Brief Interaction With and Open Letter To:  Hank Hanegraaff and Gary DeMar

By:  Michael J. Sullivan

Introduction, background, and my motives for this “Open Letter”

Background to my brief interaction and correspondence with Gar DeMar:

In the past I have through private correspondence and somewhat public correspondence on preteristarchive.com and my web site, addressed and challenged the partial preterism of Gary Demar.[1]  My first was a private letter to Gary DeMar in the early 90’s inquiring as to why he did not put in his first version of “Last Days Madness” – his belief that (Mt.24) could not be divided into two separate comings of Christ (which is the common partial preterist “orthodox” position) and that the entire section was dealing with A.D.70.  Gary’s position here without being a Biblical or Full Preterist is puzzling to partial preterists, full preterists, and all futurist eschatologies. 

The next correspondence was after reading some articles of Gary’s on the preteristarchive, in which he made some comments regarding Thomas Ice and John MacArthur – in that he was disappointed with their lack of an exegetical response to the truth (the time texts - partial preterism as he sees it) and their continuing in the error of Dispensationalism.  And I think there may have been an accusation of sorts and comment on financial motivations of Mr. Ice as well.  My point was that “thou art the man” Gary, in that I (and other preterists) was disappointed in Gary’s lack of exegesis in dealing with our arguments and his continuance in the error of partial preterism.  Gary has claimed that he doesn’t have the time to address some of the issues I and others have brought up so I thought I would put my response to him in a more public setting since he always has time to debate other eschatological positions and even speak at full preterist conferences and thus market that audience as well.  He also claims I am “not nice” in appealing to his conscience on some of the matters he feels he can speak to Mr. Ice’s.   And since Hank Hanegraaff and his assistant seem to have been greatly influenced by Gary DeMar and Hank will be speaking with Gary next month on the subject of eschatology[2] – I thought I would include Gary in this public letter to Hank.  Not to mention, I think, Gary is held more accountable than Hank for the knowledge and time by which he has suppressed the truth in not “continuing” in sound doctrine of the preterist or Gospel Eschatology view. 

Background to my brief interaction and correspondence with Hank Hanegraaff and  his assistant Steven Ross: 

Prior to my conversation with Hank the only thing I knew of his new eschatological view (partial preterism) was that he was a partial preterist in seeing a pre-A.D. 70 date of Revelation and through rumors - that when full preterists called into his show, he stated that full preterism was not just another view within the orthodox eschatological positions, but rather a major difference of opinion on the fundamentals of the Gospel was at stake.  Personally, I liked hearing that Hank sees that eschatology cannot be separated from soteriology.  And this is one of the major reasons that enforced the titled that I have given my book, Gospel Eschatology:  A Better Resurrection.  I agree with Hank’s observations and concerns, but the “gospel concern” shoe is on the other foot – since neither he nor Gary DeMar can prove from the Scriptures that a part of the hope of the gospel, pre or post A.D. 70, includes: 

1)  A future second coming post AD 70.

2) The burning up of the planet and a new or re-newed one taking it’s place.

3)  A resurrection of physical corpses being united with spirits occurring for all humanity at the end of the planet and time.

I had also heard that there may be a possible debate between Hank and Don Preston in the works after Hank has finished his book Exegetical Eschatology.  So I was curious as to just how much exposure Hank has had of the Biblical Preterist view.    

I was visiting my Pastor friend Michael Wadham’s in Charlotte, NC looking for employment in the area.  I had turned in my resume, partial copy of the book I have writing, and a letter to C.R.I requesting an employment opportunity with them a couple months before this.  To work there was and remains the desire of my heart.  However, I was informed that after my book was reviewed by the research department that my eschatological views were not “orthodox” and not really in line with C.R.I.’s position.  I was graciously told by Bob Eaton that this didn’t mean that he or C.R.I. thought I wasn’t a Christian though.  I struggled for a time hoping and really wanting someone from C.R.I. to explain to me what exegetical errors I had made and thus why I wasn’t “orthodox.”  None ever came. 

Since I was in the area I thought I would stop by the studio.  I was graciously given a tour and invited to sit in and watch the show – of which I did.  Because of a severe rain storm I was the only one sitting in the audience.  I asked the secretary if I could write a question or two down for Hank and have him answer it on the show.  She replied, “Oh yes.”  So my questions to Hank revolved around the “end of the age” as the old covenant age in (Mt.24:3), the temple being referred to as “heaven and earth” in (Mt.24:35), and how could he exegetically separate the tribulation and resurrection from Daniel’s “all these things” in (Dan.12:1-7).  I was graciously told by an assistant that Hank was not going to answer these questions on the air but that he wanted to talk to me in person after the show. 

I was very excited to be able to talk with Hank.  I do respect the man and we both have the same church background – Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa, CA.  I didn’t know how much exposure Hank had of the full preterist position and I wanted to answer any questions he had of my position and at the same time I wanted the opportunity to ask the “Bible Answer Man” some of my own.   The conversation went very well I thought and the two men were very gracious.  It was an honor to be the first full Preterist Hank had met in person.   

I followed up our 2 + hour conversation with the letter below (the original letter was 29 pages and I just recently added some material).  I also told Hank that I would be sending him my book and asking Sam Frost to send him his exegesis of (1Cor.15) Exegetical Essays on the Resurrection of the Dead to review and his CD’s on Romans, Hebrews, and the millennium – which I highly recommended.  Hank and his assistant were interested in reading and listening to the works – to better understand full preterism and hopefully be open to the view (was and still is my prayer).  I would confirm through Hank’s secretary and Steven Ross, that they had received my fuller version of the book I have been writing, Gospel Eschatology:  “A Better Resurrection” my letter, and Sam’s material.   After confirming that, I would give some time so that they could read my material and go over Sam’s.  After about a month I called hoping to dialog with either of them on what they thought and if they had any further questions.  I was told through the secretary (as a mediator of sorts?) that one of them would be calling me “shortly” and within a couple of days.  Since that “couple of days” period has well gone by I felt a desire and need to extend my liberty in Christ and post the letter publicly hoping for a response.      

Motives for this open or public letter: 

It is not my desire to embarrass or put Hank or his assistant on the defensive by posting this publicly.  In fact it is my desire that they see the truth of Gospel Eschatology.  I also think that since they have made some comments publicly about our view, that I reserve the right to address them in a public setting as well.  I know Hank has a high regard for Scripture and our right as Christians to be Berean’s – so in that spirit I will submit this letter. 

I will have an appendix section or footnotes to the letter covering some things I hadn’t before or seeking to expand some areas of the letter where I didn’t have the time to do so earlier. 

Michael J. Sullivan

80 Hall Heights West

Sylva, NC 28779

(828) 507-5263 now (828) 497-9594

Cell (828) 586-0820

healinglvs@aol.com

CRI Hank Hanegraaff & Steven Ross

P.O. Box 8500

Charlotte, NC 28271-8500

Dear Mr. Hank Hanegraaff and Steven Ross,              Aug. 10, 2006 (revised 9/17/06)

Thank you once again for taking the time to speak with me after Monday nights show (8/7/06).  You were both very gracious and I appreciate your zeal for God’s Word.  Since the Lord has not opened up employment with CRI or anywhere else in Charlotte I remain in Sylva until the Lord directs otherwise.  I did want to go over some points on our conversation and suggest some material for both of your studies on full preterism as you requested.  At the same time I wanted to reiterate my answers to your questions and seek answers from you where there were none given.    

1)  Mt.24:3 and the “end of the age”

I was glad to see that you don’t see the “end of the age” here in (Mt.24:3) as the Christian or NC age or the end of the planet and time.  You likewise do not agree with most commentators that simply assume that the disciples were confused to associate the end of the age with the destruction of Temple in AD 70 like MacArthur, Ice, and even Gentry does (see pp. 12-26 of my work in progress Gospel Eschatology).   However, I believe your position arbitrarily does not deal with the “end of the age” or “this age” in (Mt.13).  On what hermeneutical grounds does Jesus or Matthew change the meaning of this phrase between Mt.24 and Mt.13?  Is your approach similar to DeMar who admits that the “end of the age” in Mt.24 is the end of the OC age but then just skips right over (Mt.13) after going through Matthew’s gospel to lay the foundation for Mt.24 (see pp. 21-23)? 

2)    Dan. 12:7

Let me know when you have an answer for me on this text.  And tying this text in with point #1 above, you can see that Jesus references (Dan.12:2-3) in (Mt.13:43) regarding the “end of this age.”  Point:  If the “end of the age” according to Jesus’ teaching is the end of the OC age and Daniel foretold that “all these things” (including the resurrection) would occur when the Temple was destroyed, “when the power of the holy people is completely shattered,” then once again Scripture interprets Scripture. 

Hank, I believe you are correct in seeing the time statements associated with Daniel and John’s prophecy as literal:

However, you have to remember that like John’s prophecy, Daniel foretold the judgment, resurrection, coming of the Lord, and tribulation.  According to John all of these events would soon transpire.  You eisegetically and arbitrarily decide that the resurrection is not a part of “all these things” or the “things” in Daniel 12:7 and in Revelation 1:1.  Just as the end of “all things” (1Pet.4:7) in your view is really “most” or “some” things and somehow not concerning the “living and the dead” which is within the immediate context of Peter’s time statement (vss.5, 17)?  Again that’s not Exegetical Eschatology.  I hope you will address these texts in your book since everyone else – John MacArthur, Gary DeMar, Kenneth Gentry, Keith Mathison, R.C. Sproul, etc. totally ignore them.  You are not alone in not having an answer to (Dan.12:7) or these other questions.  And yet you and the men above feel free to call us heretics all the while not allowing us to debate or challenge you publicly?  How can this be considered a righteous or moral judgment on your part?      

3)  Your admissions that time statements are to be understood literally, the Greek word mello, the creation groaning in Rms. 8, and Genesis issues.

Please see my discussion of Mr. Sproul and Gentry’s admissions on this word and my critique of them on (pp.53-56).  Hank you likewise stated that mello in Revelation was to be undertood as imminence and referring to AD 70.  I will paste in a section here of what your friend R.C. Sproul and Kenneth Gentry has stated of this word: 

“Let me give the reader another example of how futurists violate their own hermeneutics when it comes to the “at hand” kingdom “end of the age” harvest/resurrection that John and Jesus preached was coming and would occur at the end of their “this age.”  R.C. Sproul agrees with futurist Kenneth Gentry about the traid of imminent statements in Revelation refering to a soon coming of Christ in A.D. 70.  They are as follows: 

1)  taxos word group - “shortly” or “quickly” (Rev.1:1; 2:16; 3:11; 22:6, 7, 12, 20).            

2)  engus word group - “near” or “at hand” (Rev.1:3; 22:10).

3)  mello word group – “about to” or “on the point of” (Rev.1:19; 3:10).

Sproul summarizes Gentry’s case on these time frame references as clearly A.D.70 events and states:

“Gentry argues that commentators would render the term differently from the lexiographical consensus only if influenced by an interpretive controlling a priori.”[3] 

Our point of interest here is the third word group listed above – mello “about to” or “on the point of.”  Sproul quoting Gentry says of this word,

“Certainly it is true that the verb mello can indicate simply ‘destined,’ or it can be emplyed in a weakened sense as a periphrasis for the futre tense,” Gentry says.  “Nevertheless, when used with the aorist infinitive –as in Revelation 1:19---the words predominant usage and preferred meaning is:  ‘be on the point of, be about to.’  The same is true when the word is used with the present infinitive, as in Rev.3:10.  The basic meaning in both Thayer and Abbott-Smith is:  ‘to be about to.”[4]   

Well, just as Sproul and Gentry accuse other futurists as having a priori reasons for not taking the time texts throughout Revelations to be speaking to A.D.70 events they likewise bring their creedal presuppositions to the book and pick and choose what texts they want to be A.D.70 events and which ones are allegedly 2000+ years removed.  Nowhere does John say that “some or most of the things I am writing to you will shortly come to pass,” he states, “I am writing to you about things which must shortly come to pass” (Rev.1:1).  It is only the judgment associated with the resurrection that apparently the time texts throughout the book does not address!  And when the same Greek construction that renders mello to have the “predominant usage” and “basic meaning” of “be on the point of, be about to” in the book of Acts concerning the resurrection  preached by Paul -- we don’t find any comment from Gentry, Sproul, or any partial preterist futurist on these texts: 

1)  "because He has appointed a day on which He mello is about to judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead." (Acts 17:31)

2)  "I have hope in God, which they themselves also accept, that there (Greek mello) – is about to be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust” (Acts.24:15)    

You don’t think that they themselves have any “a priori” creedal biases on the resurrection that cause them to contradict their previous statements about mello or that cause them to flat out avoid these passages do you?!?  This is a classic case of taking the eisegetical plank out of your eye first before seeking to take it out of other eschatological views!  Clearly the “kind” of resurrection/harvest associated with the kingdom and judgment John the Baptist was preaching to be “at hand” in (Mt.3:3, 10-12) and Jesus discussed to take place in his “this age” (Mt.13:49) is what Paul under inspiration understood to be “on the point of being fulfilled” in his day!  Clearly when we don’t approach the Scripture with futuristic (no matter what brand it is packaged in – even partial “preterism”) “a priori” presuppostions, Scripture interprets itself.”

Steven you asked me about mello in (Rms.8) (see page 112):

“For I reckon that the sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory about to be revealed in us;” (Rms.8:18 YLT)

“Why, what we now suffer I count as nothing in comparison with the glory which is soon to be manifested in us.” (Rms.8:18 WEY)

Peter said the same thing about the glory “about to be” (Greek mello) revealed (1Pet.5:1). 

Not only do partial preterists and futurists ignore mello in Rms.8, but R.C. Sproul tells us that the time statements in (Rms.13:11-12) can “reasonably” (hermeneutically) apply to previous passages in Romans:

“…you are treasuring up for yourselves wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who “will render to each one according to his deeds”… (Rom.2:4-6)

…in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.” (Rom.2:16)

Paul refers to “the day of wrath” and “the day when God will judge the secrets of men.”  Presumably both references are to the same “day.”  Traditionalists see them as references to the yet future last judgment.  Preterists like Russell interpret these references as they do all other references to the day of the Lord:  this is the dark day of judgment that befell Israel in the destruction of Jerusalem.

Though the above texts lack time-frame references, they may reasonably be linked to later references Paul makes in the same epistle:  “And do this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed.  The night is far spent, the day is at hand…” (Rom.13:11-12)[5]

Therefore, according to the partial preterist position:  1) mello is a time statement that needs to be taken literally and 2) the time statements in (Rms.13:11-12) can “reasonably be linked” to (Rms.8 – an earlier chapter).  We appreciate the honesty here on the one hand, but on the other there is clearly some man fearing dishonest eisegesis taking place as well.     

Hank you had some questions on (Rms.8) – please see my section on the end of the planet and (Rms.8) in particular (pp.65-117).  I believe you are reading things into Genesis that aren’t there and then reading them into Romans 8.

a)      Can you prove exegetically that had Adam not eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that he would have never physically died?  I have seen both futurists and preterists use Young’s translation of (Gen.2:17) “dieing you shall die” to prove either: 1) physical death was a part of the curse, or 2) he was already created a being already physically dieing and would die spiritually the day he ate.  But most commentators - futurist or preterist agree that Young’s translation is not supported by the way this phrase is used throughout the rest of the OT.  The point is just that the day he ate he would die.  Therefore, let’s just stick with the facts: 1)  The day he ate he did not die physically so the curse of “death” of transgressing the law was spiritual death NOT physical.  2)  The day he ate his eyes were opened to his shame and guilt like the serpent told them. 

b)  Your position assumes that there was no physical death or decay of any created thing prior to Adam’s sin – thus animals and plant life are now “groaning” in Rms.8.  Where are you getting this from Genesis or Romans 8?  This also assumes that all animals just ate vegetation.  I prefer to stick to the text and see spiritual death being the issue, and (although this also may be an assumption on my part) that seeing physical death around him in the plant and animal kingdom – gave him a concept of what spiritual death was or would be – separation from one realm to another.        

c)     I think you prematurely jumped on me answering your point that “yes” physical death for Adam and thorns and briers were apart of the consequences of Adam’s sin.  However, because I don’t share your assumptions your argument doesn’t hold water in the way you want it too.  I don’t see from the text in Genesis or Romans 8 that prior to Adam’s sin that leaves didn’t fall from the trees, the entire planet was a lush like garden paradise, there was no biological death, etc.  1)  The point of Adam’s biological death was that he would die in the place from where he was formed before he was “put” into the garden by God ie. – the dust outside the garden - away from God’s presence.  2)  I understand the curse of the ground, thorns, and difficulty in labor in the Land of Eden, the same way I see God affecting the Promised Land for Israel in (Deut.28).  Actually, both are essentially the same geographical area marked off by the Northern river of Euphrates and the southern river of Egypt or the Gihon (Gen.2/Gen.15).  It’s not as if this was the first time that a thorn or hardened land had ever been created or that areas less vegetated (“from the dust”) existed before the fall -outside the garden.  

d)     There are actually a lot of issues that partial and full preterists need to work through in Genesis in relation to how they see Revelation being fulfilled within the first century.  When you start to say that the Greek NT word ge is “land” and not a global “earth” you will have to deal with it’s OT father erets.  Also if you take the tribulation as a local event, other issues with the flood come to surface.  I had the opportunity to meet and speak with Tim Martin at the NCMI preterist conference in Page, AZ recently: http://newcreationministries.tv/Conference/LakePowell2006Memories.htm.  I appreciate the brother and agree with his research and exegesis proving a local flood.  He sent me some of his presentation via email so these quotes below are the product of his research.  I understand that Thomas Ice is pressing DeMar on the local flood and DeMar didn’t respond in the debate.  He needs to when he makes such statements as

“The “coming” of “the Son of Man” is most often taught as a worldwide event since Jesus states that “all the tribes of the earth will mourn.” Again most Bible translations do not capture the true meaning of the Greek… The New Testament pattern follows the Old Testament pattern. The meaning of the Hebrew word erets is simply “the land” and not “the earth” as in most English translations. For the most part, it refers to a specific stretch of land in a local, geographical, or political sense. (Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness, 1999, p 166 – special thanks to Tim Martin for this quote)

I grew up under Chuck Smith’s view that the earth was 6,000 years old awaiting the 7,000 millennial period (which was supposed to be us).  I don’t think I believe that anymore and I cringe when I find out the history of the 7^th Day Adventist and Dispensationalism’s involvement in bringing this view to popularity.  Especially with “visions” of women!

•        The geographical extent of the flood was not an issue during the medieval period

•        Christians began to connect the Genesis flood to geology during the 1700’s with the rise of modern science

•        This attempt was abandoned around 1800

•        Chief prophetess of Seventh Day Adventism, Ellen G. White wrote about her visions of the Genesis flood in 1864

–       Her visions supplied the conceptual framework which developed into flood geology

[After the flood] The beautiful, regular shaped mountains had disappeared. Stones, ledges, and ragged rocks appeared upon some parts of the earth which were before out of sight. Where had been hills and mountains, no traces of them were visible…
Before the flood there were immense forests. The trees were many times larger than any trees which we now see….At the time of the flood these forests were torn up or broken down and buried in the earth. In some places large quantities of these immense trees were thrown together and covered with stones and earth by the commotions of the flood. They have since petrified and become coal, which accounts for the large coal beds which are now found. This coal has produced oil...

Ellen G. White, Facts of Faith, in Connection with the History of Holy Men of Old, 1864

The most important Creationist writer in the first half-century, at least in my judgment, was a remarkable man by the name of George McCready Price.

 I first encountered his name in one of Harry Rimmer’s books… and thereupon looked up his book The New Geology in the library at Rice Institute, where I was teaching at the time. This was in 1943 and it was a life-changing experience for me. I eventually acquired and read most of his other books as well.

 Several other Adventist creationists published papers in The Naturalist and other Adventist publications. Although the influence of most of them was largely limited to their own denomination, some (especially Price) have contributed quite significantly to the foundations of the modern [young-earth] creationist revival.

Henry Morris, History of Modern Creationism, 1984, pp 79, 80, 83

•        Every leader of the Creation Science Movement writes from an explicitly dispensational futurist perspective

–       Henry Morris also wrote a premillennial book called The Revelation Record

•        Speculation about supposed worldwide events to come during the Great Tribulation

–       Ken Ham has paired up with Tommy Ice for conferences

–       Other Creation Science writers such as Kent Hovind and Duane Gish reference their global futurist views throughout their writings

•        Global flood ideology is logically related to global futurism.

•        Critics have complained about this connection for years (again this is Tim Martin’s material graciously sent to me via email – see Tim’s latest version of Beyond Creation Science How Preterism Refutes a Global Flood and Impacts the Biblical Origins Debate). 

4)  The world, sin, and the return of Christ at the end of the 70 weeks

Daniel and Jesus posit the “putting an end of sin” during a time associated with “your people” and the “Holy City” when the 70 weeks prophecy would be fulfilled.  Jesus says Daniel’s prophecy would be fulfilled in “this generation” (Mt.24:15/34).  Please pay close attention to the exegetical fact that the abomination and desolation is the “end” of the entire 70 week prophecy (Dan.9:27).  Therefore, Jesus put an “end to sin” in AD 70 and brought in “everlasting righteousness” and a NC world wherein dwells righteousness (Dan.12:24/2Pet.3:13/Rev.21-22).  Forgiveness and salvation from sin is associated with Christ’s “in a very little while” second appearing apart from sin (Rms.11:26-27/Rms.13; Heb.9:26/Heb.10:37).  It is “eisegetical eschatology” that separates the coming of Christ in Heb.9 from Heb.10. 

After Christ returned in AD 70 and the “heavens and earth” of the OC law passed away Christians are currently in the New Creation (Rev.21-22) enjoying Christ - the Tree of Life and the Living Waters (Ezk.47/Jn.4/Jn.7).  No unclean thing enters the gates of this creation because we have been resurrected and the condemnation of law and spiritual death (1Cor.15:56) through Adam and Israel have no hold on us.  Hank and Steven you asked, “what do we have to look forward too – is this it?”  Christ and the forgiveness of my sins are sufficient for me – how about you? 

Please prove to me (form Scripture) that my physical flesh needs to be redeemed and raised before my salvation can be complete.  Is there something sinful about my physical flesh?  The fact that I age and will die physically – do these necessarily mean that there is something about my physical body that is evil or fallen?  If so isn’t this Gnosticism?  Why did Jesus age?  Was He as perfect man sinful?  No my body is just fine and “good” the way it is.  And Peter’s “salvation of the soul” and Christ setting up His Kingdom “within” His people has been accomplished.  

You asked:  “Is Jesus Still in His Physical Body?”

I remember at Calvary Chapel Bible College the big debate was over – if Jesus still had His nail prints in His hands.  Well, I think the debate is a little bigger than that J.  I responded to both of you by saying that Scripture teaches that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom” and that we “no longer know Christ after the flesh.”  Also Christ prayed to return to the glory that He had with the Father before He was incarnated into a human.  Now according to your understanding of “flesh” I will let you deal with those passages and let me know what you come up with.   

5)  1Thess.4 and the “we” in 1Cor.15 / Mt.16:27-28/Rev.22:12

Steven, I appreciated your honesty on these passages.[6]  See my response to Mr. DeMar

on them (pp.201-229) and my separate work on (Mt.16:27-28).  Here is some of that:

1)    “Gary claims that I stated that I was accusing him of being inconsistent because he didn’t interpret texts the way I do or the way I want him to. No this is not what I stated. I stated in essence that Gary does not interpret very important passages the way HE interprets them. Again I accused Gary’s hermeneutic of being arbitrary and inconsistent thus it’s Gary against Gary. In Thess. it is Gary vs. Gary and it is also Jesus and Paul vs. Gary. I will demonstrate. Note Gary’s “Striking parallels” between the Olivet Discourse and 2Thessalonians 2:

Gary’s parallel hermenutic:

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 (DeMar, Gary, Last Days Madness Obsession of the Modern Church exp. American Vision pub., p. 325).”

I stated to Gary on the preterist archive and in my book:

“Gary failed to address what “glory” would be obtained in 2Thess. 2:14. So I will ask him now – what “glory” is this? Gary avoids and jumps over 1Thess. 4 like the plague and starts claiming that 1Thess. 5:2-3 = Mt. 24:15-25 and are AD 70 events.

“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)’. And note Gay’s “obvious” hermeneutic, “It is obvious that Paul in 1Thessalonians 5:2 and Peter in 2 Peter 3:10 are speaking of the same day since they both use the metaphor “like a thief in the night.” (DeMar, ibid p. 328)

Now tell me Gary why do you not use this same hermeneutic throughout the Thessalonians Epistles?!? You seem to arbitrarily pick and choose what “metaphors” you want to apply to the Thess & Mt. 24. Here are my Biblical Preterist Parallels applying your same hermeneutic:

1) Christ Himself comes 1Thess. 4:16 = Mt. 24:30
2) From heaven 1Thess. 4:16 = Mt. 24:30
3) With a shout 1Thess. 4:16 = Mt. 24:30
4) With angels 1Thess. 4:16 = Mt. 24:30
5) With a trumpet 1Thess. 4:16 = Mt. 24:30
6) At which time believers are gathered 1Thess. 4:17 = Mt. 24:31, 40-41
7) In the clouds 1Thess. 4:17 = Mt. 24:30
8) The time is unkown 1Thess. 5:1-2 = Mt. 24:36
9) Because Christ comes as a thief 1Thess. 5:2,4 = Mt. 24:43
10) Unbelievers are unaware of judgment 1Thess. 5:3 = Mt. 24:37-39
11) Judgment, travail as upon expectant mother 1Thess. 5:3 = Mt. 24:8
12) But believers persevere & are preserved 1Thess. 5:4-10 = Mt. 24:22-24
13) Believers are of the day & watch 1Thess. 5:5-6 = Mt. 24:42
14) Unbelievers are of the night & get drunk 1Thess. 5:7 = Mt. 24:44-50

It is really difficult to see the seriousness of your “you” and “we” “argument.”  If you are really claiming to be serious with this I will deal with it. You italicized “you” in 1Thess. 5 in my quote above and yet “you” and “we” are used interchangeably throughout these epistles and in 1Thess. 4 which you avoid! “You” and “we” mean the contemporaries elsewhere in Thess. but when we get into chapter 4 they seem to take on a mystical meaning! At this point you and Ice go dancing through the tulips together with “you” and “we.” You have no argument here and I believe you know it just as Ice knows he has no argument. You are incorrect there is something very “unusual in the way you are handling them.” I have written so correct me where I am wrong,

“Gary Demar, R.C. Sproul, and Kenneth Gentry, also argue for a first century fulfillment of Matt. 24 because Jesus uses the personal pronoun “you” throughout in reference to the contemporaries of the disciples but all of a sudden when Paul uses “we” in 1Thess. 4-5 and 1Cor. 15 “we” just can’t mean what it says!" R.C. Sproul writes concerning “we shall not all sleep”,

“If we conclude that Paul, by divine inspiration, is predicting that the resurrection will occur while he is still alive, then the resurrection occurred at least five years prior to the destruction of Jerusalem (Paul was martyred under Nero in A.D. 65).” “…The ‘we’ passage of 1Corinthians is far less specific concerning the time of the resurrection than are Jesus’ words in the Olivet Discourse” (R.C. Sproul, The Last Days According To Jesus, Baker pub. p.162).

This is a ridiculous argument for partial “preterists” to make especially since Sproul and DeMar believe that Matt. 16:27-28 is speaking of A.D. 70 “Verily I say unto you that there are some standing here who shall not taste death till you see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom” 

How in the world is Paul not inspired according to Sproul and DeMar if he is referring to Christ coming in A.D. 70 since he is only reiterating the teaching of Jesus that some of the disciples would live to witness Christ’s return while others would not?!? Sproul is grasping at straws here and throwing out anything he can to avoid the obvious inconsistencies in his arguments when the resurrection is in view. Again why the arbitrary hermeneutic and conflicting arguments? Yes, the fear of violating the creeds and traditions of men" (Mike Sullivan, The Second Coming Happened In AD 70 According To Christ and the N.T. Writers).

You claimed that 1Thess. 5 is an “obvious parallel” to Mt. 24 because of a metaphor and yet Paul gives us a stronger link in 1Thess. 4 to Mt. 24 when he states, “For this we say to you by the word of the Lord…” (1Thess. 4:15). What “word of the Lord" is this Gary if not Christ’s word in the Olivet Discourse?

2)    Well it doesn’t really surprise me Gary that you have not dealt with Dan. 12 or have time to discuss this:

“I don't have time to pursue a study of the topic at the moment. Studying Bible prophecy is not the only thing I do. I have to be convinced in my own mind before I take a position, and no one has convinced me on these passages. I'm getting a better handle on Daniel 12, but I have not studied it enough.” (Gary DeMar)

Gary I am not buying this.  You have spent plenty of time going through Mt. 24 in your writings and making the association with “end of the age” to the end of the OC age!  You have studied “end of the age” and have seen it’s relationship to Mt. 13 as a group of “end of the age” parables but especially Daniel’s resurrection and harvest being in view (Mt. 13:39, 43,/Dan.12:2-3).  The “end” / “gathering”/ “harvest” / “resurrection” as seen in Dan. 12, Mt. 24:30-31, 1Thess. 4, 1Cor. 15, Rev. 14, Rev. 20 are all speaking the end of the OC age in A.D. 70.  

But your response does not surprise me - in fact has ANY partial preterist ever dealt with this text??? I am sincere - I want to know where Bahnsen, Gentry, you, or Jordan ever dealt with our “all these things” including the resurrection argument in Dan. 12:1-7?

Daniel’s prophecy is clear as to when the resurrection is to take place. That specific question is asked, “How long shall the fulfillment of these wonders be (the tribulation, judgment, & resurrection of the dead vs. 1-3) (vs. 6)?” And the answer is clearly given in the next verse, “…it shall be for a time, times, and half a time; and when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all these things shall be finished” (vs.7). Contextually, the “all these things” includes the resurrection in (vs. 2- 3) and it is nothing short of exegetical fraud to somehow separate the resurrection from the tribulation, abomination of desolation, and judgment!

JESUS AND THE TIME OF THE RESURRECTION

No one knew and understood Daniel’s prophecy of the time of the end and the resurrection better than Jesus. Jesus clearly in the Olivet Discourse taught the disciples that the “end” of Israel and her age - “not one stone will be left upon another” and the “gathering” or resurrection was to take place within their generation (Matt. 24:34). Jesus in Luke identifies the abomination of desolation as the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem and that when they were seen the desolation of her temple and city would be “near” (Lk. 21:20-24). Now as we have seen in Dan. 12:7, Daniel was told that when the power of the holy people was completely shattered is when the tribulation, abomination of desolation, and resurrection would occur “all these things.” And Jesus simply reiterates the time of fulfillment connection of these events and exclaims in no uncertain terms: ·

“And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter there into. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled” (Lk. 21:20-22).” 

And what does Jesus mean by “all things which are written may be fulfilled?”  The same “all things” that Dan 12 speaks of and that Peter says were “at hand” in his day  (1Pet. 4:5, 7, 17).  Gary, you claim (1Pet. 4:7) is a “time text” so what of the context of God being “ready to judge the living and the dead (v.5)?”  How did that happen in A.D. 70 but in 1Cor. 15 it didn’t?”  

Hank and Steven, please also see my article on (Mt.16:27-28) where I tie this text to (Rev.22:12) as I did in our discussion.  You both admitted that the time texts were to be taken literally and that therefore in AD 70 God rewarded every man.  Therefore, exegetically, all the “rewards” promised to the churches early in Revelation that pertained to the New Creation and the resurrection was given this same audience at the “soon” coming of Christ in (Rev.22:12).  I wrote and correct me where I am wrong: 

(Mt.16:27-28/Rev. 1 – 6/Rev.21-22:12)

Time frame the same:  The beginning of Revelation is predicting events that must take place “shortly” and not thousands of years away (Rev.1:1).  So the time frame of “some standing here will not taste of death” till they witness the coming of Christ, the kingdom coming in power and glory, judgment, and rewards, answers to the fulfillments of Revelation’s prophetic events to occur “shortly.”

Audience and Subject Matter The Same:  The book of Revelation was written to seven historical churches in Asia (Rev.1:4) who were told that they would experience the coming of the Lord (to an audience who had “pierced him”), a judgment, and experience the receiving of rewards in an “at hand,” “about to be,” “shortly,” time frame (Rev.1:1, 3, 7, 19-mello “about to be;” Rev.2:5, 7, 10-11, 16, 17, 25-29; Rev.3:4-5, 10-12, 18, 21).

THE REWARDS OF THE SEVEN HISTORICAL CHURCHES

IN THE BOOK OF REVELATION

So what exactly are the rewards that the seven churches of John’s day were going to receive at the “soon,” “at hand,” and “near,” coming of Christ? 

1)  Ephesus: 

            a).  Eat from the Tree of Life (Rev.2:5)

2)  Smyrna:

            a).  Receive a Crown of Life (Rev.2:10)

            b).  Will not be hurt by the Second Death (Rev.2:11)

3)