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)  Pergamum:

            a).  Receive Secret Manna (Rev.2:17)

            b).  Receive a White Stone (Rev.2:17)

            c).  Receive a New Name (Rev.2:17)

4)  Thyatira:

            a).  Receive Authority Over the Nations (Rev.2:26)

            b).  Rule the Nations with a scepter (Rev.2:27)

5)  Sardis:

            a).  Walk with Christ Dressed in White (Rev.3:4)

            b).   Not be Blotted Out of the Book of Life (Rev.3:5)

6)  Philadelphia:

            a).  Christ would keep them from the Hour of Trial (Rev.3:10)

            b).  Receive a Crown (Rev.3:11)

            c).  Christ would Make them a Pillar In His Temple (Rev.3:12)

            d).  Christ would cause them To Never Leave (Rev.3:12)

            e).  Receive a New Name / New Jerusalem (Rev.3:12)

7)  Laodicea: 

            a).  Receive True Riches “Gold” (Rev.3:18)

            b).  Not be ashamed and unclothed but Clothed in White (Rev.3:18)

            c).  Receive Salve to put on their eyes (Rev.3:18)

d).  Receive the Right to Sit on His Throne (Rev.3:18)

            d).  Receive the Right to Eat With Christ (Rev.3:20)

            e).  Receive the Right to Sit Down on Christ’s Throne (Rev.3:21)

It is my proposition that each of the above “rewards” promised to be given to first century Christians were to be realized in a spiritual way at Christ’s “at hand” coming in A.D.70.  All of the “rewards” speak of Christ in restoring God’s fellowship and presence to His people when He would come a “second time” and take away their sin identified in Adam (Heb.9:26-28; Rms.11:26-27; 1Cor.15:28, 55-57).   Not only are all of these rewards to be realized spiritually for these churches in the first century, but they are all to be realized and given at the end of Revelation which addresses the same “at hand” coming of Christ.  Let’s take a look at the spiritual nature of these rewards and the time frame of them receiving them at the end of Revelation:  

1)  Tree of Life (Rev.2:7; Rev.22:2-4).  Most commentators agree that this is describing Christ Himself restoring what was lost by Adam in the garden.  Adam died spiritually the very “day” he ate and was thus cast out of God’s presence and not allowed back in.  Through Christ’s first and second coming (Heb.9:26-27) “sin” is dealt with and now God’s people can enter into God’s presence, receive eternal life, and behold His face.  What is promised to be rewarded to these first century Christians in an “at hand” time frame early in the book (see above) is seen to be fulfilled within this same “near” and “soon” time frame at the end (Rev.22:2-4, 6-7, 10, 20).  This description of the Tree of Life, Living Waters, Seeing God’s Face, Healing of the Nations, is describing Christ in union with His glorified Body – the Church, preaching the Gospel and sinners coming into the City or presence of God.  The Tree and the living waters of eternal life that bring healing to the Nations can be further seen in Ezekiel’s end time prophecy of the New Temple and the healing waters that would flow from it (Ezk.40 – 48 – especially 47; cf. Isa.35:6-9 – “highway” “I am the Way…”). 

None of the constituent elements of (Rev.22:1-4) surrounding the Tree of Life can be seen to be taken literally in the N.T. but rather spiritual and eternal:

a).  Water of Life (Jn.4).

b).  The City (Heb.12; Gals.4).

c).  Beholding God’s light, life, glory, and face (Jn.1, 3, 8; Jn.14:6; 1Jn.1-2; 2Cor.3-4; 1Cor.13).

d).  No more “curse” (Gals.3).

e).  Fruit (Mt.22:43/1Pet.2:9; Jn.15; Rms.6:22 – 7; Ephs.5:9; Cols.1:6; Jms.1:18; 3-5).

These rewards would be experienced spiritually with Christ’s presence at His coming when His Kingdom was established in the hearts of men and women (Lk.17:20-21f./Lk.21:22-32).  For those who twist the EXEGETICAL FACT that Christ promised to return “shortly” and reward the Church at Ephesus (and His Body throughout the ages) of partaking of the Tree of Life we shall only rebuke their “sick” doctrine with the words of the Proverb:

“Hope deferred makes the heart sick, But when the desire comes, it is a tree of life” (Prov.13:12).

2)  Crown of Life (Rev.2:10; Rev.3:11; cf.1Pet.5:4).  The “crown of life” is synonymous with “eternal life” in which the early church had through the work of Christ on the cross and the outpouring and sealing of the Holy Spirit but would soon “lay hold of” at His return (Rms.2:7; 1Tim.6:19; Tit.3:7; Jude 1:21). 

3)  Will not be hurt at all by the Second Death and will cause them to never leave the gates of the city (Rev.2:11; Rev.3:12; Rev.20:6; Rev.21:8; 22:6, 14).  The first death came through Adam and it was a spiritual death that resulted in separation.  The “Second Death” and “sin unto death” (1Jn.5:16-17) would be the result of rejecting God’s Son and even more specifically the sin of final apostasy.  Jesus said this would occur in the OC age in which He was ministering and in the NC age or the “age about to come” (Mt.12:32) which we are currently in.  Unbelievers do commit this sin but believers “cannot” “nor will they” because of the new birth (1Jn.3:9/1Jn.5:16-17).  Experiencing the “second death” is a reality for those who reject Christ in this life and throughout all eternity.  Christians have been preserved, protected, and thus persevere from going to such a place.  Christians do not leave the Cities gates (Rev.3:12) for Christ alone has the words of eternal life (Jn.6).    

4)  I will give some of the Hidden Manna, “I will eat with him,” give a “new Name” (Rev.2:17; Rev.3:20; Rev.19, Rev.22:1-14; Isa.25:6-9; Isa.55:1-2; Isa.62; Mt.22:1-14; Mt.25:1-13; cf.Jn.6:27f.).  The “Hidden Manna” is Christ Himself, the “bread from heaven” (Jn.6:33) in which the early church began feasting in having faith and hope in the only Son of God.  However, this intimacy would be more realized in the Kingdom when Christ would come to dwell within His people and dine with them at the wedding supper – both Jew and Gentile (Mt.8:11-12; Mt.26:29; Jn.14; Lk.17:20-21; cf. also Jn.14:2-3, 23).  Those Christian’s who overcame in the first century did experience this reward of intimacy of feasting upon the faithfulness of their Lord and we do today as well!  To confirm the “at hand” time frame of this reward of partaking of Christ at the wedding feast (Rev.22), we should note that it is predicted to occur when the OC city was destroyed (Mt.22:7) and since (Mt.25) is a continuence of Mt.24, the wedding feast would occur at Christ’s return in “this generation.”  Christ coming to reward “some standing here who shall not taste of death,”  “this generation,” and “Behold I am coming soon with My reward…” all answer to the same time frame (Mt.16:27-28; Mt.24:34; Rev.22:12)!  And just about every futurist commentary I consulted admitted that God sending His armies to destroy the city in (Mt.22:7) that brings about the wedding is dealing with the fall of Jerusalem.  But futurists are so blinded with their literal and carnal presuppositions that they do not notice that the fall of Jerusalem and the judging of the OC Harlot City/Jerusalem from below/OC Bride is the event at which Christ posits the wedding feast with His New Bride at His second coming!  There’s only one new covenant wedding folks and (Mt.22) and (Rev.) posit it within the rest of Scriptures time frame – “the last days” of the OC age – A.D. 70.        

The Old Covenant people who once bore the name “the holy people” would be rejected for they had rejected their Messiah.  A new name was now given to those who followed Messiah/Jesus for they were now of “the way” and Christians.  They were the TRUE members of the New Jerusalem and Mount Zion.  In A.D. 70 the OC kingdom and the names associated with that people would be taken from them and be given in their restored form to the followers of Christ.

5) Reigning With Christ and Ruling over the Nations (Rev.2:26-27; Rev.3:21; Rev.20:4).  Jesus posits the millennium reign period (Rev.20) as the time until He returns elsewhere - as a 40 year “this generation” (Mt.24:34) time frame.  During that period the disciples and the first century Christians were “made alive” and “seated in heavenly places” (Ephs.2:4-6).  The 12 were promised that in the regeneration or resurrection they would sit on 12 thrones ruling over the tribes of Israel (Lk.22:30). 

At this point we need to address what the “nations” are here and how exactly the Christians were ruling over them and how it would find it’s climax at the Lord’s return in A.D. 70.  Since most agree that Revelation is John’s version of the Olivet Discourse (to a certain degree), perhaps Stuart Russell’s comments on the “nations” in Mt.25 have some bearing here: 

“4. But it will still be objected that a very formidable difficulty remains in the expression ‘all the nations.’ The difficulty, however, is more apparent than real; for—

(1) It is not at all uncommon to find in Scripture universal propositions which must be understood in a qualified or restricted sense.

There is a case in point in this very discourse of our Lord. In Mt 24:22, speaking of the ‘great tribulation,’ He Says, ‘Except those days should be shortened there should no flesh be saved.’ Now it is evident that this ‘great tribulation’ was limited to Jerusalem, or, at all events, to Judea, and yet we have an expression used in regard to the inhabitants of a city or country which is wide enough to include the whole human race, in which sense Lange and Alford actually understand it.

(2) There is great probability in the opinion that the phrase ‘all the nations’ is equivalent to ‘all the tribes of the land’. {Mt 24:30} There is no impropriety in designating the tribes as nations. The promise of God to Abraham was that he should be the father of many nations. {Ge 17:5 Ro 4:17,18}

In our Lord’s time it was usual to speak of the inhabitants of Palestine as consisting of several nations. Josephus speaks of ‘the nation of the Samaritans,’ ‘the nation of the Batanaeans,’ ‘the nation of the Galileans,’—using the very word (eynov) which we find in the passage before us. Judea was a distinct nation, often with a king of its own; so also was Samaria; and so with Idumea, Galilee, Paraea, Batanea, Trachonitis, Ituraea, Abilene, —all of which had at different times princes with the title of Ethnarch, a name which signifies the ruler of a nation. It is doing no violence, then, to the language to understand (panta ta eynh) as referring, to ‘all the nations’ of Palestine, or ‘all the tribes of the land.’

(3) This view receives strong confirmation from the fact that the same phrase in the apostolic commission, {Mt 28:19} ‘Go and teach all the nations,’ does not seem to have been understood by the disciples as referring to the whole population of the globe, or to any nations beyond Palestine. It is commonly supposed that the apostles knew that they had received a charge to evangelise the world. If they did know it, they were culpably remiss in not acting upon it. But it is presumable that the words of our Lord did not convey any such idea to their mind. The learned Professor Burton observes: ‘It was not until fourteen years after our Lord’s ascension that St. Paul travelled for the first time, and preached the gospel to the Gentiles. Nor is there any evidence that during that period the other apostles passed the confines of Judea.’ {1}

The fact seems to be that the language of the apostolic commission did not convey to the minds of the apostles any such ecumenical ideas. Nothing more astonished them than the discovery that ‘God had granted to the Gentiles also repentance unto life’. {Ac11:18} When St. Peter was challenged for going in ‘to men uncircumcised, and eating with them,’ it does not appear that he vindicated his conduct by an appeal to the terms of the apostolic commission. If the phrase ‘all the nations’ had been understood by the disciples in its literal and most comprehensive sense, it is difficult to imagine how they could have failed to recognise it once the universal character of the gospel, and their commission to preach it alike to Jew and Gentile. It required a distinct revelation from heaven to overcome the Jewish prejudices of the apostles, and to make known to them the mystery ‘that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ by the gospel’. {Eph 3:6}

In view of these considerations we hold it reasonable and warrantable to give the phrase ‘all the nations’ a restricted signification, and to limit it to the nations of Palestine. In this sense it harmonises well with the words of our Lord, ‘Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of man be come’. {Mt 10:23}” (Russell, The Parousia, ibid. Online Bible Version, bold emphasis MJS)

I think there is definitely some Biblical validation for what Russell says here about “all Nations.”  However, one cannot miss the Church ruling over the Gentiles and their inclusion in the Kingdom as it extended throughout the Roman world by means of  gospel preaching (Mt.24:14/Cols.1:23).  They carried and wielded the sword of the Spirit (Ephs.6:17) which was the gospel sword (the Word of God) slaying the unbelievers (brining an “aroma of death”) and likewise killing and bringing to life those who were ordained unto eternal life – a message of, “…He who finds his life will loose it” and an “aroma of life” (Mt.10:34-42; 2Cor.2:14-17; Hebs.4:12; Rev.2:12, 16).  The Church functioned as God’s Priests and Kings.  The Levitical Priests were in charge of “guarding” the Temple making sure no unclean thing or person entered as the flaming cherubim guarded the Garden in Genesis.  The gospel and the Church served and continues to serve as God’s sword making sure no unclean thing enters the City (Rev.21-22).  Through the imprecatory prayers of the persecuted Christians in A.D. 70 the debate over who were the true children of God was once and for all decided and their persecutors/enemies were forced to bow the knee before Christ as the Son of God and before His beloved (Rev.6/Mt.23; Phil. 2:10; 1Cor.15:28; Rev.3:9) whom now alone bore the True name as the New Jerusalem and God’s Holy People.  

Concluding (Mt.16:27-28 – Rev.1-6 – Rev.20-22)  We have seen that Revelation 1 – 22 answers to the same time frame and audience as Mt.16:27-28 in relation to the coming of the Lord to reward every man.  And that these rewards were to be spiritually realized for the Christians living through A.D. 70 while the wrath of God abided upon the wicked through the preached word and were ultimately slain with His sword (by means of the Zealots and Roman armies).  Apart from Christ there is no rest but only weeping and gnashing of teeth in this life and the next.”

Hank and Steven, please explain to me how Christ’s “soon” and “at hand” coming to reward every man with the rewards of paradise you claim is still future accompanying a biological resurrection at the end of time - also happened in A.D. 70?  I hope to hear the answer to this question along with the (Dan.12:7) “all these things” (including the resurrection) answer through private correspondence, an article on your web site, or you addressing it in your book.  Also, HOW did Christ reward “every man” in A.D.70 (Mt.16:27-28/Rev.22:12) and yet you kept appealing to (Jn.5)’s “all in the graves” as evidence of a yet future and universal event?     

Romans 8 summarized

1)  The redemption of the body (singular) is dealing with the Church – the Body of Christ.  Mortal bodies (plural) are identified covenantally with what corporate body they are in – in Adam (body of sin, body of death, flesh) or the Body of Christ – the Church.  Being “mortal” or “weak” and the like phrases, are referring to the weakness and futility of the law to purge the conscience of dead works and bring about salvation and justification.     

2)  This was a redemption and glory that was “about to be” revealed in them. 

3)  The “creation” and “creature” (Greek kitisis) is an intelligent creation – ie. people not squirrels and rocks.  Paul preached to every creature under heaven (Cols.1:5-6; 23) and he wasn’t preaching to rocks, trees, and squirrels.  We have a better creation/building (Greek kitisis) under the NC (Hebs.9:11).  And Christ being the High Priest of these “good things” in regard to this new tabernacle creation was “about to” (Greek mello) occur to the audience of the Hebrew letter.     

4)  The present suffering in the text is a specific eschatological suffering preceded by the parousia consistent with what the prophets and Jesus taught.  These are the eschatological “birth pains.” This is not dealing with me loosing my hair, people getting cancer, and squirrels getting hit by cars, etc.  And in context with the previous chapters it is dealing with groaning under the weight and condemnation of the law.       

6)  1Cor.15 the Greek tense, Rms. 5-7, corporate body concepts, use of OT quotes or echo’s in the NT

I have begun some work on this text and the “gathering” of (Mt.24) in what I have sent you here in my book (in very rough, unfinished, and unedited form – see pp.138-163).  I also asked Sam Frost to send you his exegesis on this passage and some other material for your studies.  Hopefully you will get it soon.  He gets into the Greek in Romans and covers the “body” singular and “bodies” plural issues. 

Also, I shared the full preterist view with a friend of mine - Ward Fenley back in 1993 and he has produced some CD’s you can listen to off of his web site on 1Cor.15 - http://newcreationministries.tv/Audio/NewAudios.htm 

It is very interesting that Ward mentions in this study of his discussion with Gary DeMar at Gary’s house after one of Gary’s lectures on the “you” of (Mt.24) concerning the “we” of (1Cor.15) and Gary claiming he needs an exegesis of (1Cor.15).  I likewise had the same conversation with Gary after a preterist seminar in Sparta, NC a few years back following the same presentation of the “you” and “this generation” of (Mt.24).  Well, Ward has done one, Sam Frost has done one – how many do you “need” Gary before you respond?!?”  If there are some exegetical problems here let’s get into them. 

Please examine the Greek tense in (1Cor.15).  Both present tense and future tenses are used but since the present tense doesn’t make sense with a biological resurrection of corpses in Paul’s day lasting some 2,000 + years now, the translators don’t bring this out.  Kind of hard to explain how biological corpses were “being raised” in Paul’s day and over the last 2,000 plus years J.

“…the dead are not being raised.”  “For if the dead are not being raised...”  “If the dead are not rising.”  “But God is giving it a body as he has determined…”  “It is being sown in dishonor, it is being raised imperishable…” “it is being raised in glory…”  “it is being raised in power; it is being raised a spiritual body.” 

Note the tense above and the singular body.  This is the NC Body of Christ being raised and transformed from the OC body form.  Yes the dead ones (plural) is used as well and so is a future tense later on in the chapter, but the individual members make up the corporate body as the corporate body determines the destiny of the individuals within in it.  

Note the continuity and “likeness” between Christ’s resurrection and the believers in (Rms.6:4).  Believers “likeness” to Christ’s resurrection is a soteriological likeness of walking in newness of life.  Biological death and resurrection at the end of history is not the issue in (Rms.5-8) and nor is here in (1Cor.15)! 

Murray Harris – “From Grave To Glory”

Like I mentioned I at one time was pretty interested in what Harris had to say but he is very confused over Christ’s resurrection body.  Christ’s resurrection body was definitely physical.  Most claim there was something better or greater about it because it defied the laws of physics – and won’t it be great when we get bodies like that because we can fly and all that cool stuff.  However, walking on water and going through a crowd isn’t defying the laws of physics?  Christ could do this with His body even before His resurrection.   

Harris is right on about the OT never stating that believers will have a biological corpse resurrection at the end of time, but doesn’t know how to handle Christ’s resurrection and Paul’s “likeness” theology in relation to Adam and Christ in (Rms.6/1Cor.15).        

Let’s now fit our understanding of (Roms.8) with the corporate body context of Romans 5-7).  These futurists are a bit closer to the truth on “body” soma than most.  Strimple in attempting to refute us acts like these guys don’t exist (dishonest scholarship!)  – I wrote on (pp.105ff.):

“Individual Decaying Corpses or Spiritual Corporate Body Resurrection?

Holland scans some of the NT scholars that have defined these terms differently than a mere corpse of an individual body to demonstrate that his exegesis isn’t completely new and that many have been thinking in the right direction.  I shall quote some of them beginning with Herman Ridderbos,

“the concrete mode of existence of sinful man, can sometimes be identified with sin as the ‘body of sin’ (Rom.6:6), the ‘body of flesh’ (Col.2:11), the ‘body of death’ (Rom.7:24).  Accordingly, the life from Christ by the Holy Spirit can be typified as a ‘doing away with the body of sin’, ‘putting off of the body of the flesh, ‘putting to death the earthly members’, ‘deliverance from the body of this death’ (Rom.6:6; Col.2:11; 3:5; Rom.7:24)… All these expressions are obviously not intended of the body itself, but of the sinful mode of existence of man. (Holland, ibid, p.90 emphasis MJS). 

Quoting T.F. Torrance,

“in his death, the many who inhered in him died too, and indeed the whole body of sin, the whole company of sinners into which he incorporated himself to make their guilt and their judgment his own, that through his death he might destroy the body of sin, redeem them from the power of guilt and death, and through his resurrection raise them up as the new Israel” (Holland, ibid, p.91)

This corporate view of the “body of sin” is also shared by F.F. Bruce,

“This ‘body of sin’ is more than an individual affair, it is rather that old solidarity of sin and death which all share ‘in Adam”, but which has been broken by the death of Christ with a view to the creation of the new solidarity of righteousness and life of which believers are made part ‘in Christ.’” (Holland, ibid, p.91, emphasis MJS)

Holland feels that T.W. Manson has come the closest to the truth,

“He questioned the traditional assumption that in the phrase ‘body of Sin’ the term ‘of Sin’ is a genitive of quality; he argued that it ‘does not yield a very good sense’.  He took it to be a possessive genitive, and said, ‘It is perhaps better to regard “the body of sin” as the opposite of “the body of Christ”.  It is the mass of unredeemed humanity in bondage to the evil power.  Every conversion means that the body of sin loses a member and the body of Christ gains one’” (Holland, ibid, p.91, emphasis MJS)

Futurist Tom Holland from here goes on to make the point and ours as well – that Paul is being consistent in Romans 6 by following the corporate argument in Romans 5 where he addresses a corporate solidarity under the federal headship of either being “in Adam” or “in Christ” and thus lays the framework to understanding the corporate solidarity of Paul’s “body of sin” in chapter 6 and “body of death” in chapters 7 and 8 as describing two covenant communities or “bodies” one outside of Christ “in Adam,” (“body of Sin,” and “body of Death”) or being “in Christ” which is the Church the corporate “body of Christ.”

Commenting on (Roms.6:6),

“Also, in 6:6 Paul refers to ‘putting off the old man’.  Once again this has traditionally been seen as a reference to the sinful self that dominated the life of the believer in the pre-converted state.  However, the same terminology is used in the Ephesisans 2:15 where Paul says ‘to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace’.  He then goes on to say in 4:22-23, ‘put off your old self (anthropos – man), created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.’

The exhortation is parallel to that in Romans 6:6ff.  Thus, the new man, which Paul exhorts the Romans to put on, is corporate, for ‘the new man’ in Ephesians is the church, and the two who have been united to form this new man are the believing Jews and the believing Gentiles.  This corporate understanding is further supported by Colossians 3:9-15:…” 

The realm where distinctions are abolished (here there is no Greek or Jew, v.11) is clearly corporate.  This is indicated by two considerations.  First, ‘here’ is clearly the realm where all distinctions are abolished, and this is the new man.  Second, the meaning of the one body into which they were called (v. 15) is obviously corporate.  These descriptions of corporateness are in the context of the description of the old and new self (vv.9, 10).  The rendering of anthropos as self by the NIV and sarx as flesh in the AV has inevitably promoted the individualistic understanding and confused the mind of the English reader.  Furthermore, that Paul’s exhortation is corporate is shown in that he appeals to them, “as God’s chosen people clothe yourselves’ (v.12). 

Thus, identifying the imagery of the old and new man as being corporate, and appreciating that it is part of the description of the ‘body of Sin’ in Romans 6:6, along with the other considerations we have presented, establishes a corporate meaning for the term the ‘body of Sin’.” (Holland, ibid, pp.95-96).               

Holland I believe is correct in seeing a corporate understanding of these Pauline terms and phrases and I would agree with him that Paul has a “system of theology” that he draws on when he uses certain words, terms, and phrases throughout his various writings: 

“Also, it seems quite inconceivable that a man of Paul’s intellectual caliber should be so haphazard as to be indifferent to these alleged inconsistencies.  At Paul’s instruction, his letters were being passed around the churches (Col. 4:16).  Was he not concerned with consistency?” (Holland, ibid, p.107, emphasis MJS)

“Consistency” and “Scripture interpreting Scripture” is what I am seeking to do here in identifying the “creation” and the “redemption of the body.”  Paul’s theme’s of being in a corporate body, whether in “Adam” or “Christ” in (Roms.5-6) and (1Cor.15) and being raised in the likeness of Christ or experiencing deliverance from “law” (Adam in the garden) or “THE law” (Israel groaning under the Mosaic law) in (Roms.5 – 8 & 1Cor.15) has nothing to do with a casket resurrection from biological death for believers.  This is a soteriological resurrection from the spiritual death we inherited from Adam and this spiritual death was magnified by the administration of death – the giving of “THE law” to Israel.  This was the “death” that Christ came to deliver and resurrect His people from. 

Tom Holland wants to discuss the “consistency” of Paul’s use of terms and language in regard to a corporate body of Sin, Death, and the Flesh as equivalents to being in the covenant body of Adam versus being in the covenant body of Christ in (Rms.5-7).  He likewise wants us to understand that what Paul means by “old man” and “new man” are corporate and mean the same thing in the context of the different letters of Paul.  Okay, I of course agree with Holland on his corporate covenant communities that are contrasted in (Rms.5-7).  I just see this corporate concept being carried through into chapter 8 with the “redemption of the body” as both corporate Israel groaning for this redemption/resurrection and the corporate body of Christ – the Church groaning to be further delivered from Israel’s OC “body of death” under the law.” 

Steven you were correct in not finding any OT passages that taught a biological fleshly resurrection at the end of time.  Therefore, is Paul using (Isa.25 and Hos.13) radically differently than it’s original context?  I wrote on (pp.152-53):

“Futurist Richard Hays, lists a couple of observations that are pertinent to our study when he exhorts his readers to study the overall context of an OT quote or allusion (“echo”) made by a NT author:

“Thematic Coherence How well does the alleged echo fit into the line of argument that Paul is developing?  Does the proposed precursor text fit together with the point Paul is making?  Can one see in Paul’s use of the material a coherent “reading” of the source text?  Is his use of the Isaiah texts consonant with his overall argument and/or use made of other texts? (Hays, ibid. p.38)

“Satisfaction  Does the proposed intertextual reading illuminate the surrounding discourse and make some larger sense of Paul’s argument as a whole?  “…A proposed intertextual reading fulfills the test of satisfaction when we find ourselves saying, “Oh, so that is what Paul means here in passage x; and furthermore, if that’s right, then we can begin to understand what he means in passage y and why he uses these certain words in that place.”  (Hays, ibid. p.44)

I could not agree more with the above quotes.  It is sad though that Mr. Hays does not apply his own interpretive principals when Paul refers to (Hos.13) and (Isa.25) in (1Cor.15).  We must ask “what in the world does a biological death and thus a future casket resurrection of believers have to do with overcoming “THE LAW” and “THE DEATH” in (1Cor.15:54-56) per Hays and all futurists interpretations?!?  How has physical death been in the process of being destroyed for over 2,000 + years now (1Cor.15:26)?  Shouldn’t we analyze the resurrection from “death” and issues of law in (Isa.25:7-8)?  Does “death” in Isaiah have anything to do with biological death and thus a casket resurrection from it?  Even within the theological context of Isaiah’s little apocalypse (Isa.24-28) does Israel’s national resurrection depicted in chapter 26 have anything to do with God someday restoring the atoms of our physical bodies with our spirits someday?  Well, then how about Hosea, what “death” is he describing in his original context (Hos.13:1; 14)?  In both passages that Paul quotes from the “death” that is under consideration is a death produced by breaking God’s law and going after other gods – thus they are sent into bondage and exile from the land – experiencing “death” while physically alive.  Breaking covenant and the law produces spiritual death!  Well, how about other hermeneutical questions we need to be asking the text in (1Cor.15) such as what does being “in Adam” or “in Christ” have to do with overcoming and experiencing victory over “the law” and “the death”?!?  And aren’t we suppose to be looking for other similar subject matters within Paul’s writings to help us understand what he is saying in (1Cor.15) with these phrases and terms?  Does not Paul address “the law,” “death,” “resurrection,” and being “in Adam” or “in Christ” in Romans 5 – 6?  Is not the “death” produced by Adam spiritual and the “justification of life” that is a gift of God being “in Christ” a spiritual soteriological resurrection life in (Roms.5)?  How about “the law” in this passage – was it added so that physical death may abound and to magnify the point that we are dead physically or that we will die physically?  Is not the death that is being overcome here continued in chapter 6 where being “dead to sin” has nothing to do with physical death?  In (Rms.6:4-5) is not the believers resurrection in the “likeness” of Christ associated with “walking in newness of life” in the here and now?  Again the “likeness” and resurrection from death here is spiritual and soteriological and is not dealing with the resurrection of an individual fleshly corpse.”

(9/17/06 Paul’s seed analogy in (1Cor.15)

Hank, when I mentioned Israel in the context of Paul’s seed analogy in (1Cor.15) you asked me where in the O.T. did I see Paul using it this way.  Well, first, I am not the first to propose this idea of Paul’s seed analogy.  As far as I know Max King first proposed this exegesis in his book The Spirit of Prophecy back in 1971 and formalized it some more in The Cross and Parousia of Christ, 1987.  Sam Frost came along and in my opinion added more strength to the position by pointing out the Greek tense of the seed  “being sown” in his book Exegetical Essays of the Dead, 2004.  Don Preston did a study on Hosea and made some very good observations on the seed being Israel.  At the beginning of the study he encouraged the listeners to make parallels between Hosea and 1Cor.15.  My parallels were practically identical to what Don would furnish later in the studies, but since it was his idea and exhortation to make the parallels I feel it is important to give him the credit for this:  

Hosea: The Outline for Paul’s Resurrection Hope!

© 2005 Don K. Preston

2712 Mt. Washington Rd.

Ardmore, Ok.

Please note that this is copyrighted material. Do not copy and distribute.

Don’s study on Hosea as it pertains to 1Cor.15 is located on his web site eschatology.org.  Sam Frost was impressed with Preston’s study and wrote a helpful article on the subject as well.[7]

We need to remember that Paul preached the gospel from nothing other than that which was contained in the law and the prophets (Acts 26:22, Acts 28:23).  And the resurrection was nothing other than the “hope of Israel” (Acts 24, 26-28).  Some “Preterists” such as Ed Steven’s thinks that Paul is following some Rabbi’s and Greek philosophers in the seed analogy and that Paul is teaching an individual spiritual body at death resurrection in (1Cor.15).[8]  This view has many problems and Sam is already in the process of refuting Ed’s views not only of a literal rapture in A.D. 70 but Ed’s errors in (1Cor.15) as a whole so there is no need to get into that here.  However, knowing that Paul’s world view and exegesis came from the law and the prophets, Paul no doubt had these texts in mind when he brought up the seed analogy: 

"Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man and the seed of beast. (Jer.31:27)

“Then I will sow her for Myself in the earth, And I will have mercy on her who had not obtained mercy; Then I will say to those who were not My people, ‘You are My people!’ And they shall say, ‘You are my God!’" (Hos.2:23). 

Hank, you and DeMar simply cannot separate the imminent resurrection and redemption from the framework and time frame of OC Israel and the end of her age (Lk.2:34, 38; Lk.24:21; Mt.13:24-43; Mt.24:3, 30-31/Lk.21:28).  God throughout Israel’s history would “wound” and “heal” and then “kill” and “make alive” (Deut.32:29).  God was going to “make alive” “true Israel” in Israel’s “last days.”  I noticed that you and Gary are going to be covering the question “Are we living in the last days?”  And Gary since you have admitted in your works that the “last days” is a term for Israel’s judgment in A.D. 70, I would really like you to explain the nature of her resurrection during this time period and the texts you use to support it.  Please also explain to us when God fulfilled Israel’s law (1Cor.15:56) and how that ties into your futuristic interpretation of (1Cor.15).       

(Added 9/15/06) – Hank you referred to (Jn.5) a couple of times.  Here is a friend of mines exegesis on this text:

JOHN 5:21-29: ONE RESURRECTION
Ward Fenley

Something to consider when examining the fullness which we have in Christ are the various "I AM's" of Christ. For example, when talking with reformers concerning Christ as the "Bread of Life" and ask them if this is spiritually speaking and if it is fulfilled in the regeneration of the believer, they will say yes. Ask them the same concerning Christ as the "Way," the "Living Waters," the "Light of the World," the "Truth," "Door," "Shepherd," and "Life," they will invariably say that Christ is presently those things spiritually. If we ask them if He will one day be our physical Door, or Bread, or Living Waters etc. they will generally say no. However, some may say yes. In which case simply ask them what Scriptures they would use to support a dual fulfillment of each of those. But, if they are reasonably studied, then they will say no. At which point we would simply ask them, "If our hermeneutic of Biblical theology finds Christ as the spiritual fulfillment of all of these things, when Christ says "I am the Resurrection, shouldn't we interpret that the same way?" They will probably say, "Well, He is both our spiritual resurrection and our physical resurrection." Then we ask them what Scriptures support that. Usually they will make an appeal to John 5:28,29 or 1 Corinthians 15. Then I take them to the full context of John:

John 5:21-29 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. {22} For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: {23} That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. {24} Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. {25} Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. {26} For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; {27} And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. {28} Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, {29} And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

In verse 21 Christ establishes the fact of His sovereignty over resurrection. He does not say He is sovereign over two different soteriological resurrections. He simply declares that He and the Father are one in raising the dead. He identifies that resurrection as everlasting life, never coming into condemnation. He declares that the hour is coming and "now is" when the dead shall hear His voice and live. Reformers usually try to make verse 25 a different resurrection than verse 29. But the hearing of the Son's voice brings the same result. There is no where in the text a different result mentioned that would take place through this hearing. Rather, there is one group of people-the dead. The only difference is a group. One fell under the category of "the hour is coming and now is when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God and shall live," and the other fell under the category of "the hour is coming when ALL that are in their graves shall hear His voice and shall come forth...to the resurrection of life."

At this point it should be observed that the word for "damnation" in verse 29 is the exact same Greek word as "condemnation" in verse 24 with the exception of the preposition 'into' versus 'of'. It is still the same root word which is krisis. It seems that not only is Christ speaking of the same condemnation or damnation-it also seems that Christ is speaking of the same converse of that condemnation-namely resurrection life because of hearing the voice of the Son of God. Christ doesn't mention to different types of hearing the voice of the Son of God, so why would we assume two different resurrections?

The mystery then is whether Christ is speaking of two different groups of people. Some would suggest that this is the case. However, if Christ isn't speaking of two different "hearing His voices" and two different "lifes or everlasting lifes" or two different "damnations," how could He be speaking of two different groups of people? I believe that the only difference is the timing: the hour is coming and NOW IS, versus the hour is coming. In the hour that "now is" Christ is speaking of those who were going to hear His voice at Pentecost (John 7:37-39) and live. The hour that says only "is coming" is referring to those who would hear His voice in AD 70. I believe Christ clarifies this timing in John 11, which is a very strong parallel passage:

John 11:24-26 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. {25} Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: {26} And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

Basically what Christ is saying is that there is one resurrection. It is Him. However, He would apply this Resurrection to those who were physically alive from Pentecost until AD 70. Then at AD 70 there is the resurrection of the physically dead who had never heard the Gospel. They were all a part of those dead under the law of sin and death. But Paul said of the entire collective group: 1 Corinthians 15:51-57 Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, {52} In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. {53} For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put onimmortality. {54} 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. {55} O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? {56} The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. {57} But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Notice that there are two groups in verse 52. Then in verse 53 Paul describes that corruption and morality that needed to put on incorruption and immortality. In verse 54 Paul does not at all begin to distinguish between the two groups, but rather sets forth the necessary changes for both groups-i.e. the saying, "Death is swallowed up in victory" needed to come to pass completely for both groups. This death simply cannot be referring to physical death because Paul said that the strength of sin is the law. And to even further support this, Paul declared that they were being given the very victory that was to be completely given to both groups at the Parousia. The distinction was not that there were two different groups. They all were previously dead under the law of sin and death. But Paul and the first century believers were firstfruits of the same resurrection. That is, as they believed in Christ they were immediately partakers of the same resurrection processwhich was taking place. Those under the OT were those very likelyidentified as the "creation" that was "groaning" in Romans 8. Paul said that the firstfruits were groaning with that OC creation. Again, we see one group of people and one resurrection to be applied, but a different timing just as Christ taught. I.e Christ taught that one group would be in the "hour that now is" versus the one group that would be in the "hour [that] is coming." The same death was going to be completely swallowed up in victory. But since Paul and the first century hearers were those that Christ identified as "he who lives and believes in me shall never die," they were correctly identified as those who had the firstfruits of the same resurrection. Because each invidual was inseparable from the growth of the collective body, each individuals level of change during the first century was only in accordance with the level that the body had grown as they grew closer to the reward of the In heritance, which was Christ in them. Previously Christ was only their hope of glory. However, once He would come to indwell them He would be their glory and it would no longer be a hope. This is precisely why Christ said "I am the Resurrection and the Life. He who believes in me, though he were dead (physically), yet shall he live (spiritually). He who lives (physically-first century firstfruits who were alive to hear the Gospel of the good news of Jesus Christ and Him crucified) and believes on me shall never die (spiritually). I hope this helps a little concerning the fact that John 5:21-29 is speaking of one resurrection." (http://eschatology.com/oneresurrection.html)   

And Hank, don’t you believe that the eschatological last “hour” John wrote of has it’s climax in A.D. 70 (1Jn.2:17-18/Rms.13:11-12)?   

7) Isa.24-25, Isa.63-66, Rev.21-22 Death and no Death – “a contradiction”?

I address what you said about Isa.65 in quoting Gentry who is refuting Jay Adam’s.  I think Adam’s takes your view of the language in (Isa.65).  I then refute Gentry (see pp.87-116).  Anyway to make a long story short death and no death is resolved in identifying the death Jesus came to destroy as the spiritual death brought through Adam, of which both groups (living and dead) would “never die” in the resurrection through Christ (Jn.11:25-26).  When it is seen that spiritual death is what Christ came to overcome at His parousia and New Creation, then there is much harmonization between all of these resurrection and New Creation texts. 

This is a “better resurrection” and “inheritance” than what was given under the OC creation (Heb.11-12).  Hank, how one exegetically separates the “in a very little while” coming of Christ in (Heb.10:37) from the next chapters “better resurrection” is eisegetical eschatology not “exegetical eschatology.” 

You also kept claiming that “no death” in the new creation of (Isa.65-66) was “metaphorical.”  Well, then why were you insisting that “no death” be taken literally in (Rev.21-22) since it is the very fulfillment of the “metaphorical death” you claim is being taught in the Isaiah text?!?  Did I misunderstand what you were saying?  Gentry tries to both spiritualize and claim a physical fulfillment of (Isa.65-66/2Pet.3/Rev.21-22).  I covered that a little in a recent article.[9]  Let me know your thoughts and the hermeneutics you are using here.)              

8)  The law all fulfilled at the cross?  Mt.5:17-19/2Cor.3/Heb.8:13/1Cor.15:56

Please reconsider your view here in light of Scripture.  I have written on these texts:

“A Biblical Understanding of Matthtew 5:17-19 & Reformed Theologian John Brown

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.  “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.  “Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Mt.5:17-19).

Reformed theologian John Brown took the same interpretation of “heavens and earth” in his exegesis of (Mt. 5:18) that full or Biblical preterists do,

“But a person at all familiar with the phraseology of the Old Testament Scriptures, knows that the dissolution of the Mosaic economy, and the establishment of the Christian, is often spoken of as the removing of the old earth and heavens, and the creation of a new earth and new heavens”[10]

It amazes me how I never really took the time to study this very important passage of Scripture and how so many today simply assume that all the law passed away at the cross when Jesus here explicitly states that the ENTIRETY of the law would not pass TILL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASSES(ED) AWAY and thus until ALL of it was FULFILLED.  This text and the way we have argued from it has been so powerful that in a multi-authored book from the Reformed community When Shall These Things Be? The text goes unmentioned throughout the book!  Likewise John MacArthur in his “refutation” of preterism doesn’t mention it as well in The Second Coming Signs of Christ’s Return and the End of the Age.  Here are the points and arguments formulated by preterists, gospel eschatology, or covenant eschatology adhereants of (Mt.5:17-19) that no futuristic eschatological school has sought to refute or successfully refute:

1)     Jesus did not come to destroy the law and prophets but to “fulfill them.”

2)     Not one “jot or tittle” of the law would pass until it all was fulfilled.  All the OC law being fulfilled is = to “heaven and earth passing away.”

3)     The “end of the age” of the old covenant or Mosaic Law and prophets foretold the following:

a.      The sufferings, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ (Ps.22; Ps.16:10; Ps.132:11; Isa.53; Dan.9:26;…)

b.     Pentecost (Joel 2; Isa.44)

c.      The Great Commission – The GC associated with a specific  “last days” generation would see it’s fulfillment and was foretold in the law (Deut.32:20-21/Rms.10:19-11).  The prophets also spoke of the GC (Isa. 11:9, Isa. 49:6, Isa. 60:1-5; Isa.65:1-2/Rms.10:20-21; Hab.2:14; Zec.14:9) as did the Psalms (Ps.22:27-31, Ps.98:2-3).  See especially (Lk.24:44-48).

d.     The second coming of Christ at which time salvation and the forgiveness of sins would be completed and thus inheritance and entrance into the kingdom would be granted (Gen.49:10; Dan.7:13/22; Dan.9:24-27; Ps.14:7/Isa.59:19-21/Isa.27:9/Rms.11:26-27; Zech.14:5-7; Joel 2:31; Isa.40:10/Isa.62:11/Mt.16:27-28/Rev.22:12;

e.      The resurrection (Isa.25:6-9/Hos.13:14/1Cor.15:54-55; Dan.9:24-27/Dan.12:1-7; Ezk.37:12- completely fulfilled 14)

f.       The judgment (Joel 2/Acts 2; Isa.66; cf. “d” texts for second coming)

4)     NONE of the OC Mosaic Law would pass until ALL a, b, c, d, e, and f above would be COMPLETELY FULFILLED.   

Futuristic paradigms of eschatology have the OC law of Moses passing at (“a”) the cross, or God fulfilling all of Israel’s Old Covenant promises by (“b”) Pentecost and thus it is said that God is only dealing with the “last days” of the Church age from here on out.    However, Jesus clearly says that none of the law would pass until it was ALL FULFILLED – not some or most of it!  If the passing of “heaven and earth” is addressing the dirt, rocks, oceans, and trees, then we – according to Jesus we are still under “every jot and tittle” of the OC law and it has not been completely fulfilled.  

The Church in Jerusalem made it clear that the “jots and tittles” (Mt.5:17-19) of the law did not apply to the Gentiles (Acts 15) while the Judiazers obviously opposed the Apostles inspired ruling in the matter.  Just because the Gentiles did not have to keep the “jots and tittles” of the law, the Jews did and continued to be circumcised and participated in the laws of the land that included participation in the temple.  Paul was falsely accused of teaching the Jews to forsake the law of Moses so the church at Jerusalem had him take a vow with four men which involved purification rites in the temple to demonstrate that Paul was upholding Jesus’ words in (Mt.5:17-19) à (Acts 21:21f.).  Since so many think that the entire law passed at the cross, some commentators have been so bold as to accuse Paul and thus the entire church at Jerusalem for being in sin for advising Paul to do this and him following through with it.  But again the adhering to the jots and tittles of the law “until heaven and earth passed” for the Jew (even Christian Jews) was critical in the early Churches understanding and in Paul’s theology as well.  Paul would have never been guilty of what his critics were accusing him of, “They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs.” (Acts 21:21).  Why?  Was it because he wanted to get along and “be all things to all men” or was it because Paul was being faithful to Jesus words, “Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Mt.5:19).  All futurists don’t address these issues and fail to explain that the law had not passed at the cross but was rather in the PROCESS of PASSING away: 

1)    “For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels.  For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious” (2Cor. 3:10-11).

2)    “In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away” (Hebs. 8:13).”

Please let me know where I error here if you believe I do. 

(9/15/06 - Another text that supports the above texts in that the law was still in effect before A.D. 70 is (Hebrrews 9:8-10)

"The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; 10  Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation."

I was seeking some more in-depth Greek work on this passage and Don Preston emailed me with the following:     

“Response: See the New International Greek Testament Commentary (in loc), where Ellingworth  says "Some scholars, including P. E. Hughes and Teodorico, give the meaning of "have status" or "legal standing" or "function."  (p. 439). He does claim that the more common translation "standing" is to be preferred, but, gives no exegetical reason for this.

Likewise,

Word Biblical Commentary, in loc, p. 223— "The Holy Spirit disclosed to the writer that as long as the front compartment of the tabernacle had cultis status, access to the presence of God was not yet available to the congregation." "So long as the cultic ordinances of the Sinaitic covenant were a valid expression of God’s redemptive purpose and the front compartment exouses stasin, "had cultic status’, entrance into the MHP was not yet accessible. There can be access only after the front compartment has been set aside."

See also A. T. Robertson's Word Pictures, Vol 5, 397 "Another genitive absolute with the present active participle of echo (having standing, stasin, 'the first tabernacle having a place."

Expositors Greek Testament, Vol. 4, p. 330: "So long as the fore-tent has an appointed place as part of the Divine arrangements for worship."

This is not an uncommon, or fringe view. It is well attested, and, when you take a look at it contextually, it is the only rendition that fits. The writer's point is access to the most holy place.

1.) If the simple spatial removal of that first tabernacle, or the temple, opened the way into the MHP, then the destruction in B. C 586 would have opened up the MHP!! After all, the temple was not "standing", but it still had standing!!

2.) Very clearly, that first tabernacle system had to be fulfilled and find its fulfillment, thus losing its validity, for the MHP to be open. Undeniably, in context, it would only lose its standing / validity, when it was fulfilled, and that would include the parousia, to fulfill the High Priest's Atonement actions. That is why the author says "imposed (i.e. and remaining valid), until the time of reformation."

I think Don’s comments above are right on target and fit the context of (Hebs.8:13).  I further believe that (Rev.11) is a powerful connection to (Heb.9 - 10) and the “better resurrection of (Hebs.11) in that:

1)     The Temple was still standing (vss.1-2),

2)     Access to the Most Holy Place or when “the temple of God was opened in heaven, and the ark of His covenant was seen in His temple,” is equivalent to:

3)     The destruction and judgment of the “Great City” (ie. Jerusalem where the Lord was crucified vs.11), was the time of:

4)     The judgment, rewarding, and resurrection of the dead (vss.18-19).  

Jesus predicted the same events in (Lk.21) and that when Jerusalem was destroyed all the OT prophets of the coming redemption for the remnant and judgment upon the wicked would be completed.  Again, it’s not just Daniel’s prophecy that tells us that when Jerusalem and the Temple are destroyed is the time frame for all of the eschatological events to be fulfilled (including the resurrection!), but Jesus in the Olivet Discourse teaches this, and so do Hebrews and Revelation.[11]    

9)  40 year Millennium? Mt.23, Rev.20, Revelations Recapitulation Structure  

Hank a 40 year millennium seemed to bother you, and Steven you said it was “possible.”  Please see my section on Peter’s 1,000 years and John’s in Rev.20 on (pp.46-52).  Also, note my quotes of Rabbi’s who understood (Ps.90) to teach a 40 year millennium.  I asked Sam to send his CD on the millennium and his excellent connections between (Rev.11 and Rev.20).  He has done some good work in the Greek here as well.  Please let me know if you receive it.

Here are some notes taken from Sam’s lecture on the millennium: 

1)     Rev.3:12 – Sam points out that in the Greek it is possible to see that the New Jerusalem is in the process of descending.  This would tie in well with the “receiving” of the Kingdom and City in (Heb.12) and the time statements throughout Hebrews regarding their “about to” status of inheriting this Kingdom, New Creation, City, etc.    

2)     Sam makes the same connection I (and other Preterists) have made in that the New Creation follows the millennium and what was promised as rewards to the Churches in Asia associated with a “soon” coming of Christ in A.D. 70 early in the book is realized at the end of the book (Rev.20-22) in the same “soon” time period.  This again is the point I made on (Mt.16:27-28/Rev.22:12).

3)     The 3 ½ year period following the millennium is what is near in Revelation. 

4)     Sam sees some strengths and weaknesses of the KJ and NIV translations in (Rev.11).  He points out the two fold statements of the NIV of “the one who is and who was…” is correct leaving out the phrase “and who is to come” (as the KJ does) because at this point the coming of Christ has already occurred.  Then he sees the weakness of the NIV in translating (vs.17) as “and have begun to reign” when here the KJ is more accurate, “because you have taken your great power and reigned or hath reigned.”  And the definite articles of “the” indicating a specific time had come - “..Your (the) wrath HAS come,” “the time,” of the dead to be judged.”  And (the) reward to the servants of those prophets, saints, small and great.”     

5)     Christ was reigning over His enemies the last of course “the death” which in the Greek in 1Cor.15 was in the process of being destroyed.  This same “the death” is the focus of Revelation and was the spiritual death brought through Adam.  In Pauline theology in Romans and in Corinthians “the death” is not biological death but the spiritual death brought through Adam magnified through “the law.”  Christ redeemed Christians from the curse of this death at His return in A.D. 70.

6)     The fall of “Babylon” in chapter 18 is the same “great city,” and “holy city,” of chapter 11 and throughout Revelation – ie. Jerusalem.  It is this same entity that is judged for destroying the land with it’s adulteries (18-19).  Sam continues to point out the recapitulation in (Rev.11) with chapters 18-21:    These sections (Rev.11 & 18-21) have the identical themes - it is the time to avenge the blood of the servants, the destruction of “the death,” it’s the time for judgment of the living and dead both “small and great” to be rewarded, praise breaks out, white robes given, - WHEN?  Yup, when the city (Jerusalem) is surrounded, trampled, and judged/falls.  After this the New Creation/Temple is opened up.)

Again Hank, as I pointed out in our conversation evangelism is taking place in the New Creation (Isa.60-66) and this is the focus of Christ coming “soon” in establishing the New Creation in Revelation (Rev.22:17-21).   We have a more excellent message now post A.D. 70 than ever before in bringing “healing to the Nations.”  But those Nations who do not submit to Christ’s gospel remain outside the City.  Please embrace Gospel Eschatology and turn from the arbitrary eisegetical eschatology of partial preterism.          

Here is a quote taken from my book where I quote Don Preston who does a good job of also pointing out the recapitulation structure of Revelation (pp.190-91),

“Again, Jesus was very clear that it was His contemporary generation that would see the vindication of the martyrs all the way back as far as the creation (Mt.23:31-36).  Revelation was written toward the end of “this generation” and the prophecies therein would be fulfilled “shortly” (Rev. 1:1).  The time for vindication of the OT and NT martyrs was to be in a “little while” in John’s day. 

Don Preston has noted,

“A final bit of evidence suggests that John was standing near the close of the millennium.  This is a study of the “little while” in Revelation. 

Three times in three chapters we find the promise that Satan would have only a little time to accomplish his evil before he utterly failed. The next chart will parallel those passages

These parallels demonstrate one thing beyond doubt:  the “little while” period was “post-millennial,” but what follows from this is not classical “postmillennialism!”

The little while of Revelations 6, a time of persecution, was to be followed by the consummative Great Day of God’s Wrath (6::12-17), when God vindicated and rewarded His martyrs.  In Revelation 20, the little while was to be a time when Satan once again unleashed his power against the saints (20:8-9).  This was followed by the consummative victory (v.9f).  When would this be?  It would be at the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 according to Jesus.  The next chart will help us see this.

In Matthew 23:29-39, Jesus castigated the Jews for persecuting the prophets-(past suffering).  He said He was going to send His own prophets to them and they would also kill them, (more suffering).  It must also be seen that Jesus’ prophets and disciples are the ones that the New Testament writers insisted were on thrones reigning with Jesus, compare Revelation 20 and the chart above.

In Matthew 23:34-36, Jesus said judgment on the Jews would come in that generation.  It was to be a judgment so comprehensive it would encompass all the martyrs all the way back to creation (23:35)!  This judgment would have its physical foci at Jerusalem, but its spiritual scope would be universal.  That judgment was the coming of the Lord in power and great glory to gather the elect (Matthew 16:27-28; 24:29-31).

Our point is that in Revelation, the final destruction of Satan would be after the saints had endured a “little while” more of persecution.  But this “little while” would be after the millennium (Revelation. 20:3, 7-9)!  Jesus definitely placed His coming in final vindication of the martyrs in His generation at the fall of Jerusalem.  Thus, the millennium, the “little while,” and Christ’s parousia must be placed within the framework of that first century ending in the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.”[12]

It amazes me that reformed partial preterists such as R.C. Sproul, Kenneth Gentry, James Jordan, Gary DeMar, etc. seek to see a first century fulfillment of the martyrs in Mt. 23, Rev. 6, Rev. 12, but then ARBITRARILY claim that the vindication of the martyrs in Rev. 20 is a future event with a different set of martyrs so as to bow before the creeds and the vain traditions of men and not God’s Word.”

Hank, again we have this “little while” period of 3 ½ years throughout Daniel and Revelation in connection to the destruction of the Temple and City, as being the time frame of the Great Tribulation, Judgment, and Resurrection.  You are eisegetically cherry picking around the resurrection thus not defending a Exegetical Eschatology. 

To separate (Rev.20) from the rest of Revelation is not “Exegetical.” Likewise, to separate the doctrine of the blood guilt of Israel (Deut.32:43) and the vindication of the martyr’s from the rest of the OT and NT from (Rev.20) is likewise not Exegetical Eschatology.

Continuity between Peter’s 1,000 years and John’s

Although a partial preterist, Marcus Booker shares the same conviction that I do in that Peter’s 1,000 year statement is a reference to the millennium just as John’s is in (Rev.20).

“Many people have assumed that the concept of the millennium, or the "thousand years" appears only in Revelation. But doesn't Peter also speak of a "thousand years" in a curiously similar context?

Assuming as I do that the John who wrote Revelation is the same as the apostle John, then he was a pillar in the assembly at Jerusalem alongside of Peter. The two apostles, being of such close proximity for so long, would probably use many of the same idioms and expressions. For instance, they both seem to call Jerusalem "Babylon" (see the end of Peter's first Epistle, where Peter sends greetings from "Babylon").

But there is another possible idiom that they may have shared. They both seemed to call the period until the judgment a "thousand years," with reference to Psalm 90:4.

It seems to me, then, that the "thousand years" is not to be found in Revelation exclusively, as most people have claimed or assumed. It is in 2 Peter as well, which might shed light upon the concept of the "millennium" that everyone seems so concerned about.

Notice that in Revelation 20-21 there is fiery judgment, a thousand years, and a new heavens and a new earth. Curiously enough, in 2 Peter 3 there is also fiery judgment, a thousand years, and a new heavens and a new earth. May there be some connection between these two passages? Might one shed light upon the other, and vice versa?

Peter says, "but beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." He then says, "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

Peter, it would seem, speaks of the same so-called "millennium" as John. He uses the language to speak of the time of trial coming upon the assemblies in Christ preceding the judgment upon their persecutors when the power of the new covenant would utterly destroy the first covenant.

Using the words "thousand years," therefore, does not mean to communicate the notion of "a very long time." Rather, it means only that God is longsuffering and will not execute His vengeance until the cup of iniquity is full and His patience exhausted. God is said to afford ample time and opportunity for sinners to repent.” (Marcus Booker, sent to me via email, subject: Millennium)

Peter taught that the “end of all things was at hand” and that included the great commission that would be fulfilled by the “end of the age” which, as we have seen is the end of the OC age and not the end of the NC age.  Satan being bound in the millennium was for the purpose and success of the great commission (Mt.24:14) being fulfilled was it not?   Are you advocating two great commissions with two different “end of the age(s)”?  If Jesus and Matthew are identifying the “end of the age” in (Mt.24:3) as the OC age in A.D. 70 – of which both you and DeMar are in agreement, then how hermeneutically does the “end of the age” in (Mt.28:18-20) get mystically changed to the end of the NC age which the Bible says has no end?  

The parables and a 40 year millennium

The parables also posit a 40 year time frame of Christ being Israel’s King and them refusing to submit to Him and thus judgment being rendered upon their city.  You briefly mentioned the eschatological marriage when the issue of the resurrection and millennium came up.  However Hank, Jesus is very clear in the Gospels and in Revelations that when God sent his “armies” (Zealots and Romans) to destroy the city, is the identical time frame that the Harlot is stoned and burned (Babylon = Jerusalem).  This destruction of the old covenant wife (city) and the marriage to the new, is inseparably tied to the resurrection and new creation (Isa.25:6-8; Isa.60-66; Jer.3; Hos.2; Mt.22:1-14; Rev.18-22). 

The “enemies” being put under Christ’s feet during this 40 year period were the old covenant “citizens” of the OC kingdom.  The Pharisees knew Jesus spoke of them in His parables and that when He would judge them is when the kingdom would be taken from them and given to the Church (Lk.19; Mt.21).  James Stuart Russell was in error on his physical rapture teachings and the idea that we are still in the millennium.  There are still some “preterists” teaching similar errors today and we are seeking to “cast down” these “vain imaginations” along with the other futuristic ones.                          

10)  Mt.22/Lk.20 Marriage in the “age to come” or Resurrection?

Please see pages 92-95 for my exegesis of this text.  Hank and Steven, is there childbirth in the “age to come” (Isa.65) or not?  Since the “end of the age” in (Mt.24:3) is the OC age, what age are we in now and are we in the NT’s  “age about to come” or not? 

“And whoever shall speak against the Son of Man may obtain forgiveness; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, neither in this nor in the coming (Greek mello) age shall he obtain forgiveness." (Matthew 12:32 WEY)

A better translation would read, "...nor in the age about to come." Christ lived on earth and the Apostles wrote their epistles while living in the old covenant mosaic age which was in the process of "passing away" (Hebs. 8:13, 2 Cor. 3:11) while anticipating the arrival of the "age to come" which corresponds to the Christian new covenant or Messianic age. All Christ is saying here is that whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit in the old or new covenant age, he shall not obtain forgiveness. If the "age to come" is referring to heaven then will Christians speak against the Holy Spirit in that age?  Will Christians have the ability to blaspheme God in heaven? If that is the case, wouldn’t we be better off down here For "he who is born of God cannot sin, nor will he, for His seed remains in him." (1 Jn. 3:9)?  No, this is speaking of the Christian age where the everlasting gospel is still being preached and thus the speaking against the Holy Spirit is a possibility.

11)  Type and Anti-Type

I understood what you were saying Steven about OT types and NT fulfillments.  I just object to those that would see the NT as teaching further types to another alleged anti-type at the end of history coming of Christ.  The NT writers taught that they (not us) were living in the days when all OT prophecy would be fulfilled (Lk.21:20-22, 1Pet.1:4-12, 1Cor.10:11).  I would also add (Acts 3:19-24).  Peter’s “perverse and crooked generation” within the immediate context is a reference to Israel’s “last days” generation of (Deut.32:5 &20).  It was this generation that would see the restoration of all things and the fulfillment of all the OT Scriptures which obviously included the resurrection of Isaiah 25 and Hosea 13 that Paul quotes in (1Cor.15).  If not why exegetically - why not? 

I have found both Dispensationalists and Postmillennial partial preterists use the NT and the events of AD 70 to say that this was a “type of world history” (James Jordan) or “prefigured something greater to come” (MacArthur).  The NT teaches this nowhere!  

12)  The “Historic” and “Orthodox” Position of the Church

Hank and Steven, is your position on water baptism the “historic” and “orthodox” position?  No, even Luther was confused on water baptism and the “orthodox” and “historic” creedal view of “one baptism” was bogus.  Oh, so changes can take place within the creeds.  Is the Pope the anti-christ?  Surely not.  I think it was Berkoff who described the church as an organic body growing in it’s understanding of Scripture and doctrine.    

“Reformed and always reforming” and “Sola Scriptura” – I hope you truly believe in these “orthodox” and “historic” cries of the Church.  I know I do. 

As you know in dealing with the cults if they don’t admit that the Scriptures have authority to formulate sound doctrine, an exchange is pointless.  I hope we truly have this common ground.  I find men like Gentry use Roman Catholic arguments I hope you won’t stoop to that level. 

Who was it that was told during a time in Church history when so many were denying the deity of Christ, “the whole world is against you.”  “Then I am against the world.”  In like spirit, if the “orthodox” world be against us, then so be it we are against the “orthodox” world. 

You asked if I thought the world was going to just keep on going.  I said I didn’t know for sure but quoted (Ecl.1:4) in which it is said that generations come and go “but the world abides forever.”  Having a more lengthy view of church history than perhaps most, your appeal to the “historic and orthodox views of the church” isn’t just a non-scriptural argument, but one subject to change over time.  1)  In essence it is a Roman Catholic argument on “church history” and “orthodoxy” and 2)  10,000 years from now what is the Church at that time going to consider the orthodox position on eschatology?  Are they still going to be saying that the Pope is the Anti-Christ and that they are living in the last days?  Since the Preterist view is the fastest growing eschatological position today, what is the “orthodox” position going to look like in 100 years let alone 10,000 years from now?

Hank and Steven, God is calling you to “continue” in doctrine not stop, compromise, and be comfortable like your friend R.C. Sproul.  We live in the most exciting time of Church history and I enjoy what I am doing and can sleep at night with my Gospel Eschatology being Exegetical Eschatology.  Offer up CRI like Abraham offered up Isaac and see what God will do. 

However, if you wish to stay in your current position and debate Don Preston – it will not go well with you.[13] 

I suggest that you organize an eschatology symposium with different views.  Thomas Ice and his crew, DeMar, Gentry; your position, and ours.  If your going to go down brother you might as well have DeMar and Gentry go with you.  They have been “ducking” us for years and are more accountable than you for their statements and errors.  I am not asking that you drop out of the debate with Preston, for those plans and commitment need to be honored, but as a primer to the debate please invite a wide variety of people from the various views to discuss eschatology on your program.  I don’t want everyone thinking that all full preterists are c.o.c. like Don, so please give Sam Frost and perhaps Ward Fenley some exposure as well.   

People told me recently that you feel that I’m not a Christian (being a full preterist) because of my view of Gospel Eschatology.  And yet that wasn’t the impression I got from you or your staff.  I hope you haven’t gone the Gary North route.  “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me.”    

13)  Living Faith Baptist Church – Pastor Michael Wadhams

Please attend at least one service and listen to this brother’s preaching.  If you don’t like it I will eat my shorts.  I will try and throw in a recent CD.  I know it can be tempting to attend mega churches in promoting C.R.I., but if you and your staff are truly interested in continuing in doctrine I would encourage sitting under Michael Wadhams.  They are currently studying issues that you are seeking to work through.  Hopefully they can get Ward to move down and employ him as a worship leader by next year. 

Employment

Hank, please pray and seek the Lord in regards to me being employed at CRI.  I truly believe this is where I belong and is the desire of my heart.  I had hoped that the Lord had more for my life than Waiting tables nearing the age of 40.  I just want to serve and help in any way I can knowing the exegetical challenges of C.R.I. in the coming years.  It is only the Biblical Preterist view in my opinion, that can deal not only with the Charismatic issue plaguing the Church today, but all the last days cults claiming “new or continued revelation.”  Jesus posits the end of Daniel’s 70 weeks prophecy at the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and that is when prophecy and vision were “sealed up.”  Sorry folks no gift of prophecy or new revelation post A.D. 70!  BTW see my section on Chuck Smith and Jon Courson in regards to “this generation” and how they are just as guilty as the cults in stretching out the years of “this generation” (pp.166ff.). 

I hope that this open letter has not completely shut the doors on any employment opportunities with C.R.I., but I felt a need to challenge you and your research staff in concluding that my position was not Biblical and yet never explaining why or even sending me a courtesy letter.  I also tried several times to follow-up on our conversation but the promise of getting in touch with me “in a couple of days” never was realized. 

May peace, faith, and courage be multiplied to both of you as you realize that God will never let you down and will always protect and provide for you – as He always has J.  Hope to see you again.      

In Christ,

Mike Sullivan

P.S. – My background and theological training - Mike Sullivan graduated Calvary Chapel Bible College (affiliated with Pastor and author Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa, CA), in 1988 and then went on to major in theology at The Master’s College (affiliated with Pastor and author John MacArthur) for a year and a half in the early 90’s.  If this open letter ends up on other sites (even full preterist sites) whereby my theology may differ with those sites – thus I feel a need to briefly explain my theology.  I am a 5 point supralapsarian Calvinist in my understanding of God’s sovereign grace.  I believe that Arminianism, Universalism, and Charismatic theology are humanistic doctrines.  I also reject any futuristic views of a literal “rapture” or resurrection at the end of time or biological death to be ant-biblical and places Christians under the curse of the law and robs them of living in the joys of the NC Creation right NOW.