverb then (τοτε) is emphatic; for it contains an implied contrast between their present state and the ultimate restoration, by the expectation of which Christ animates those who believe in him. The meaning therefore is, Though many wicked men now hold a high rank in the Church, yet that blessed day is assuredly to be expected, when the Son of God shall raise his followers on high,…”
Calvin also takes the coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 24:30-31 and 25:31 as the same coming as Matt. 16:27:
“…therefore he declares that he will appear openly at his last coming and, surrounded by the heavenly power,”
Of the “redemption” associated to this coming and gathering of the angels in Luke 21:27-28 Calvin writes,
It is therefore called here (as in #Ro 8:23) redemption; because we shall then obtain truly and perfectly the consequences of the deliverance obtained through Christ. Let our ears therefore be awake to the sound of the angel’s trumpet, which will then sound, not only to strike the reprobate with the dread of death, but to arouse the elect to a second life; that is, to call to the enjoyment of life those whom the Lord now quickens by the voice of his Gospel; for it is a sign of infidelity, to be afraid when the Son of God comes in person for our salvation.
Again, Sam is “cherry picking” Calvin and according to Frost Calvin is guilty of our “modern” “cultural” “Left Behindism” before it ever came into being since like the Full Preterist he takes these comings of Christ as His Second Coming or the judgment/resurrection event to close the age.      
Perhaps Sam does not want to challenge that “Verily I say unto you” is linking the two comings in vss. 27-28 as the same event(s)?  It seems to me that he wants to consistently interpret the coming of Christ in vss. 27-28 as the same coming and yet different at the same time throwing everything at the passage hoping something will stick:  1) Jesus allegedly comes (?) in judgment(?) on the clouds(?) with angels(?) in the resurrection event(?), 2)  Jesus allegedly comes/goes(?) in judgment(?) on the clouds(?) with the angels(?) in the ascension(?), 3)  Jesus allegedly comes(?) in judgment(?) on the clouds(?) with angels(?) at Pentecost.  Where in the depictions of Jesus’ resurrection, ascension, or Pentecost do we see Jesus described as coming on the clouds with angels to judge and reward all men?  Desperate men make desperate “arguments.” 
Thirdly, Sam claims, Full Preterists “…jump from Mat to Rev based on a string of words, then to say, they must be talking about the same thing is a logical leap with several steps missing!”  Actually, I don’t do this in our book or my online article in covering Matt. 16:27-28.  I develop my exegesis within Matthew’s gospel and in Jesus’ teachings first before going to Revelation.  But as we will see , Sam no less “jumps from Matthew 16:27-28 to Revelation 5” hoping to develop Christ coming in his ascension theory, instead of where everyone else goes when they get to the book – Revelation 20:11-15 or 22:10-12.  But we will cover Sam’s desperation in Revelation 5 shortly.  
Conclusion:
As the reader can see in Frost’s article he cherry-picks John Calvin on the “coming” of Christ in Matt. 16:28 – leaving out his view of the coming of the Son of Man in Matt. 16:27; Matt. 24:30-1/Luke 21:27-28.  Calvin nor Frost deals with the exegetical argument of the Full Preterist that Jesus’ phrase of “Verily I say unto you” links the same subject matter of v. 27 with v. 28.  In other words the “about to” coming of the Son of Man in v. 27 is the same coming of Christ in v. 28 which would take place within some of the disciples lifetimes. 
In part 3 we will examine Frost’s theory that the coming of the Son of Man in both Matt. 16:27-28 was fulfilled at the ascension “coming” in AD 30 – giving specific attention to Revelation 5 which is where Frost’s article leads his readers.  According to Sam’s theory, this is apparently when Christ took the scroll and began opening the seals judging and rewarding all men.  However, Christ taking the scroll and opening the seals is not AD 30, but rather a depiction of Christ coming in judgment  – pointing the reader to His imminent Second Coming when He begins opening the seals judging and rewarding from roughly AD 66 – 70 (cf. Rev. 22:6-7, 10-12).
 

Exposing Sam Frost’s Sloppy “Exegesis” of Matthew 16:27-28 Part 1 – The Use of Similar Identical or Parallel Language Within Matthew and the NT

Exposing Sam Frost’s Sloppy “Exegesis” of Matthew 16:27-28

Part 1 – The Use of Similar Identical or Parallel Language Within Matthew and the NT

Michael J. Sullivan

Introduction
Partial Preterist Sam Frost has attempted to deal with one passage of what theologians have termed as “the big three” (Matt. 10:17-23; Matt. 16:27-28; Matt. 24:27-34) which addresses the question, “Did Jesus promise that His actual Second Coming would take place within the generation and lifetimes of some of His first century audience?”  The Full Preterist answers this question and approaching these passages (and how they are developed in the rest of the NT) with a simple, certain and confident “yes” while others such as Frost approach our text with not much certainty at all.
In part 1 of this series, I want to focus on doing a proper exegesis of Matt. 16:27-28 which involves letting Jesus interpret Himself here within the same gospel – Matt. 13:39-43 and Matt. 24:30—25:31 and then how these passages are developed in Pauline eschatology – 1 Thess. 4-5 and 1 Cor. 15.  Sam falsely claims that Full Preterism is “built upon” the “popular” “Left Behind” heremeneutical approach in stringing certain passages together when it comes to using similar or identical language between texts, when the actual truth is we build our approach the same way Reformed eschatology (Partial Preterism and the classic Amillennialism) has been built when it comes to using the analogy of Scripture principle of interpretation when approaching these key texts.  There is much hypocrisy here when it comes to a parallelism in approaching Matt. 16:27-28 and Matt. 24-25 in developing AD 70 fulfillment throughout the NT which is something I will also address.
The facts will reveal not only is our analogy of Scripture parallelism found in our exegesis developed within the hermeneutics found within Partial Preterism and Amillennialism, but the truth is that it is Sam Frost who has more in common with the poor scholarship of the “Left Behind” approach to these texts.  First, Sam denies the parallels between Matt. 16:27/Matt. 24 and 1 Thess. 4 as does the pre-tribulationl rapture “Left Behind” view.  Secondly, he adopts a ridiculous hyper-literal hermeneutic in the OT and NT as these men do which results in an imminent expectation of the Second Coming which isn’t really imminent!
To sum up – Sam been dishonest in his “exegesis” and article of Matthew 16:27-28 in the following ways:
1)      Matthew 16:27-28 does not stand on its own in Matthew gospel and it is the same consummation judgment and resurrection as depicted in Matthew 13:39-43 and more specifically Matthew 24:30—25:31 as describing Christ’s actual Second Coming consummation event (which includes the resurrection) at the end of the OC age.
2)      Portraying that we get our parallel analogy of Scripture hermeneutic from “Left Behind” eschatology when in fact we get it from Partial Preterism and the classic Amillennial views!
3)      His RCM site has felt justified in condemning us literally to hell for adopting this hermeneutic from within reformed eschatology.  He also feels comfortable to condemn us to hell when you can’t find much certainty in any of his articles.  If he doesn’t really know what Matt. 16:27-28 teaches or if it is the Second Coming event (as most scholars believe) because “scholars disagree,” then how can he be so certain to condemn us to hell?
Sam Frost writes,
Recently, on Facebook, where the Hyper Preterist community is probably at its most visible, there was considerable discussion over these verses:
For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. 28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom (ESV). [1]
This reference to Facebook is interesting in light of the fact that Sam has boasted on several forums that he has co-authored a book with myself, David Green and  Ed Hassertt and yet instead of citing or dealing with my exegesis of this passage in our book[2] or article on my site,[3] he has chosen to interact with comments on Facebook?!?  Since Sam has been trying to set himself up as an authority in refuting Full Preterism or as a “scholar,” one would think that he would attempt to deal with this passage from more credible sources.  And yet I challenged Sam on Facebook (FB) to give his interpretation of Matthew 16:27-28 in light of Matthew 24:30 and 25:31-46 and none came forth on FB or in his article published on his RCM site from which I will be quoting and interacting with.  Sam is a self-promoted “scholar” and expert at refuting Full Preterism and he can’t even address challenges of Matthew 16:27-28 on Facebook, interact with the arguments presented on the text in a book he co-authored or cite and interact with his older material on the passage as a Full Preterist?!?[4]  All to say, there are several issues Sam did not deal with and will be covered in what follows.
Frost goes on,
Supposedly, these verses go a long way in demonstrating the Hyper Preterist contention that all prophecy was fulfilled in AD 70.  Now, it must be fair to note that I know of no one who teaches that these two verses alone conclude the matter.  Even Hyper Preterist teacher Larry Siegle, who often frequents here for discussion, recently admitted this.  However, if it is conceded that these verses do, in fact, teach the idea that the Son of Man’s “coming in his kingdom” is to be related solely, that is, exclusively to the razing of Jerusalem in the Jewish War of 66-70 AD, then the Hyper Preterist thinks he or she has virtually demonstrated the point that all prophecy was fulfilled by this time.  All that needs to be done is to connect a few more verses from the Bible in order to make this point: if these two verses were fulfilled in AD 70, then these few other verses must also be fulfilled in AD 70, because these other verses are talking about the same eventThese other verses, of course, are referencing the resurrection of the dead and the other events associated with eschatology.
Now, that this is the argument I so once deeply espoused is, in turn, based upon another assumption, already well exposed on this website: since these other verses contain the same language they must be referring to the same event.  Upon these considerations the whole Hyper Preterist scheme is built, and once this has been supposedly demonstrated, the unwary victim of such an assault can only say, “Yes, I see your point.  All prophecy must have been fulfilled before the passing away of all those standing there!”
However, upon a sober analysis, and having once been a teacher of the above ruse, we should come at the text as objectively as possible, taking in the contentions noted above as well as the several suggestions of how the scholars, both past and present, have dealt with these verses.  We should use all of the tools available.  After all, we are only trying to figure what Jesus meant, right?  We don’t want to prove our position, but, hopefully, what the text is actually saying.
The first thing we should do is note that this passage occurs in the other Synoptics (Mark, Luke).  Thus, we should include a harmony of these other accounts, with the variations of their wordings as well.
So let’s cover what Sam means when he writes this:
“…if these two verses were fulfilled in AD 70, then these few other verses must also be fulfilled in AD 70, because these other verses are talking about the same eventThese other verses, of course, are referencing the resurrection of the dead and the other events associated with eschatology.”
“…since these other verses contain the same language they must be referring to the same event. Upon these considerations the whole Hyper Preterist scheme is built,…”
What Sam is referring to here is the analogy of Scripture principle of interpretation which he has avoided like the plague in this article and is the same principle of interpretation that reformed eschatology is built upon – not just Full or “Hyper” Preterism.  Sam doesn’t want Jesus to interpret Himself here so he avoids “these few other verses.”  Which ones might these be?  Since Sam is too “lazy” let’s do the work he is unwilling to do because he can’t.
1)      (Matthew 13:39-43, 49-50)
He answered and said to them: “He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one. 39 The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels. 40 Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. 41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, 42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!
So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come forth, separate the wicked from among the just, 50 and cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”
Here is a passage which Sam Frost and other Partial Preterists such as Joel McDurmon take as being fulfilled at the end of the Old Covenant (OC) “this age” in AD 70.  Let’s make some exegetical observations (which other Reformed and Evangelicals have noted of this passage – not just ones Full or “Hyper-Preterists” are making).
Perhaps not just quoting others using the same analogy of Scripture principle of interpretation we will be using, lets also use some logic.  In mathematics and logic: If A bears some relation to B and B bears the same relation to C, then A bears it to C. Or the property of equality is transitive – for if A = B and B = C, then A = C.  Therefore, things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another. If equals be added to equals, the wholes are equal.

  • A = (Matt. 13:39-43 – Sam says end of OC age in AD 70)
  • B = (Matt. 16:27-28 – Sam doesn’t seem to know)
  • C = (Matt. 24:30-31—25:31-46 – ?)

“If A (Matt. 13:39-43) bears some relation to B (Matt. 16:27-28)”:

Matthew 13:38-43, 49 Matthew 16:27-28/Mark 8:38-9:1
  • Matt. 13:41 Christ sends out His angles, at which time…

 

  • Matt. 16:27 Christ was about to come with His angels at which time…
  • Matt. 13:42-43  The time of judgment and rewards are given.
  • The wicked are gathered and burned where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
  • The righteous are rewarded and…
  • Inherit the kingdom – thus raised and glorified (Dan. 12:2-3).
 
  • Matt. 16:27 / Mrk. 9:1 He would reward each person which would obvious include two groups…
  • (the wicked and
  • the righteous)

…according to what he has done.

  • At which time they would be able to look back and see that the kingdom of God had already come in power.

As we will see not only does the orthodox church make the same exegetical connections the Full Preterist does with these passages, but Frost immediately runs into another problem at this point in the teachings of Christ.  In Sam’s article on Daniel 12:2 he claimed he agreed with the “consensus” of the “scholars” that this is an end of time fleshly resurrection.  However, Frost did not touch my challenge to him in that the “consensus” of the “scholars” posits this “future” resurrection at the end of the age – Sam (and Joel McDurmon) claim was the OC age (not the end of time) ending in AD 70.  Here are some examples of the “consensus” on the resurrection/glorification of Daniel 12:3/Matt. 13:43 which Sam avoided:
13:43 shine like the sun.  An allusion to Dan. 12:3, a promise of the future resurrection.[5]
The allusion is to Daniel 12:3 LXX…   …in v. 41. These righteous people (see on 5:20, 45; 9:13; 10:41; 13:17; 25:37, 46), once the light of the world (5:13–16), now radiate perfections and experience bliss in the consummation of their hopes.[6]
In Sam’s article on Daniel 12:2 he also failed to successfully refute the latest cutting edge “scholarly consensus” among his own Partial Preterists which take the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 as being  fulfilled in AD 70 (ex: Kenneth Gentry, Gary DeMar, Joel McDurmon, James Jordan, etc…).  According to these men, Daniel 12:2-3, 13 was a spiritual, corporate, covenantal resurrection for the Church and one in which Daniel’s soul was raised out of Abraham’s Bosom to inherit eternal life in God’s presence – in AD 70.  This is in essence the Full Preterist view of the resurrection.  In his article on Daniel 12:2 he once again did not successfully deal with or touch the “all things” of verse 7 which connects the judgment and resurrection of vss. 1-3 with the tribulation – that Jesus said would be fulfilled by AD 70 and within that generation.  And as I already stated he did not touch or seek to reconcile this judgment and resurrection taking place at the end of the OC age he says took place in AD 70 (Matt. 13:39-43=Dan. 12:1-3).[7]
Clearly identifying these two passages Matt. 13:38-50; Matt. 16:27-28 and Matthew 24-25 as the same end of the age consummation event is not unique to Full Preterism.  It isn’t a similarity we have with “Left Behind” “popular Christianity” here, but a similarity we have with “popular Christianity” as can be found within the creeds of the historic church and Reformed eschatology.
Again, THE REFORMATION STUDY BIBLE makes the same exegetical connections as we do,
…the language of [Matt. 24:31] is parallel to passages like 13:41; 16:27; 25:31
Leon Morris writes of Matthew 13:41,
The picture of harvest is carried on, with the reapers defined as the angels. The angels are associated with the consummation elsewhere (16:27; 24:31; 25:31). Jesus assigns to them an important part.[8]
The Reformation Study Bible with all of its “scholarship” and Leon Morris lead us to not only Matthew 13:41 to help us interpret the same “consummation” of Matthew 16:27, but their exegesis and “parallels” lead us to another place where Sam Frost didn’t want to go in his article – Matthew 24-25
2)      (Matthew 24:30-31—25:31-46)
30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
31 “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. 33 And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’ 37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’ 41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’ 44 “Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” [9]
“…and B bears the same relation to C:      
 

1) Christ comes in glory

Luke 9:26

1) Christ comes in glory

Matthew 24:30

2) Christ comes with angels

Matthew 16:27

2) Christ comes with angels

Matthew 24:31

3) Christ comes in judgment

Matthew 16:27

3) Christ comes in judgment

Matthew 24:28-31; 25:31-34

4) Christ and the kingdom come in power

Mark 8:38

4) Christ and the kingdom come in power

Luke 21:27-32

5) Some of the disciples would live

Matthew 16:28

5) Some of the disciples would live

Luke 21:16-18

6) Some of the disciples would die

Matthew 16:28

6) Some of the disciples would die

Luke 21:16

7) Christ would be ashamed of the disciples  generation Mark 8:38

7) All of this would occur in the disciples  generation Matthew 24:34

Jesus in the Olivet discourse ties the same subject matter in with both Mt. 16:27 & 28.  Not only is the same subject matter taken as one unit, but the same time frame for the Second Coming is reiterated by Christ, ie. in His/their first century, “this generation.” This is a very specific historical event and is not addressing several comings of Christ at: 1)  the ascension, 2) Pentecost, 3)  A.D. 70, and 4) an imagined future coming to end history.
As we will see in further examining Sam’s article, he casts much doubt on the certainty of Matthew 16:27’s meaning and avoiding any interaction with Matthew 24-25.  However, Partial Preterist Gary DeMar is very “certain” of its meaning based upon a method condemned by Frost – that is using “identical” (or “similar”) language and “jumping” to Matthew 24-25,
“…there is little evidence that the “coming of the Son of Man” in Matthew 24:27, 30, 39, and 42 is different from the coming of the Son of Man” in 25:31.  Compare 25:31 with 16:27, a certain reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70…  These verses are almost identical.”[10]
For DeMar “identical” or “similar” language is used as a valid hermeneutical/exegetical approach in determining that the coming of the Son of Man in Matt. 16:27; Matt. 24:30 and Matt. 25:31 “certainly” refer to the same coming at the destruction of Jerusalem.
But can we find the resurrection in Matthew 24:30-31 in the context of the judgment of the dead in 25:31-46?  We now come full circle.
“…then A (Matt. 13:39-43) bears it to C (Matt. 24:30-31—25:31-46)”:

Matthew 13:39-43 Matthew 24:30-31—25:31-46
1 Evangelism within the local “world” takes place (Matt. 13:38). 1 Evangelism within the local “world” takes place (Matt. 24:14).
2 There is persecution, tribulation, apostasy, & faithfulness (Matt. 13:19-30). 2 There is persecution, tribulation, apostasy, & faithfulness (Matt. 24:9-13).
3 The subject is the growth and reception of the kingdom at which time the judgment at the “end of the age” takes place (Matt.13:40). 3 The subject is the growth and reception of the kingdom at which time the judgment at the “end of the age” takes place (Lk. 21:31-32/; Mt. 24:3).
4 The Son of Man comes with His angels to gather the sheep/wheat into His barn/kingdom and the wicked goats/tares are gathered and thrown into the fire and burned (Matt. 13:39-42). 4 The Son of Man comes with His angels to gather the sheep/wheat into His barn/kingdom and the wicked goats/tares are gathered and thrown into the fire and burned (Matt. 24:30-31, 25:31-41).
5 The righteous are gathered into the Kingdom at the end of the OC age at which time they are raised and glorified and shine like the sun  (Matt. 13:43/Dan. 12:2-3). 5 Christ’s coming is most likely described as the sun or bright light coming for the east to the west (Mt. 24:27).

The resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 is not only evident when allowing Jesus to interpret Himself regarding the end of the OC age gathering into the kingdom of Matthew 13:39-43 with Matthew 24:30-31, but it is also evident in that Jesus references the eschatological gathering and trumpet call of Isaiah’s little apocalypse which includes the time of resurrection (cf. Isaiah 25:8–27:13).  Jesus tells us that His teaching in the Olivet discourse and His coming at the end of the OC age within that “this generation” would be the “…days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written.” (Luke 21:22).  “All that is written” would include the judgment and resurrection of Daniel 12:1-4 that would take place at the “time of the end” in AD 70 and not the “end of time.”  “All that is written” would also include the judgment and resurrection of Isaiah 25—27:13.
So let’s stop here briefly and ponder what we have seen when we allow Jesus to interpret Himself (something Sam can’t do) and what we have gleaned from not just a Full Preterist  exegesis and comparison of the pertinent texts, but one also derived from orthodox REFORMED SCHOLARS as well.

  • Matthew 13:39-43 is the same end of the age consummation event as Matthew 16:27.
  • Matthew 13:39-43; Matthew 16:27 and Matthew 24:30-31—25:31ff. are also the same end of the age consummation event.
  • But Matthew 13:39-43 is the time of the resurrection and consummation at the end of the age as predicted by Daniel 12:2-3.
  • More modern cutting edge Partial Preterist “scholars” and “exegetes” than Sam Frost posit the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 at the end of the OC age in AD 70.
  • Conclusion:  The end of the OC age coming of Christ with his angels to gather His elect into the Kingdom is the time of the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 – which took place in a spiritual, covenantal, corporate manner for the Church and at which time Daniel’s soul (and other souls) was/were raised out of Abraham’s Bosom and inherited eternal life in God’s presence.

How did I arrive at this conclusion?  Was it reading or referencing any unscholarly Dispensational “Left Behind” material?  Lol.  No, it was referencing Reformed and standard Evangelical sources on the analogy of Scripture that led us to this conclusion.  But let’s continue filling in the gaps to Sam’s quote:
“…if these two verses were fulfilled in AD 70 [Matt. 16:27-28], then these few other verses [Matt. 13:39-43/Dan. 12:2-3; Matt. 24:30-31—25:31-46 must also be fulfilled in AD 70, because these other verses are talking about the same eventThese other verses, of course, are referencing the resurrection of the dead [Matt. 13:39-43/Dan. 12:2-3=Matt. 24-25] and the other events associated with eschatology [the judgment “weeping and gnashing of teeth & everlasting punishment with the Devil and his angles].”
“…since these other verses contain the same language they must be referring to the same event. Upon these considerations the whole Hyper Preterist scheme is built,…”
There are of course other verses I believe Sam has in mind here – specifically now allowing Jesus’ teaching in the passages I have covered within the gospel of Matthew which form and develop Pauline or NT eschatology on the coming of the Son of Man in judgment to reward each person and raise the dead at the end of the OC age (1 Thess. 4 and 1 Cor. 15).  But as we have seen, this is not just how Full Preterism is “built,” it is how traditional, orthodox and “popular” eschatology is built.  So let’s move on interacting with what Sam has written here.
Is it scholarly to understand that if Matthew 16:27-28 is the same event as Matthew 24-25 then these passages form the foundation to Pauline and NT eschatology?
D.A Carson wrote the following concerning Matthew 24-25 in the development of NT eschatology:    
Fourth, the discourse itself is undoubtedly a source for the Thessalonian Epistles (cf. G. Henry Waterman, “The Sources of Paul’s Teaching on the 2nd Coming of Christ in 1 and 2 Thessalonians,” JETS 18 [1975]: 105–13; David Wenham, “Paul and the Synoptic Apocalypse,” France and Wenham, 2:345–75) and Revelation (cf. Gregory Kimball Beale, “The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John” [Ph.D. diss., Cambridge University, 1980], pp. 260–64, and the literature cited there). If so, then we may say that Jesus himself sets the pattern for the church’s eschatology.[11]
Of the trumpet call and gathering of the elect in Matthew 24:31 he wrote:
The sound of a loud trumpet (cf. Isa 27:13; 1 Cor 15:52; 1 Thess 4:16) is an eschatological figure (see on 24:30). Only with considerable difficulty can v. 31 be interpreted as referring to Christian missions: its natural linguistic relations are in 13:41. For comments on “his elect,” see on 22:14; 24:22. The “four winds” represent the four points of the compass (Ezek 37:9; Dan 8:8; 11:4): the elect are gathered from all over (cf. Mt 8:11), “from one end of the heavens to the other” (from every place under the sky), since that is how far the gospel of the kingdom will have been preached (24:14).[12]
Carson is correct to equate the eschatological coming, gathering and trumpet call of Matt. 24:30-31 with 1 Cor. 15:52 and 1 Thess. 4:16 as the same consummative event.  He is also correct to connect the eschatological gathering of Matt. 24:30-31 as being the consummation of the Great Commission in 24:14.  But Jesus is not discussing a Great Commission that covers the globe before He would float down on a literal cloud at the end of time, but is rather addressing the world as they knew it or the Roman world.  Therefore, Paul taught under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that it had been fulfilled toward the end of their generation (Rom. 10:18; 16:25-26; Col. 1:5-6, 23).
 
We have examined what THE REFORMATION STUDY BIBLE had to say in connecting Matt. 16:27 with 13:41 and Matt. 24:31/25:31 as the same event and consummation, but let’s see how reformed theologians now connect Jesus’ teaching in the gospel of Matthew with resurrection texts in the NT as Full Preterists do:
 
“…the language of [Matt. 24:31] is parallel to passages like 13:41; 16:27; 25:31 [already covered], as well as to passages such as 1 Cor. 15:52 and 1 Thess. 4:14-17.”[13]
Since others such as G.K. Beale have produced “parallel” charts as we have, let’s not just revisit the analogy of Scripture principle but also now address these three Scriptures the way we did with Matt. 13:39-43; 16:27-28; 24:30—25:31ff.  If A bears some relation to B and B bears the same relation to C, then A bears it to C. Or the property of equality is transitive – for if A = B and B = C, then A = C.  Therefore, things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another. If equals be added to equals, the wholes are equal.

  • A = (Matt. 24:27-31, 34)
  • B = (1 Thess. 4:15-17)
  • C = (1 Cor. 15)

In addressing these texts, I will also cover the arbitrary parallel hermeneutics of Partial Preterism.  This is also an issue I dealt with in our book (cf. House Divided pp. 107-110), which is a subject Sam has also not dealt with in his “exegesis” of 1 Thess. 4:15-17 on his RCM site either.
G.K. Beale wrote the following of Matthew 24-25 being the same consummative event as 1 Thessalonians 4-5:
“…4:15-17 describe generally the same end-time scenario as 5:1-10. Specifically, Paul narrates the resurrection at the end of the age and then recapitulates in chapter 5 by speaking about the timing of this event and about the judgment on unbelievers, which will happen at the same time. That both 4:15-18 and 5:1-11 explain the same events is discernible from observing that both passages actually form one continuous depiction of the same narrative in Matthew 24, as apparent from the chart…”
[“If A (Matt. 24-25) bears some relation to B (1 Thess. 4-5)”]:

1 Thessalonians Matthew
Christ returns 4:16 24:30
From heaven 4:16 24:30
Accompanied by angels 4:16 24:31
With a trumpet of God 4:16 24:31
Believers gathered to Christ 4:17 24:31, 40-41
In clouds 4:17 24:30
Time unknown 5:1-2 24:36
Coming like a thief 5:2 24:43
Unbelievers unaware of impending judgment 5:3 24:8
Judgment comes as pain upon an expectant mother 5:3 24:8
Believers not deceived 5:4-5 24:43
Believers to be watchful 5:6 24:37-39
Warning against drunkenness 5:7 24:49

“Other significant parallels include: the use of the word parousia for Christ’s coming, reference to Christ’s advent as “that day” (Mt.24:36) or “the day of the Lord” (1Thess.5:2); and a description of someone coming to “meet” another (eis apantesin autou, virgins coming out to “meet” the bridegroom in Mt 25:6; eis apantesin tou kyriou, believers “meeting” the Lord in 1Thess 4:17; see further Waterman 1975).[8]
“…(and although Matthew does not explicitly mention the idea of resurrection, he implies it in the phrase “gather his elect” in 24:31, which implies the gathering of all believers, both living and dead [Marshall 1983: 126]).”[9]
Beale further tightens the connection of 1Thessalonians 4-5 together by demonstrating that chapter 5 is also continuing the theme of the resurrection:
“Within the larger context, 5:9-10 (appointed to receive salvation…so that…we mayh live) provides the basis for being self-controlled 5:8, the main point thus far in 5:8-10. Being self controlled because of the prospect of salvation and resurrection culminates in the goal of 5:1-10 to which Paul has been aiming at throughout: “Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing. The nearest thought sparking this final exhortation to encourage is the just mentioned consummated resurrection existence of God’s people who will join fellowship with the resurrected Christ 5:10. That the phrase we may live in 5:10 alludes to the resurrection of God’s people is borne out by observing the parallels between 5:10-11 and 4:13-18, which show that Paul has returned to the earlier theme of resurrection as the basis for encouragement:

4:13-18 5:10-11
(1) “Jesus died and rose” (4:14) (1) “he died for us” (5:10)
(2) “the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive…will be caught up together with [hama syn] them. …And so [in this manner of resurrection existence] we will be with the Lord forever” (4:16-17) (2) “Whether we are awake or asleep [a metaphor for living and deceased saints] we may live together with [hama syn] him” (5:10)
(3) “Therefore encourage each other [parakaleite allelous]” (4:18) (3) “Therefore encourage one another [parakaleite allelous]” (5:11)[10]

Partial Preterism’s Arbitrary Parallel Hermeneutics in Matt. 24 & 1-2 Thess.

Keith Mathison writes of 1 Thess. 5 in relationship to Matt. 24:
“The language used in 1 Thessalonians 5 is also used in passages describing the coming of Christ for judgment in A.D.70. We have already mentioned that the term “day of the Lord” (5:2) is used in 2Thessalonians 2 in a passage that refers to A.D. 70. Another interesting parallel is found in verse 3, where the coming of this destruction is compared to “birth pangs.” The same phrase is used in Matt. 24:8 to describe the judgments leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.”[14]
Mathison here has no problem paralleling similar “language” and “phrases” in 1 Thessalonians 5 with that of the Olivet Discourse. But did you notice that Mathison dishonestly left out the comparison of Christ coming as a “thief” in (1 Thessalonians 5:2) in paralleling it with the Olivet Discourse? Why? It is Because during the time Mathison wrote this, he incorrectly took Christ coming as a thief in Matthew 24:43 as the alleged end of time (“second section” of the OD) coming, while taking Christ coming as a thief here in 1Thessalonians 5:2, as the A.D. 70 coming. To bring attention to this would be to expose his artificial division and two second comings theory of the Olivet Discourse so he avoids the comparison and hopes no one will notice it.
Gary DeMar does not divide Matt. 24-25 (and now does Mathison) so he doesn’t have a problem in harmonizing Christ coming as a thief in Matthew 24:43 with 1 Thessalonians 5:2 as the same AD 70 coming of the Lord. But let’s examine his “you” argument once again,
“While [the Jews of the first century living in Jerusalem] are saying, “Peace and safety!’ then destruction will come upon them suddenly like birth pangs upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape” (5:3; cf. Matthew 24:15-25). The Thessalonians had been warned of this coming judgment: “But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day should overtake you like a thief” (5:4). Paul had told the Thessalonians that certain indicators were available to them that would prepare them for the “day of the Lord.”[15]
Let’s look at some other examples in developing parallels from Mathison and DeMar between Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 24 with Pauline eschatology in 1-2 Thessalonians:
“Some of these parallels are:
a. a coming of our Lord (2Thess.2:1; cf. Matt.24:27, 30),
b. a gathering together to Him (2Thess. 2:1; cf. Mattt.24:31),
c. apostasy (2Thess. 2:3; cf. Matt. 24:5, 10-12),
d. the mystery of lawlessness (2Thess. 2:7; Matt. 24:12),
e. satanic signs and wonders (2Thess. 2:9-10; cf. Matt. 24:24),
f. a deluding influence on unbelievers (2Thess. 2:11; cf. Matt. 24:5, 24).”[16]
Obviously Mathison has been influenced by DeMar or sources such as Waterman that Beale and Kenneth Gentry have appealed to in 1-2 Thessalonians,
1) 2Thess. 2:1 = Mt. 24:31
2) 2Thess. 2:1-2 = Mt. 24:27,30; Lk.21:27
3) 2Thess. 2:3 = Mt. 24:12; Mk. 13:14
4) 2Thess. 2:4 = Mt. 24:25
5) 2Thess. 2:7 = Mt. 24:12, 15
6) 2Thess. 2:8-12 = Mt. 24:24; Mk. 13:22
7) 2Thess. 2:13 = Mk. 13:27; Lk. 21:8
8) 2Thee. 2:15 = Mk. 13:23,31.”[17]
Interesting enough, Sam has now changed his view on 2 Peter 3 (as he continues his “make it up as he goes” response to FPism) and yet Gary DeMar and Joel McDurmon use parallels between Matthew 24 and 2 Peter 3 to establish that 2 Peter 3 was fulfilled in AD 70!
Gary DeMar or Joel McDurmon and Full Preterism have no problems seeing these parallels:

  • Matthew 24:9-30 = 1 Peter 1:6-7
  • Matthew 25:31-46 = 1 Peter 4:4-7, 17/2 Peter 2:4, 9/2 Peter 3
  • Matthew 24:47; 25:19-23, 46 = 1 Peter 5:1, 4/2 Pet. 3
  • Luke 17:20-21/21:27-31 = 1 Peter 1:6-9/2 Peter 1:11/2 Peter 3:10-13
  • Matthew 24:35 = 2 Peter 3:10-13[18]

Gary DeMar is also on record as saying that John’s version of Matthew 24-25 is found in the book of Revelation.  I will address these parallels once we cover more of Sam’s argument on what exactly this “rewarding” is in Matthew 16:27.  Sam wants to “jump” to Revelation 5 and yet most futurists and Full Preterists go to Revelation 20:5-15 or 22:10-12.
So the issue that Sam has been dishonest with here is that clearly Full Preterism is using the analogy of Scripture principle of interpretation in developing “similar language,” “identical language” or “terms” “parallels” etc…, of passages that arise from the “popular Christian” reformed tradition of exegesis – NOT the novel and “popular”“Left Behind” “exegesis”!  But let’s further expose Sam on this alleged parallel (pun intended) approach between who is really building their system with “Left Behind” eschatology motifs.

Sam Frost and “Left Behind” Eschatology

Frost seeks to discredit the Full Preterist view when we use the analogy of Scripture principle of interpretation and point out the “similar language” “identical language” “parallels” etc…, by saying this is what the unscholarly Dispensational pre-tribulation rapture “Left Behind” approach does.  And yet obviously I have been appealing to Reformed theologians or other scholars in which they would consider as reputable. A desperate tactic indeed for Frost to use.
But we must go farther in exposing Sam on this false affiliation between Full Preterists and “Left Behind” theology when it comes to the analogy of Scripture or developing parallels etc…  It is actually Sam Frost and the Partial Preterist system which has a great deal of similarities with “Left Behind” when it comes to denying paralleling Matthew 16:27/24:30—25:31 with 1 Thessalonians 4.  Since both the Partial Preterism and “Left Behind” pre-tribulation rapture folks embrace TWO COMINGS of Christ in the NT (one in AD 70 and one at the end of time / one at the secret “rapture” seven years before the Second Coming), the above parallels destroys both of  their systems and thus they both come together in agreement in hopes of shaking these similarities and parallels away because it does not support their two comings theory.[19]
Sam concludes his article with these words,
Always be ready.  Keep your wicks trimmed, and oil in your lamps – lest he come and remove his candle.
Frost must be rusty or a novice on his two coming Partial Preterist Postmillennial view.  There is NO imminent expectation of the Second Coming for us today per this system!  Perhaps Talbot-Sam is getting his eschatology mixed up with the “popular” Left Behind views?  The “signs” (so to speak) to take place before this coming can take place (when it is imagined) would include:
1.  The nations of the globe need to be Christianized and have no more wars before He returns.
2.  Men need to be living up to 900 years old again before He returns.
3.  Evidence of lions reverting to herbivores – eating straw with the ox needs to take place before He can return.
4.  Evidence of children being able to play with poisonous snakes and not getting hurt needs to be present in the creation before He can return again.
Indeed the science fiction and extreme literal hermeneutic that Frost imposes upon the OT and NT shares many things in common with “Left Behind” folks.  Per Postmillennialism this progressive/manifestation of fulfillment in the glorification of the creation is going to take thousands or possibly millions of years to take place before Christ’s “final” coming takes place.  Why should Sam be “always ready” or his exhortation to us be something to consider?  Per Sam’s eschatology should he be more concerned with progressive lion taming and or genetic research to make men live longer as parts of “the gospel” he espouses?  Not only is there no real imminent coming in Matt. 24-25 for us today within Postmillennialism (Sam’s exhortation), the one text he is appealing to here is the one DeMar (his publisher and conference speaker) says he is “certain” took place in AD 70 and is identical to the one found in Mt. 16:27.  Go figure!
Now back to Beale and his chart.  Frost and other disciples of Dr. Talbot felt as if something was solved with Beale now flirting with some Partial Preterist [from R.T. France] concepts and trying to grapple with Christ promising to return in the clear time reference of “this generation.”  While in the futurist paradigm he understands this to be a “thorny problem” for him and no doubt the creedal church which has not been able to solve this within the box they have created:
“The clearest reference to Jesus as the Son of Man from Daniel 7:13 come in the third category (which he identifies as “those that refer to Jesus’ future coming in glory”), where there are quotations of Dan. 7:13 (Matt. 24:30, Mark 13:26, Luke 21:27).  However, it is likely better to see most of these third-category references fulfilled not at the very end of history but rather in AD 70 at the destruction of Jerusalem, in which the Son of Man’s coming would be understood as an invisible coming in judgment, using the Roman armies as his agent.  The reference in Matt. 25:31 to “the Son of Man” who will “come in His glory” and “sit on His glorious throne” is not a quotation of but rather an allusion to Dan. 7:13-14, which clearly is applied to the very end of the age at Christ’s final comingIf this view is correct, it may be that the AD 70 coming of Christ in judgment as portrayed by the Synoptics is a typological foreshadowing of his final coming in judgment.  However, the traditional view that the coming of the Son of Man in the Synoptic eschatological discourse refers to Christ’s final coming certainly is plausible.  This issue is a thorny one that still deserves much more study.”[14]
Of course this becomes even more of a “thorny problem” after noting how other futurists such as Gary DeMar are “certain” that the coming of the Son of Man in Matt. 25:31 is not referring to the end of time but is also Christ’s invisible coming in AD 70!
Although not a Full Preterist, it would appear that Colin Brown sees Beale’s “thorny problem” as well in that if Matthew 24:27-31 was fulfilled in Jesus’ “this generation” and Paul is teaching the same event in 1 Thessalonians 4-5, perhaps 1 Thessalonians 4:16 should be interpreted with symbolic apocalyptic  language (events that take place within history not at the end of it) as is the case in Matthew 24.
“But if these events were expected within the first generation of Christians (and “generation” is the most probable translation of genea), either Jesus or the evangelists were mistaken…” or “…there is an alternative interpretation of the passage which points out that insufficient attention has been paid to the prophetic language of the passage as a whole.
The imagery of cosmic phenomena is used in the OT to describe this-worldly events and, in particular, historical acts of judgment. The following passages are significant, not least because of their affinities with the present context: Isa. 13:10 (predicting doom on Babylon); Isa. 34:4 (referring to “all the nations”, but especially to Edom); Ezek. 32:7 (concerning Egypt); Amos 8:9 (the Northern Kingdom of Israel); Joel 2:10 (Judah). The cosmic imagery draws attention to the divine dimension of the event in which the judgment of God is enacted. The use of Joel 2:28-32 in Acts 2:15-21 provides an instance of the way in which such prophetic cosmic imagery is applied to historical events in the present (cf. also Lk. 10:18; Jn. 12:31; 1 Thess. 4:16; 2 Pet. 3:10ff.; Rev. 6:12-17; 18:1). Other OT passages relevant to the interpretation of the present context are Isa. 19:1; 27:13; Dn. 7:13; Deut. 30:4; Zech. 2:6; 12:10-14; Mal. 3:1. In view of this, Mk. 13:24-30 may be interpreted as a Son of man will be vindicated. Such prophecy of judgment on Israel in which a judgment took place with the destruction of Jerusalem, the desecration of the  Temple and the scattering of Israel – all of which happened within the  lifetime of “this generation.” “…Such an interpretation fits the preceding discourse and the introductory remarks of the disciples (Mk. 13:1ff. par.).”[11].
This is the position I take in our book.  Therefore, to conclude Carson and Beale’s position of Matthew 24:30-31/1 Thessalonians 4:15-17:

  • Matthew 24:30 is the final Second Coming event but it also took place invisibly in AD 70.
  • Matthew 24:31 depicts the resurrection of the dead because the gathering of the elect at the end of the age points back to Matthew 13:39-43 and Daniel’s resurrection in Daniel 12:2-3.
  • The Second Coming and resurrection described by Jesus as the gathering of all the elect at the end of the age in Matthew 13:39-43/Daniel 12:2-3 and Matthew 24:30-31 is Paul’s source of teaching and the same Second Coming event describe by Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4:15—5:10-11 in which all the dead (living and dead) will be raised together in the kingdom and will thus be together forever with the Lord.

Beale obviously can’t take both positions and remain a futurist.  He can’t say that Matthew 24:30-31 is the “final coming in judgment” and is addressing the “resurrection” being the same event as depicted by Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4:15—5:11 and yet also hold that Matthew 24:30 took place in AD 70.  It seems to me that Beale seems content (as Gary DeMar is) to have others such as Full Preterists do the “more study” to solve their “thorny problem” while they keep their creedal jobs and financial supporters (see Sam’s comment in House Divided, 228).
“And …B (1 Thess. 4-5) bears the same relation to C (1 Cor. 15)…” or “B=C”:
All agree that B (1 Thess. 4:15-17) bears the same relation to C (1 Cor. 15) or “B=C” and is referring to the second coming and resurrection events:
Those asleep will be raised                            1 Thess. 4:13-14 = 1 Cor. 15:12-18
The living will be “caught up” “changed”   1 Thess. 4:15-17 = 1 Cor. 15:51-52
At the sound of a “trumpet”                          1 Thess. 4:16 = 1 Cor. 15:52
At Christ’s coming (Greek parousia)            1 Thess. 4:15 = 1 Cor. 15:23
“Encourage” “Stand firm”                            1 Thess. 4:18 = 1 Cor. 15:58
Same contemporary audience “we”              1 Thess. 4:15-17 = 1 Cor. 15:51-52
 
“Then A (Matt. 24) bears it to C (1 Cor. 15)” or “A=C”:
 
Christ comes (Greek parousia)                      Matt. 24:27 = 1 Cor. 15:23
To “gather” or “change” His people             Matt. 24:31 = 1 Cor. 15:52
With a “trumpet”                                                 Matt. 24:31 = 1 Cor. 15:52
To bring “the end” (Greek telos)                   Matt. 24:3, 14 = 1 Cor. 15:24
Deliver up & fulfill “kingdom” promises    Luke 21:30-32 = 1 Cor. 15:24
The fulfillment of all OT prophecy                Luke 21:22 = 1 Cor. 15:54-55
Stones of temple & “the Law” destroyed    Matt. 24:1, 15 = 1 Cor. 15:55-56
Same contemporary audience “you” “we”  Matt. 24:2…, 34 = 1 Cor. 15:51-52
PREMISE #1:  The parousia/coming of Christ in Matthew 24 took place in AD 70 (according to Partial Preterists and Biblical Preterists)
PREMISE #2:  The parousia/coming of Christ in Matthew 24 is the same coming of Christ in 1 Thessalonians 4-5 and 1 Corinthians 15 (according to traditional Amillennialists and Biblical Preterists)
The parousia/coming of Christ in 1 Thessalonians 4-5 and 1 Corinthians 15:23-24 took place in AD 70.
Concluding Part 1:
Sam Frost’s attempts to discredit how Full Preterism is “built” using “parallels” “similar” or “identical language” etc…, has completely backfired on him.  I have appealed to the “Popular Christian” Reformed views [even DeMar Sam’s new publisher] and my sources for the most part in this article have not been “Left Behind” poor scholarship.  Full Preterism is “built” the same way the classic Reformed Amillennial and Partial Preterist systems are “built” up when it comes to using the analogy of Scripture and the use of the analogy of Scripture, parallels, etc…  And the facts are that it is Frost who has more in common with the “Left Behind” folks in:  1) denying the parallels between Matt. 24 and 1 Thess. 4 because they both share a faulty two coming theory system in the NT, 2) create some extreme science fiction nonsense/theology based upon a hyper-literal interpretation of certain OT and NT texts, and 3) teach an imminent Second Coming or “rapture” of Christ which is not really imminent.
Sam’s position is so embarrassing and practically nonexistent when it comes to the analogy of Scripture in letting Jesus interpret Himself in Matthew’s gospel on Matt. 16:27-28=13:30-43= 24:30—25:31ff. or in letting Paul interpret Jesus’ teaching in Matt. 16:27-28=Matt. 24-25=1 Thess. 4-5=1 Cor. 15, that he simply couldn’t even mention let alone address these texts or challenges when it comes to giving a proper exegesis of Matt. 16;27-28.  I will be covering more passages that Sam cannot deal with in how Jesus’ teaching in Matt. 16:27-28 is develop in the rest of the NT.



[1] Sam Frost, Matthew 16:27-28, http://thereignofchrist.com/matthew-1627-28/
[2] Michael J. Sullivan, Edward Hassertt, David Green, Samuel Frost, House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to When Shall These Things Be?, (Ramona, CA:  Vision Publishin, 2009) 95-98.
[3] Michael J. Sullivan, An Exegesis of Matthew 16:27-28, http://www.treeoflifeministries.info/index.php?view=article&catid=35%3Apreterist-eschatology-all-prophecy-fulfilled-by-ad-70&id=56%3Aan-exegesis-of-matthew-1627-28&option=com_content&Itemid=75
[4] Sam Frost, Introduction to Matthew 16:27-28, http://www.restorationgj.com/id50.htm Follow links at bottom of page for the rest of his exegesis – which for the most part is very good.  Note how confident and sure Sam was a Full Preterist as you read this article and compare it to how evasive and unsure he is of Matthew 16:27-28’s meaning as a “hard hearted” (his term) Partial Preterist.
[5] R.C. Sproul General Editor, THE REFORMATION STUDY BIBLE (Philipsburg, NJ:  Ligonier Ministries, 2005), 1384. Bold emphasis mine.
[6] Carson, D. A. (1984). Matthew. In F. E. Gaebelein (Ed.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (F. E. Gaebelein, Ed.) (327). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House. Bold emphasis mine.
[7] Sam Frost, Daniel 12:2, http://thereignofchrist.com/daniel-122/
[8] Morris, L. (1992). The Gospel according to Matthew. The Pillar New Testament Commentary (357). Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press.
[9] The New King James Version. 1982 (Mt 25:31–46). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
[10] Gary DeMar, Last Days MADNESS Obsession of the Modern Church (Powder Springs, GA:  American Vision, 1999) 200.  Bold and underlined emphasis mine.
[11] Carson, D. A. (1984). Matthew. In F. E. Gaebelein (Ed.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (F. E. Gaebelein, Ed.) (489). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.  Emphasis mine.
[12] Carson, Ibid., 506.  Emphasis mine.
[13] THE REFORMATION STUDY BIBLE, Ibid., 1401
[14] Keith Mathison, Postmillennialism An Eschatology of Hope, (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1999), 226. Bold emphasis mine.
[15] Gary DeMar, LAST DAYS MADNESS Obsession of the Modern Church, (Atlanta, GA: American Vision, Inc., 1994), 327.
[16] Mathison, Ibid., Postmillenialism, 230.
[17] DeMar, Ibid., 325.

[18] A Full Preterist Response To Joel McDurmon’s Article “The Passing Away of Heaven and Earth in Revelation 20:11 AND 20:1” Part 1 – 2 Peter 3, https://fullpreterism.com/a-full-preterist-response-to-partial-preterist-joel-mcdurmons-article-the-passing-away-of-heaven-and-earth-in-revelation-2011-and-201/

 

[19] Wayne House, Differences Between 1 Thessalonians 4 and Matthew 24http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/differences-between-1-thessalonians-4-and-matthew-24. Thomas Ice, Differences Between The Rapture And The Second Coming, http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/differences-between-rapture-and-second-coming