House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to
When Shall These Things Be?
Chapter Four
The Eschatological Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be?
Part 10 – No More Death, Tears and Pain Revelation 21
Michael J. Sullivan
Copyright 2009 and 2013 – All rights reserved. No part of this
book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission
in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing
or Michael J. Sullivan), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical
articles or reviews.
Death, Tears, and Pain
Mathison and Kistemaker and all other futurists reason that because
death, tears, mourning, crying, and pain still exist today, Revelation 21:4
must not be fulfilled (196–197, 203, 250–251).
Response:
In Revelation 21:4 (YLT) we read that “the death shall not be any more.”
Every Reformed commentator agrees that this verse, along with 1 Corinthians
15:54–55, is describing a future-to-us end of “the death,” and
that “the death” refers to the death that came through Adam in Genesis
2:17. The Douay-Rheims translation renders that verse: “But of the tree
of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day so ever
thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.” The Good News Translation
makes it clear when “the death” would take place: “. . . except the tree that
gives knowledge of what is good and what is bad. You must not eat the fruit
of that tree; if you do, you will die the same day.”
“The death” that came through Adam the very day he sinned was
spiritual and not biological. (See David Green’s discussion of this verse
in his response to Strimple.) The abolition of biological death was never
the purpose of Christ’s redemptive work. In 1 Corinthians 15:55–57
(YLT) we read, “Where, O Death, thy sting? Where, O Hades, thy victory?’
And the sting of the death is the sin, and the power of the sin the
law; and to God—thanks, to Him who is giving us the victory through our
Lord Jesus Christ.” Whenever Paul uses the definite article “the” in front
of “law,” he is referring to Israel’s old covenant Torah. As 1 Corinthians
15:57 indicates, the Law was not abolished at the cross; but it was “soon”
to disappear, through the power of the Cross, at Christ’s Parousia in the
end of the old covenant age (Heb. 8:13–10:37).
Because “the death” is spiritual death (alienation from God) realized
through the commandment-breaker Adam and amplified or increased
under the Law of Moses (the old covenant), we can see how
God gave His elect the victory over “the death” in the end of the old
covenant age of condemnation. The fact that men die physically is in no
way evidence that the “spiritual conflict” of “the death” continues for the
church throughout the new covenant age.
God’s people under the old covenant, unlike God’s people today, experienced
covenantal and spiritual death (cf. Hosea 13:1–14, Isa. 25–27;
Eze. 37). What made physical death dreaded for the saints under the
old covenant was that they died with the awareness that their sins had
not yet been taken away. In the new covenant creation, Jesus promises
that whether we biologically die in Him or biologically live in Him, we
“never die” (John 11:25–26). This was not the case before Christ.
Thus under the old covenant, the residents of Jerusalem wept because
they did not have a lasting atonement or eternal redemption. They longed
and groaned for the day of Messiah’s salvation. Until that day would come,
they knew their sins were not put away (Heb. 9:26–28; 10:4, 11). The
promise that there would be no more mourning or crying or pain does
not refer to any and every kind of mourning, crying, and pain. It refers to
mourning, crying, and pain concerning God’s people being dead in sin under
the condemnation, curse, and slavery of God’s law. That sad Adamic
state is no more. In the Son, God’s people are “free indeed” (Jn. 8:36).
Athanasius wrote in his Festal Letters, iv. 3, “For when death reigned,
‘sitting down by the rivers of Babylon, we wept,’ and mourned, because we
felt the bitterness of captivity; but now that death and the kingdom of the
devil is “abolished, everything is entirely filled with joy and gladness. And
God is no longer known only in Judea, but in all the earth, ‘their voice hath
gone forth, and the knowledge of Him hath filled all the earth’” (iv. 3).
Under the old covenant, when David or the nation was exiled from
Zion and God’s city and temple, there was much inner pain, weeping,
and bondage that followed (2 Sam. 15:30; Ps. 137; Isa. 14:3; Isa. 22:4–5;
Jer. 9:1; 13:17; Jer. 22:9–10; Lam. 1:16; Joel 2:17). Under the new covenant,
the heavenly country and Jerusalem are not subject to being made
desolate or shaken by invading armies as was the old (Isa. 62:4; Heb.
12:27–28). The concept of the gates of the New Jerusalem always being
open, even at night (Isa. 60:11; Rev. 21:25), is not merely a picture of
evangelism; it is also a picture of security for the residents of God’s City.
The believer, through faith in Christ, is the new covenant creation and
it is impossible for him to be exiled from the City (2 Cor. 5:17; Rev. 3:12;
22:12). The new covenant believer is characterized as one whose weeping
has ended, because God has forever taken away his sin and united
Himself with him (Isa. 60:20; 65:14, 18–19; Jn. 17:21–23).
Christians in the new covenant world do not shed tears in agony
and cry out to God to save them from the Adamic Death of Sin, as Jesus
Himself did on our behalf (Heb. 5:7). “The sting [pain] of the Death” cannot
harm us anymore (1 Cor. 15:56) because the power of Sin has been
removed through Jesus, the Law-Fulfiller who clothes us and indwells
us. We have been redeemed from the world-body of Sin. Now we live
and reign with Christ in the new covenant world, wherein dwells the
Righteousness of God.
It is again noteworthy that Mathison avoids any mention of Paul’s
declaration that Satan would be “crushed” “shortly” (Rom. 16:20) in his
work on Postmillennialism and in his chapter addressing the time texts
in WSTTB. The reason for this is that the majority consensus among
all brands of commentators is that the “crushing” of Satan in Romans
16:20 is a direct reference to the final “crushing” of Satan as predicted
in Genesis 3:15 and Revelation 20. Manifestly, the judgment and wrath
that came in AD 70 was not merely “a” “minor” judgment. It was “the”
judgment. It was the crushing of Satan.
But Kistemaker and Mathison would challenge us with the empirical
reality that Death and Satan could not have met their ultimate demise
in AD 70 because, after all, just look around and you will clearly
see that people still physically die and that there are wars and murders
taking place all over the world today. Are these clear evidence that Satan
and his demonic hordes are active in our world?
There were certainly times that Satan moved men, such as Judas,
to commit sins. But the Bible does not teach us that this was ever the
norm. James tells us that wars and fights come from within men (Jms.
4:1) instead of from Satan and demons. Satan’s primary purpose has
come to an end: He can no longer function as the accuser of the brethren
(Rev. 12:10), because Christ came out of Zion a second time at the
end of the old covenant age to put away Sin once and for all for His
church (Acts 20:28; Rom. 11:26–27; 13:11–12; Heb. 9:26–28).
It has now been 4 years since I have responded to Keith A. Mathison’s chapter “The Eschatological Time Texts in the NT” in our book House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to When Shall These Things Be? For me Mathison’s excuse for not responding (“I have been too busy”) has expired.
Partial Preterist Mr. Gary North, has said that if one side of the debate ceases to respond to the others arguments then the one who has responded last (thus silencing the other) in essence has won the debate (my paraphrase). He has also written of dispensational scholars and their inability to keep up with postmillennial works and critiques, “Like a former athlete who dies of a heart attack at age 52 from obesity and lack of exercise, so did dispensational theology depart from this earthly veil of tears. Dispensational theologians got out of shape, and were totally unprepared for the killer marathon of 1988.” (Greg L. Bahnsen, Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., HOUSE DIVIDED THE BREAK-UPOF DISPENSATIONAL THEOLOGY (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), Publishers Foreword, xx.). In the same book DeMar claims that “Any theological position divided against itself is laid waste” and “shall not stand” and is guilty of “Theological Schizophrenia” (Ibid. 349-350). Apparently Mr. Mathison was not prepared for the killer marathon of 2009 and since that time has been too busy engorging himself from the profits P&R provided him and is simply too scared and out of shape to open our book let alone read and respond to my critique and response to him? And we document the “House Divided” “Theological Schizophrenia” and contradictory approach Reformed eschatology has sought to use against us let alone the contradictions (and yet at the same time progressive views moving towards Full Preterism) that are within Mathison’s writings alone.
Therefore, I have decided to post my chapter response to his online (in small parts) in hopes that both the Futurist and the Full Preterist communities will contact him for an official response. If no response continues to come, then I will allow him to be judged by the same standard that his own postmillennial partial preterist colleagues have set up, and accept that he is unable to respond and has lost our debate.
Categories: Uncategorized
