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


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

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

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

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

Full Preterists

Partial Preterists

A.D. 70

At the end of history

A.D.   70

At the end of history

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

Yes

No

Yes

Yes & No

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

Yes

No

Yes

Yes & No

United Matt. 24-25 one parousia in AD   70

Yes

No

Yes

Yes & No

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

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

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

Yes

No

Yes

Yes & No

2 Peter 3 fulfilled

Yes

No

Yes

Yes & No

“All Israel” in Rom. 11:26 saved

Yes

No

Yes

Yes & No

Acts 1:11

Yes

No

Yes

Yes & No

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

Yes

No

Yes

Yes & No

1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 “rapture”

Yes

No

Yes

Yes & No

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

Progressive Dispensationalism & Progressive Partial Preterism

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

“Fraudulent” and “Sloppy Scholarship”

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

“State of Flux”

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

Gary DeMar & “Fitting Questions” From Full Preterists

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

Conclusion:

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

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



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

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).
 

The Living Body Show W/ William Bell – Matt. 5:17-18; 8:11-12; 10:17-23; 13:40-43

One of the best shows we have had so far – you don’t want to miss it!  We began to study the first of what theologians have called “The Big Three” (Matt. 10:22-23; 16:27-28; 24:34).  Listen and pass it along to your friends.

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

 

The Living Body Show 11/19/12 – Revelation 20:8-15 & Challenge To Debate Sam Frost or Gary DeMar at the RCM Conference

Does the orthodox view of Partial Preterism in interpreting Matthew 16:27-28; 24:30–25:31-46 help interpret Revelation 20:5-15?  How does the classic orthodox Amillennial view interpret Revelation 1-19, 21-22 in light of Revelation 20:5-15?  How does the classic Amillennial view interpret Matt. 16:27 and 24:30–25:31-46 in light of Revelation 20:5-15?  Where does Full Preterism fall within these two orthodox views?  Should Full Preterism be literally condemned to hell for developing “parallels” and “identical/similar language ” which both of these orthodox schools develop?!?

The Contradictions Among Dr. Talbot's Disciples and the "Scholarly Consensus" of Daniel 12:1-13/Matthew 13:39-43

No one can deny that Full Preterism is the organic development (“Reformed and always reforming”) of the reformed orthodox church as it pertains to the time and nature of fulfillment for the judgment and resurrection of Dan. 12:1-4, 7, 13/Matt. 13:39-43 to take place.  These texts would be fulfilled at the end of the “last days” or “end of the age” period:
1) Classic Amillenialism – The resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 IS the resurrection of Matthew 13:39-43/24:31—25:31ff.; John 5:28-29; Acts 24:15; 1 Corinthians 15; Revelation 20:5-15 and takes place at Christ’s ONE “the parousia” at the end of the “last days” or “end of the age” period.
2) Postmillennial Partial Preterism – The resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 took place at the end of the NT’s “last days” period – at the end of the OC age at Christ’s “the parousia.” At which time…:
a. “John in Revelation picks up where Daniel leaves off” (James Jordan on Dan. 12:2, 13/Revelation 20) and Daniel’s soul was raised out from among the dead ones of Abraham’s Bosom/Hades and stood in God’s presence having inherited “eternal life.”
b. This was a covenantal resurrection for OC Israel and the NC Church in AD 70.
c. This was a corporate resurrection for the Church which took place in AD 70.
* Not only this, but PP have actually ripped off (stolen) some FP arguments from various texts to arrive at this – without giving FPism the credit – lol.
Talbot-Sam doesn’t want to say the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 was fulfilled in AD 70 because the consensus of the scholars teaches this is a physical resurrection which will take place at the end of “the last days” or “end of the age” period. All the while Talbot-Sam denies the overwhelming consensus among the scholars that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 is to take place at the end of the age — THAT HE [Talbot-Sam] says was the OC age in AD 70 Matt. 13:39-43! Way to avoid that key passage in your little article on Daniel 12:2 Sam.
Talbot-Gentry is on the other side of the coin that Talbot-Sam is on. He accepts the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 took place spiritually in AD 70, but apparently didn’t want to suffer the condemnation of Gary North on this text and “break from the historic faith of the church” and the scholarly consensus that Matt. 13:39-43 is allegedly dealing with “the end of history” and not the end of the OC age in AD 70.
Talbot-McDurmon comes along and wants to be more consistent than Talbot-Sam and Talbot-Gentry and correctly claims that Dan. 12:2-3 and Matt. 13:39-43 are addressing the same event and were fulfilled at the end of the OC age in AD 70 (and is even willing to surrender the resurrection of 1 Cor. 15 to the FP).  But after conceding these points, he becomes delusional (along with other disciples of Dr. Talbot) and wants to act and pretend as if he has won the debate against Full Preterism.  Amazing irony!
Since the almighty ivory tower great “Dr.” Talbot of Whitefield Seminary has been or is the professor of these three men, we must ask:  WHEN will the great “Doctor” ever walk down and bless us all with his presence and fix these contradictory views his students are promoting on Dan. 12:2-3/Matt. 13:39-43 as they pertain to the “scholarly consensus” of the Church? Don’t hold your breath – Lol.

David Green Responds to Talbot-Jason on the WCF Q&A 85

Talbot-Jason has posted a superb example of the “full preterist presuppositions” that have increasingly emerged from within the church in history.
The Westminster Confession of Faith:
Q. 85. Death being the wages of sin, why are not the righteous delivered from death, seeing all their sins are forgiven in Christ?
A. The righteous shall be delivered from death itself at the last day, and even in death are delivered from the sting and curse of it; so that, although they die, yet it is out of God’s love, to free them perfectly from sin and misery, and to make them capable of further communion with Christ in glory, which they then enter upon.

My response:            

Note on the one hand:  We must wait for the end of human history (which the Confession calls “the last day”) before we can be “delivered from death.”
Yet on the other hand:  When saints die today, they are delivered from “the sting” and “curse” of death, and are perfectly freed from sin and misery in glory.
There are at least two problems here:           🙂
ONE:  If after believers die they are immediately delivered from the sting and curse of death, and are perfectly freed from sin and misery, then how are they in need of “deliverance” from death?  Hello.    🙂   “And the saints around the throne prayed, Lord please save us from this sting-less, curse-less,perfect freedom from sin and misery in glory’” (Revelation 23:13, The ‘Consistent’ Futurist Version).
TWO:  1 Corinthians 15:54-55 makes it crystal clear that “the sting of death” is NOT removed UNTIL the Resurrection of the Dead:  “So WHEN this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, THEN shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.  O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
Versus the WCF:
“The righteous . . in death [today] are delivered from the sting [of death].”

As one can see, there is a flat contradiction between the Westminster Confession’s full preterist presuppositions and its futurist exegesis.  The flawed eschatological exegesis of the post-apostolic church has said that the Resurrection of the Dead is yet future, while the church’s Spirit-presupposition has always, and increasingly, taught that the Resurrection of the Dead stands wholly consummated in the body of Christ today and forever.
Talbot-Jason:
Oh, we’ll receive a nasty blow alright, but Death will not hold us down for the count.
Jesus:
Whosoever liveth and believeth in Me shall never die. Believest thou this?” (Jn. 11:26)
Talbotism’s unspoken answer:
“No.”
Talbot-Jason:
our enemy’s name is Hades
My response:
God crushed the enemy of the saints beneath the feet of the church about 2,000 years ago (Rom. 16:20; Rev. 3:9), the cardboard of Talbotism notwithstanding.
Talbot-Jason:
. . . i used to float around Florida and Tennessee with my big ole swollen head, . . . with my superior reasoning skills
My response:
Under Dr. Talbot’s tutelage, Talbot-Jason has indeed undergone a startling transformation:  He has gone from one who was puffed up wearing the badge of Full Preterism, to one who is puffed up wearing the badge of Historic Orthodoxy.
In the Talbotian error, only Jesus has attained to the fulness of the promise made to the fathers, while Jesus’ disciples in heaven (or in Hades, according to Talbot-Jason) remain in the diabolical grip of Corruption and Death, and will remain in that state of “groaning” until AD 1,000,000 (or whenever).  And yet at the same time, Jesus’ disciples in heaven have been “delivered from the sting and curse of death” and are “in perfect freedom from sin and misery” (WCF, quoted approvingly by Talbot-Jason).            🙂
And, while the saints are in heaven today, their spirits are not really separated from their physical bodies.  It only appears that way to the church.  Fortunately the church has Dr. Talbot to remove the veil of Illusion from the face of Death.  If it wasn’t for his insight, we would all think the saints in heaven today are living with Christ separate from their physical bodies.        :^)
Yes, it is hard to believe that Talbotism prides itself on its superior use of logic, and its avoidance of all theological paradox.       🙂        :^o        :^O
I would agree though that Talbotism is free of paradox.  It’s fraught with full on, universe-shattering Contradiction.

In What Sense Did Jesus Leave, Stay and Then Return In AD 70 – Brief Study of Acts 1:6-11–3:17-23 and The Anaology of Scripture

By David Green / Michael Bennett / Michael Sullivan
Talbotism or Partial Preterism would ask:
. . . Jesus left. And unless you ignore his promise to be with them until the end of the age, you would have to agree that there is a sense in which he didn’t leave. Well, it seems awfully obvious to me now that the sense in which he left was in regards to his human nature; which includes a body. He physically left them. Acts 1 clearly demonstrates that.  And there is nothing illogical about that answer.  If that isn’t the sense, then what is? . . . In what sense did he leave and in what sense did he stay. . . ?
David Green’s Comments:

My response:
The answer to Talbotism’s question is found in the answer to these seven questions:
1. “…until Christ is formed in you.” (Gal. 4:19)
The church was looking forward to when Christ would be formed in it.  But Christ was already in the church.  “In what sense” then was He later “formed” in the church?
2. “in whom the whole building, being fitted together is growing into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit” (Eph. 2:21,22).

The church was looking forward to when it would become God’s “holy temple” / dwelling.”  But the church was already God’s temple/dwelling.  “In what sense” then did the church later become God’s temple/dwelling.
3. “So that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith….”
(Eph. 3:17)

Paul’s desire was that God would strengthen believers with might by Christ’s Spirit in the inner man “so that Christ would dwell in [their] hearts through faith.”  But Christ was already dwelling in believers’ hearts through faith.  “In what sense” then did Christ later dwell in believers’ hearts through faith?
4. “to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Col. 1:27).

The church’s glorious hope (her expectation) was “Christ in you.”  But Christ was already in the church.  “In what sense” then did Christ later dwell in the church?
5. “And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the Morning Star arises
in your hearts
.” (II Peter 1:19)

Believers were looking forward to “the day” when “the Morning Star” would arise in their hearts.  But the Morning Star (Jesus) was already dwelling in their hearts.  “In what sense” then did Jesus later arise in believers’ hearts?
6. “Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him, and will dine with him, and he with Me” (Rev. 3:20;  This promise was written to believers.).

Jesus told believers that if any one of them opened the door, He would “come in to him, and will dine with him.”  But Jesus was already dwelling in believers and dining with them.  “In what sense” then did Jesus later dwell in believers and dine with them?
7. “…If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him.” (Jn. 14:23)

Only spirit-indwelt believers love Jesus.  Yet Jesus said that a time would come when the Father and the Son would make their abode in Spirit-indwelt believers.  Yet the Son was already dwelling in Spirit-indwelt believers.  “In what sense” then did Jesus and the Father later make Their abode in Spirit-indwelt believers?
The rhetorical question of the two men in white apparel: “Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven?
Their question implied that it was pointless for the disciples to stand there gazing up into the sky as Jesus went up.
But, why/how was it pointless for Jesus’ disciples to stand there gazing up into the sky as He went up?

Was it because Jesus wasn’t going to come back for many years?  Was it because the disciples had a lot of work to do and didn’t have time to stand around?
Neither of these reasons were the explanation the two men gave for their rhetorical question.  They did not say, “Why stand ye gazing up into heaven?  Jesus isn’t going to come back for a long, long time.”  Nor did they say, Why stand ye gazing up into heaven?  You have a lot of work to do and limited time in which to do it.”
No, according to the two men, it was pointless to stand there gazing into the sky as Jesus went up, because Jesus was going to “come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11).
In the futurist framework, that argument, of course, makes no sense.  There was no point in looking into the sky as Jesus went up because He was going to come back physically?  That’s a non sequitur.
In the preterist framework though, the words of the two men do make sense.
There was no point in looking for Jesus to come back down out of the sky, because He was to come in the manner in which they had “seen” him going into the sky:
Hidden from ordinary sight, in divine glory (Acts. 1:9; 1 Tim. 3:16).
Michael Bennett comments:
Milton Terry (1898)
“Acts i, 11, is often cited to show that Christ’s coming must needs be spectacular, in like manner as ye beheld him going into the heaven.” But (1) in the only other three places where, what manner, occurs, it points to a general concept rather than the particular form of its actuality. Thus, in Acts vii, 28, it is not sonic particular manner in which Moses killed the Egyptian that is notable, but rather the certain fact of it. In 2 Tim. iii, 8, it is likewise the fact of strenuous opposition rather than the special manner in which Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses. And in Matt. xxiii, 37, and Luke xiii, 34, it is the general thought of protection rather than the visible manner of a mother bird that is intended. Again (2), if Jesus did not come in that generation, and immediately after the great tribulation that attended the fall of Jerusalem, his words in Matt. xvi, 27, 28, xxiv, 29, and parallel passages are in the highest degree misleading. (3) To make the one statement of the angel in Acts i, 11, override all the sayings of Jesus on the same subject and control their meaning is a very one-sided method of biblical interpretation. But all the angel’s words necessarily mean is that as Jesus has ascended into heaven so he will come from heaven And this main thought agrees with the language of Jesus and the prophets.”
“Whatever the real nature of the parousia, as contemplated in this prophetic discourse, our Lord unmistakably associates it with the destruction of the temple and city, which he represents as the signal termination of the pre-Messianic age. The coming on clouds, the darkening of the heavens, the collapse of elements, are, as we have shown above, familiar forms of apocalyptic language, appropriated from the Hebrew prophets.
“To make the one statement of the angel in Acts 1:11, override all the sayings of Jesus on the same subject and control their meaning is a very one-sided method of biblical interpretation. But all the angel’s words necessarily mean is that as Jesus has ascended into heaven so he will come from heaven. And this main thought agrees with the language of Jesus and the prophets.”[1]
If “in like manner” means “in exactly the same way” then:
• How does Jesus come from heaven riding on a white horse (Rev. 19:11)?
• How does He come “with ten thousand of His saints” (Jude 14)?
• How does He come “as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west” (Matt. 24:27)?
• How does He come “with a loud command [shout] . . . and with the trumpet call of God” (1 Thess. 4:16)?
• How does He come “in blazing fire with his powerful angels” (2 Thess. 1:7)?
We have seen various legitimate reasons / arguments and statements why Acts 1 is not about a future coming it is in regards to the AD70 coming of Christ a “2nd” time (Heb. 9:26-28).  Here is another more point – consider the CONTEXT regarding the kingdom. and the dates that the Father sets that no one knows. Where have we seen that and are there time texts etc. attached to those. After all that is the context of Acts 1. That is the question that is being answered by the “two men dressed in white.”
Immediate Context of Acts 1:9-11
“3After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. 6So when they met together, they asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” 10They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11″Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”
The context of Acts 1 is:

  • The coming of the kingdom.
  • You (disciple’s – contemporary audience) do not know the time or dates.
  • The disciple’s preaching the gospel to all the world.

Needless to say – the kingdom was “near” and that is a time text and Matthew 24 cannot be divided into 2 comings because Luke 17 mixes the event so not knowing the day / hour (Matt. 24:36) or times / dates (Acts 1:6ff.; 1 Thess. 5:1ff.) etc. was a reference to AD 70.   Also note that both are about the gospel reaching the world etc.
(Matthew 10:7) “As you go, preach this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven is near.
(Matthew 24:14, 34, 36)  “And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. 34I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 36″No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Michael Sullivan’s Comments:
1)  How Christ went and would return
In our book House Divided, pages 101-102 I wrote:
“Mathison errs when he says that Jesus was going to come back in the same way that He “departed.” The Scriptures say that Jesus would come in the same way He had entered the sky. He entered the sky hidden from literal eye sight in the cloud of God’s glory.
Here is the order of events:
1. As they looked, He was taken up (Acts 1:9).
2. A cloud received Him from their eyes (Acts 1:9).
These first two events could very well have happened simultaneously.  As Mathison himself admits, the verse could be translated, “He was lifted up; that is, a cloud received Him out of their sight.”
It is a very real possibility that Jesus was instantly hidden in the cloud at the moment His feet left the earth.
3. Then the disciples saw Him going into the sky. That is, they looked intently into the sky as He was ascending in the cloud (Acts 1:10-11).
. . . The question of the two men was rhetorical, and it meant, “There is no use in standing here longing for Jesus to return to you and to be as He was in the days of His flesh (Heb. 5:7). He will come, but He will come in the manner you saw Him enter heaven —hidden from physical eyes in the cloud of the Father’s glory.”
2)  Christ’s return will follow the completion of the Great Commission
On pages 98-104 I noted how Keith Mathison in one of his books claims:
Acts 1:9-11 has – “…no reference to time connected with the prediction of the return of Christ.” (WSTTB?, 185, emphasis mine)
But in another book he writes,
The time frame is hinted at in the preceding context.  The disciples are given a commission to be Christ’s witneses “in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth” (Acts 1:8).  The implication is that Christ’s visible return will follow the completion of the mission to the remotest part of the earth.” (Postmillennialism, 117, bold emphasis mine).
God saved 3,000 believers (new exodus motif. 3,000 died at giving of law 3,000 live from NC life in the Spirit – the law produces death the Spirit life etc…) from “every nation under heaven” in (Acts 2:5, 41) and sent them back out into their “every nation under heaven” and or “world” (Greek ge) to proclaim the gospel.  By AD 70 “every nation under heaven” and this “world” (Greek ge) Jesus is referring to had been preached to (Rom. 1:18, Cols. 5-6, 23).  Therefore, the “implication” of Partial Preterism and that of Mathison, is that Christ returned in AD 70 when the “time frame” of “the disciples commission” was fulfilled.  Selah.
3)  The “restoration of the kingdom” (Acts 1:6) .
is also inseparably connected to the coming of the Lord in (v. 11).  And yet, the “restoration” of the kingdom Jesus identified with John the Baptist/Elijah — preaching repentance because of an imminent wrath and judgment associated with the  the great and dreadful day of the Lord (Matt. 3:7-12; Matt. 11:10-14; Matt. 17:10-13; Isaiah 11; Mal. 3-4).  Oddly another coming of the Lord Partial Preterism claims took place in AD 70.  ecause Peter was preaching to his contemporary audience telling them to act (per Gentry)!
4)  The “Great and dreadful day of the Lord” in (Acts 2:20ff.)
Partial Preterism also teaches that the contemporary repentance preached to Peter’s generation in Acts 2 along with the “great and dreadful day of the Lord” was fulfilled by AD 70 (Acts 2:20–40).   One of Gentry’s reasons being that Peter was preaching to his contemporary audience telling them to act! Let’s now pick back up the “restoration of the kingdom” or the “restoration of all things” — contemporary exhortation to act in repentance in connection with the Lord’s return in Acts 3 and Hebrews 9:24–10:37.
5)  Picking back up the “restoration of the kingdom” or “until the time comes for God to restore everything” “times of refreshing” (Acts 3:17-23) etc…
These NT terms reached there fullness and mature state when the Second Coming of Lord took place in AD 70 (Luke 21:27-32/Acts 3:17-23/Heb. 9:24–26-28–10:1YLT, 25, 37).  So far according Partial Preterism the coming of the Lord in Acts 1:11 and Acts 2:20-21 took place in AD 70.
But what about in chapter 3 — is there anything in this chapter that would indicate a different coming of the Lord spread out over thousands or millions of years?  Per the logic and reasoning of Gentry in Acts 2, the same Jewish contemporary audience is being exhorted to repent  and if they didn’t  this coming of the Lord would result either in their sins being forgiven (those that would repent), and for  those who refused to repent – they would be “completely cut off from among his people” (Acts 3:17-23). These are those who would not listen to the greater prophet than Moses (Christ) predicted by Moses in Deuteronomy 18:15-19.  And what was the message of “this prophet” (Jesus)?  Was it not that His return in their generation would mark the fulfillment of all that has been written in the OT – time of redemption for those that trusted and repented and the time of punishment for those who would not (Luke 21:22-32)?!? 
Luke 21:20-32 & Acts 3:17-23

  • Same coming of the Lord.
  • Same salvation/redemption for believers and punishment for unbelievers – Jews “his people.”
  • Same fulfillment of all the OT prophets and scriptures.

Since the OT prophets predicted the “restoration of the kingdom” or “the restoration of all things,” when Christ would come from heaven (Acts 1:6-11/3:17-23) and Partial Preterist’s admit that the OC “heaven and earth” of (Matt. 5:17-18) passed away in AD 70 — therefore, the coming of Christ and the restoration of all things pertaining to God’s kingdom found in the law and prophets were fulfilled and reached there mature state by D 70.
And verse 24 wraps up the sermon informing us that all which has gone before (all the OT’s Prophets testimony) “foretold these days” – that is the “last days” and coming of the Lord in salvation or judgment that was preached in the previous chapter in ( Acts 2:17-21, 38-40; see also 1 Peter 1:4-12).  Many Partial Preterists believe the “last days” were from AD 30 – AD 70.  This being the case, the Lord comes from heaven at the end of “the last days” of the OC age at which time He came from heaven to save the remnant and “judge His people (Israel).”  And these same Partial Preterists we are addressing in this article would affirm that the salvation of Israel in Romans 11 was also fulfilled by AD 70.  Since it is grammatically impossible to separate the time given for Christ to come from heaven to reward with forgiveness of sins and or judge these first century Jews “his people” in (Acts 3:19-23) in their “last days” or “these days,” we must ask these Partial Preterists if there is going to be another Old Covenant “Israel” “his people” in the future when Christ returns but yet again?
The bottom line exegetical facts are from Acts 1:6–3:23 we have the:

  • Same contemporary exhortation/audience directed at the Jews to repent for killing their Messiah.
  • Same coming of the Lord in salvation or judgment that we saw in chapter 2.
  • Same “restoration” motif and coming of the Lord we saw in Acts 1:6-11!
  • Same “last days” or “these days” time period (AD 30 – AD 70) for these OT predictions to take place.

Hebrews 9:24-28–10:37 “Time of reformation” “Appear a second time apart from sin.”
Partial Preterist Mathison cites (Heb. 9:28) as an “indefinite reference” of the second coming since the verse allegedly does not contain a time text (WSTTB?, p. 202). But R.C. Sproul in refuting Kistemaker says that this passage includes both His first and second coming occurring by AD. 70 and that a “considerable time” is very much an issue with this text,
This passage refers to both the first and second appearances of Christ. The context for his first appearance is “the end of the ages.” Yet his followers are still waiting for him to appear a second time.” “…If Christ’s first coming at “the end of the ages” has already occurred and if considerable time has elapsed since that coming, then it is impossible to identify “the end of the ages” with the end of time. If the second appearing of Christ here refers to his judgment on Jerusalem, it would still fit in the framework of “the end of the ages” that is not the end of all time.[2]
But probably the best and most straightforward statement comes once again from Partial Preterist Milton S. Terry,
The ‘end of the age’ means the close of the epoch or age—that is, the Jewish age or dispensation which was drawing nigh, as our Lord frequently intimated. All those passages that speak of ‘the end,’ ‘the end of the age,’ or ‘the ends of the ages,’ refer to the same consummation, and always as nigh at hand.” “…the writer regarded the incarnation of Christ as taking place near the end of the aeon, or dispensational period. To suppose that he meant that it was close upon the end of the world, or the destruction of the material globe, would be to make him write false history as well as bad grammar. It would not be true in fact; for the world has already lasted longer since the incarnation than the whole duration of the Mosaic economy, from the exodus to the destruction of the temple. It is futile, therefore, to say that the ‘end of the age’ may mean a lengthened period, extending from the incarnation to our times, and even far beyond them. That would be an aeon, and not the close of an aeon. The aeon of which our Lord was speaking was about to close in a great catastrophe; and a catastrophe is not a protracted process, but a definitive and culminating act.[3]
This text is where we get the term “the Second coming” of Jesus , and we have partial preterists such as Sproul and Terry conceding to a common sense Full Preterist interpretation of the passage as possibly or being fulfilled at the end of the OC age in AD 70.  Mathison just avoids the issues but in another work does say of Hebrews 9:1-28,
“In 9:1-10, the author continues his argument by explaining the temporary nature of the Old Testament tabernacle and its ceremonies. The tabernacle and its sacrifices were never intended by God to be permanent. They were to continue until the “time of reformation” (v.10).12 Hebrews 9:11-28 describes what happened when this time of reformation arrived.” (Postmillennialism, ibid., p.132).
He then goes on to quote Philip E. Hughes whom agrees with us that the imagery here is that of the High Priest going into the Most Holy Place tabernacle/temple on the Day of Atonement to make sacrifice and intercede for the covenant people before coming back out “a second time” in declaring that the sacrifice had been accepted and applying or sprinkling the blood etc… The problem for Mathison, is that the time texts within the broader and immediate context of this chapter demand “the time of reformation” process or the eschatological “not yet,” to arrive in its fullness within an imminent AD 70 time frame and not millennia. In his debate with Full Preterism, he does not want to draw attention to this fact let alone allow the imminent contextual flow surrounding the passage to be an exegetical factor (8:13, 9:6-10, 10:1, 13/17, 25, 37) which Sproul says is an exegetical issue that needs addressing. We couldn’t agree more! Once again we find Mathison’s response more than “shallow,” it is nonexistent!
Just in passing, on Hebrews 9:8, — I would agree with commentators who would identify the “first” compartment being the Holy Place (not the entire tabernacle) – symbolizing the Old Covenant age still having a “legal standing,” “have status” or “functioning” and the Most Holy Place being representative of the New Covenant age in-breaking upon the old.  Full and complete face to face access (of the age changing process between AD 30 -AD 70) is given behind the veil within the Most Holy Place at the blowing of the last trumpet when the Second Coming of Christ takes place in AD 70 (Rev. 11:15-19; 21:16–22:3-4, 6-7, 10-12, 20; 1 Cor. 13:12/2 Cor. 3:7–5:10/6:16).
The context of Hebrews 9-10 is the same in which we see developed in Acts 1:6–2:20ff.–3:17-23:

  • A exhortation given to a contemporary audience regarding an imminent judgment/salvation (forgiveness of sin).
  • Concerning the “time of reformation” connected to…
  • The coming of the Lord – a second time.

Partial Preterism (in this case as seen in the hateful Talbot cult obsessed with bearing false witness against Full Preterism – almost on a daily basis as documented on David Greens pretcosmos yahoo list) continues in its hardness in fighting against the analogy of Scripture when trying to reconciling all of the component parts of Acts 1-3 with passages they say were fulfilled by AD 70.  The vast majority of Christianity and creedal statements understands the coming of Christ in Acts 1:11 as the same event as depicted in Matthew 24-25/1 Thess. 4-5/Rev. 1:7 etc… They also correctly identify the Great Commission in Acts 1:8 with that of Matthew 24:14; Mark 16:15-18/Matthew 28:18-20.  If the church is still in the “last days” (depending on which Mathison or Partial Preterist book you read now days) and the commission of the disciples has not been reached throughout the “world” / “every nation under heaven” or to “all nations,” then Mathison and reformed Partial Preterists should be open to speaking in tongues and reworking their theology on the charismata (Acts 1-2; Mark 13:10; 16:15-18).  Selah.
Conclusion:
When we compare Acts 1:6-11 with the rest of the NT addressing its various motifs —

  • How Christ went (hidden in the glory cloud) was being formed in the Church and returned “in like manner” (hidden in glory and “in” or “within” the Church).
  • When the “restoration of the kingdom” would come connected to its day/hour and times and seasons…
  • The Great Commission being preached throughout the “world” (Greek ge) being when…
  • Christ would appear a “second time” at the end of the Old Covenant age (even quoting Partial Preterist theologians themselves on Acts 1:9-11/Heb. 9:26-28/Matt. 24-25/Rev. 1:7) we can readily see…
  • That the Second Coming of Christ was fulfilled by AD 70.

Partial Preterists have to continue to kick against the goads seeking the “validation of men” in order to please their creedal supporters and hide from these “simple” truths of Scripture.  We affirm that the creeds are correct in that Acts 1:6-11/Acts 3:20-21/Matt. 24:30-31; 25:31ff. are one event and describe the judgment and resurrection of the “quick and the dead.”  But according to Luke in the book of Acts and Jesus, these were event’s that were “about to” take place in Jesus’ and Luke’s first century “this generation” (Acts 17:31YLT/WEY; Acts 24:15YLT/WEY; Matt. 24:30-34).  And yet this article/response is to Talbot-Jason and Talbot-Frost whom are now quoting reformed creeds and confessions which actually connects Acts 1:11 with Matthew 24:30; 2 Peter 3 and Revelation 22:20 (which they claim happened in AD 70) as the SAME EVENT!  Partial Preterism continues to lead their readers into Full Preterism no matter what they do – selah.  [facebook][tweet][stumble][pinterest][follow id=”Username” ]


[1] Milton Terry, Biblical Apocalyptics: A Study of the Most Notable Revelations of God and of Christ; Baker Book House; pp. 246-247 see note #34 too)
[2] R.C. Sproul, THE LAST DAYS ACCORDING TO JESUS, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), 106.
[3] Milton S. Terry, Biblical HERMENEUTICS A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments, (Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), 441-442.

 

The Truth About Isaiah 65:17-25

17  For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

God’s creation and maturing of His new heavens and new earth arrived with the imminent return of Christ to end the “last days” of the old covenant age in AD 70 – according to (2 Peter 3 – being a “reminder” of 1 Peter 1:4-12; 4:5-7, 17 and Revelation 21-22: 6-7, 10-12, 20).  This is when the curse of the Adamic and Mosaic “the law,” “the sin,” and “the death,” creation was “about to be” completely removed for the Church (Romans 5-8). 
Some Postmillennial Partial Preterists such as Kenneth Gentry and Keith Mathison teach that Christ did in fact come in AD 70 which caused the “first” heavens and earth to pass away with God replacing it with His Church as the New Creation.  But eisegetically, they also try and maintain (at the same time) that the text is teaching a passing away of the first heavens and earth which involves a 2000 plus years and counting to the earth’s literal destruction/renewal.  This is supposed to be the “physical phase” of the passing of the Genesis 1-2 creation associated with the Second (third) Coming of Jesus.[1]  Gentry oddly interprets John’s use of Isaiah 65-66 as fulfilled in AD 70 in Revelation 21:1, but because 2 Peter 3 mentions “the beginning” of Genesis 1:1-2, he gives Isaiah 65-66 an “expanded” literal interpretation unlike some of his other partial preterist colleagues which place this as fulfilled in AD 70.[2]  His reasoning is more than odd, since the “first” heavens and earth of Revelation 21-22 is no less Genesis 1-3 material than 2 Peter 3 is.  The NT writers do not develop that there are thousands or millions of years associated with a “not yet”/ “ongoing” “literal phase” of fulfillment – in developing the restoration of creation motif of the OT prophets!             
18  But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.  19  And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.
According to the parallelism here, Jerusalem is equivalent to the “new heavens and new earth” or at the very least is inseparably connected with it in its prophetic spiritual substance.  So why are the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the “heavens” and “earth” rejoicing?  Because Jacob has been redeemed and glorified within Her (cf. Isa. 44:23).  Again, this redemption and glorification of the creation (Romans 8:18-23) was “about to” take place in AD 70.  There is no more weeping, because God’s people have been forgiven of their sins.  For all Partial Preterists and futurists, my interpretation is somehow “Gnostic.”  However, this is the NT’s eschatological goal of redemption, and we must reject their “literal phases” propped up with their invented “not yet” and “ongoing fulfillments” which the NT authors know nothing of.            
20  There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.
The “infant” and “old man” filling out their long days yet “die” is symbolic of eternal life (John 11:25-26).  But the “sinner” being “accursed” is symbolic of everlasting condemnation (cf. Dan. 12:2-3; Matt. 13:40-43)[3] and those without the City of Revelation 21-22 who die the second death in rejection of Christ (the Tree of Life).  Again, I see no literalization of “ongoing” or “not yet” teachings coming from Jesus in the Gospels, Daniel or John in the book of Revelation in addressing this Genesis 1-3 material. 
21  And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.  22  They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
This is the same concept as can be found in the joy of verses 18-19 of the inhabitants of “Jerusalem.”  Is “Jerusalem” there literal or the NC Jerusalem “from above” (Gals. 4)?  Under the OC everything was temporal and subject to being taken over by the times of the Gentiles.  Under the NC, this building, planting, and fruit are likewise equivalent to the spiritual “Jerusalem” and spiritual “new heavens and new earth” previously discussed. 
Through the preaching of the gospel by the apostles and the power of the transforming power of the Holy Spirit, God was forming “dwelling places” (the side rooms of the Temple structure) for the Church in which He would be in His people and they in Him (John 14:2-3, 23; Gal. 4:19).  The building and dwelling places or houses that are eternally secure for the child of God, have to do with the building up of the NC Temple/the Church.  No man can plunder the riches of this heavenly Temple/Most Holy Place of God (Rev. 21:16).  God through Moses exercised dominion over Egypt and spoiled their gold which was used to beautify the Tabernacle. God did the same through David and Solomon to build the Temple in which even the floor was even made of gold.  However, one greater than Solomon (Jesus) has come to redeem His Temple/People with His precious blood which is more valuable than gold (Psalm 49:6-9; 1 Peter 1:18-19, 23-25).  It is the wealth of God given faith which adorns this Temple and comes through Her gates (Isaiah 60; 1 Peter 1:7-9).  He is the eternal Precious Corner Stone and through faith in Him, we become precious living stones and the jewels which adorn the New Creation (1 Peter 2; Revelation 21:18ff.).    
The “planting of vineyards” and eating of its “fruit” has reference to the planting of God’s Church (the NC Israel of God) whereby the apostles and the Holy Spirit labored and watered it continually so that it never ceases to bear fruit to God (Isaiah 27:2-6; 35, 44; Matthew 21:41-43; John 15; 1 Cor. 3; Gal. 5).  They enjoy long the works of their hands, because after they die they do not go to a waiting place, but “their works/fruit do follow them” (cf. Rev. 14:13).
Some Postmillennial Partial Preterists suggest that a part of the “ongoing” and “literal phase” of the restoration of the creation motif of the prophets, involves men beginning to live longer than they had a hundred years ago and that this is “proof” that we will live to be 950 years old one day – “as the days of a tree are the days of my people.”  The Church/New Man in union with Christ (The Tree of Life) has already lived for a thousand years in and unto the NC eternal age (Revelation 20-22).[4]  As John Gill suggests, “The Targum, Septuagint, and Arabic versions, render it, “as the days of the tree of life;” “…The allusion may be to the tree of life in paradise, and may be expressive of the long life of good men in this state; and as the tree of life was typical of Christ, who is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon him, it may denote that eternal life his people have by him.” (emphasis added).
The average long life of man is still 70-80 years just as Moses said (Psalm 90:10).  There is no exegetical or scientific evidence that would suggest that man is going to live to be a literal 900-1000 years old and that this is an “ongoing” or “not yet” fulfillment for the Church to enjoy as a fulfillment for the “healing of the nations.”       
23  They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the LORD, and their offspring with them.
Paul and the first century churches temporary eschatological “labour” (pains, persecutions in preaching the gospel, and groaning under “the death” of Adamic sin), were not in vain (1 Cor. 15:58; Romans 5-8; Gal. 4:19; 2 Cor. 3-5:5).  Their temporary labour pain would result in a nation being brought forth in one day – Zion/Jerusalem (Isa.  66:8). The “seed” and “offspring” are Christian converts – the true seed of the Abrahamic covenant (Isa. 53:10–Isa. 56:4ff./Acts 8; Gal. 3:29).              
24  And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear.
The prayers of the saints for vindication and redemption/rewards of the New Creation were soon answered (Luke 17-18; Rev. 6:10-11; 20-22:10-12).   
25  The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent’s meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.
Because many simply assume that the physics of the planet changed along with the dietary habits of lions and wolves after Adam sinned, it is also falsely assumed that all this needs to be restored as it once was as an “ongoing fulfillment.”  Therefore, many Evangelicals and Postmillennial Partial Preterists believe this “physical effect” of the fall will be restored (along with literal 900 year old ages).  I beg to differ. 
Older commentators understood these peaceful animal passages such as (Isaiah 11:6-9) to be a description of the peace the gospel produces among men – Jew and Gentile.  They had it right!  But because of their futurism and faulty presuppositions in Genesis, they also were forced into literalizing these passage of literal animals with “ongoing,” “physical phases,” when God’s creation would be finally restored.  The passage has nothing to do with “lion tamers” or lions becoming vegetarians as an ongoing reversal of the physical effects of the fall.    
Beloved, do not be deceived, Postmillennial Partial Preterism is not Biblical Preterism.  It is carnal futurism both in the timing and nature of fulfillment – plain and simple.  The “first” heavens and earth have passed away, the new is here, the healing of the nations is taking place, and it won’t be realized in an “not yet” of 900 year old naked men (fig leaves were a “physical effect” of Adam’s sin – right?) running around taming vegetarian lions and watching their children playing with poisonous snakes!            


[1] James Jordan, THROUGH NEW EYES Developing a Biblical View of the World, Brentwood, TN., 1988), 270-271.  Kenneth Gentry (multi-authored book), FOUR VIEWS OF THE BOOK OF REVELATION, Grand Rapids, MI:  Zondervan, 1998), 89.  Peter J. Leithart, THE PROMISE OF HIS APPEARING AN EXPOSITION OF  SECOND PETER, (Moscow, ID:  Canon Press, 2004).    
[2] Kenneth Gentry, HE SHALL HAVE DOMINION A POSTMILLENNIAL ESCHATOLOGY, (Draper, VA: 2009 THIRD EDITION:  REVISED & EXPANDED), 305. 
[3] Gentry, DOMINION, Ibid., 538.  James Jordan, THE HANDWRITING ON THE WALL A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, (Powder Springs, GA:  American Vision 2007) 618-628.  Leithart, PROMISE, Ibid., 95.  
[4] See my chapter and response to Keith Mathison in, House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology a Preterist Response to When Shall These Things Be?” (Ramona, CA:  Vision Publishing, 2009), 122-123.