THE JUDGMENT AND RESURRECTION OF DANIEL 12:2-3 IN THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS (MATTHEW 13:39-43), PAUL (ACTS 17:31/24:15 YLT WEY) AND THE APOSTLE JOHN (JOHN 5:24-29/REVELATION 20:1-15).
BY: MICHAEL J. SULLIVAN
I have been amazed lately with how Partial Preterists have avoided the implications of their recent preterist views all the while claiming to be “apologists” and yet avoiding our questions/challenges sometimes for over 20 years and counting. From reading them, one would think that they have come up with these views without any interaction from Full Preterists over the years. Gary DeMar came to the conclusion that Matthew 24-25 was not divided without any letter or email exchanges and challenges from Full Preterists? Ken Gentry came to the conclusion that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 took place in AD 70 without any questioning and challenging from Full Preterists on this point over the years? Joel McDurmon came to the conclusion that the wheat and tares and the end of the age in Matthew 13:39-43 took place in AD 70 without Full Preterists influencing DeMar and then that trickling down to him? These men have not thought through the exegetical implications of their new found preterist views of key eschatological texts. And the surrendering of more passages will surely come in the near future.
Daniel 12:1-3/Matthew 13:39-43, 49/Acts 24:15 AD 70 Fulfillment Connection
At one time Mr. Gentry argued against the two judgments and resurrections of the historic premillennial and Dipsensational views connecting the resurrections of Daniel 12:2 with Acts 24:15 as one event,
Contrary to dispensationalism and historic premillennialism, there is but one resurrection and one judgment, which occur simultaneously at the end of history, see: Daniel 12:2;…Acts 24:15.
But only after over 20 years of Mr. Gentry ducking and avoiding our exegetical challenges which placed the resurrection of the just and unjust in Daniel 12:2-3 within the same historical time frame of all of the other AD 70 eschatological “all these things/events” in this chapter (v. 7), did Mr. Gentry decide to change his view acting as if he came to this conclusion all on his own,
‘In Daniel 12:1-2 we find a passage that clearly speaks of the great tribulation in AD 70.” “…But it also seems to speak of the resurrection occurring at that time…”
“Daniel appears to be presenting Israel as a grave site under God’s curse: Israel as a corporate body is in the “dust” (Da 12:2; cp. Ge 3:14, 19). In this he follows Ezekiel’s pattern in his vision of the dry bones, which represent Israel’s “death” in the Babylonian dispersion (Eze 37). In Daniel’s prophecy many will awaken, as it were, during the great tribulation to suffer the full fury of the divine wrath, while others will enjoy God’s grace in receiving everlasting life.”
It may take Mr. Gentry another 20 years to now address the exegetical implications of his newly found preterist conviction that the resurrection of Daniel 12;2-3 was fulfilled in AD 70. This of course begs the question of which we have now been asking/challenging Mr. Gentry – that being how in the same book, can he then turn around and claim that the “end of the age” judgment/resurrection/harvest of the wheat and tares in Matthew 13:39-43, 49 is “the last day resurrection…yet to occur” at “the end of history,”  when in fact Jesus specifically refers to the Daniel judgment/resurrection as taking place at the end of the Old Covenant age in AD 70. Gentry is not only unable to deal with our exegesis which identifies the “end of this age” in (Matt. 13:39-40) with the Old Covenant age in AD 70, he is equally unable to refute his own Partial Preterist colleagues whom come to the same conclusion identifying, the “end of the age” in (Matt. 13:39-40 and Matt. 24:3) with the Old Covenant age and not “the end of history” or the world,
A clear understanding of the parable of the wheat and tares emerges only after the proper translation of aion (age) and the biblical teaching concerning the two ages. It is clear that Jesus did not have in mind the end of the world, nor did He mean the final judgment. Rather, Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43 describe the judgment that would come upon unbelieving Jerusalem. During this time, the angels would “gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity” (13:41) and these would be judged with fire. Many of them literally were burned in fire during the destruction of Jerusalem. During this same time, however, the elect of Christ—“the children of the kingdom” (v. 38)—will be harvested. While the explanation of the parable does not tell us their final end, the parable itself has the householder instructing the harvesters to “gather the wheat into my barn.” In other words, they are protected and saved by God.
This, of course, is exactly what happened to the Christians. Not only were they saved in soul, but they mostly fled Jerusalem before the Roman siege. This was consequent to Jesus’ advice to flee and not look back once the sings arose (Matt. 24:16-22); indeed this would correspond with the angels’ work of harvesting the elect (24:30).
Joel McDurmon (Gary DeMar’s right hand man) even develops that the “end of the age” or “this age” as the Old Covenant age is to be followed by New Covenant “age to come” or equivalent statements to be a process between AD 30-AD 70 can be found in such NT passages as (Eph. 2:1-7, 3:8-11; 1 Cor. 10:11; Heb. 8:13/9:26). But what is missing? Well, you won’t find McDurmon mentioning the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 as being quoted by Jesus in Matthew 13:39-43 anywhere – let alone in how Pauline theology follows Jesus’ teaching on the end of the age associated with that resurrection! Once again we see the validity in the charge of an “arbitrary” or “inconsistent” hermeneutic being used by the Partial Preterist which leads to Full Preterism.
A co-author of Gary DeMar Peter Leithart, agrees that the parable and harvest of the wheat and tares was fulfilled in Jesus’ “this generation” and is not to be referenced as an end of the world judgment.
So we have reformed Partial Preterists such as Mathison who have yet to deal with how the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 can exegetically be separated from all of the other AD 70 “all these things” fulfillments of (Daniel 12:1-7), and Partial Preterists like Gentry whom now claims it happened in AD 70, but are unwilling to accept that Jesus places this resurrection to take place at the end of the Old Covenant age in AD 70 and not at the “last day” of “the end of history.”
But there’s more! Since Jesus identified Daniel’s judgment and resurrection of the just and unjust to take place at the end of the Old Covenant age, then we would expect Paul to use the same text and apply it’s fulfillment to be within a first century time frame as well. The Apostle Paul taught:
· The end of the Old Covenant age(s) would take place within the lifetime of the first century church (1 Cor. 10:11/Matt. 13:39-40).
· He taught no other doctrine except which could be found in the law and prophets (Acts 26:21-23/Matt. 5:17-19).
· As the Old Covenant age was ending Paul taught the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 was imminent, “having hope toward God, which they themselves also wait for, that there is about to be a rising again of the dead, both of righteous and unrighteous;” (Acts 24:15/Matt. 13:39-43).
There is only ONE passage found in the OT “law and prophets” which addresses a resurrection for the just and unjust or the righteous and unrighteous and that is Daniel 12:2-3. This is clearly Paul’s source in Acts 24:15 which virtually any commentary will agree,
The resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous is based on the prophecy of the end in Dan. 12:2-3, which indicates two groups of people, some being raised to eternal life and others to eternal reproach and shame, and then refers to the “righteous” (Θ) or to “righteousness” (MT). Clearly this passage lies behind Paul’s statement, although the wording is different.
Again, perhaps it will take Gentry and other Partial Preterists another 20 years of ducking and avoiding Full Preterist exegesis to reconcile how the Bible teaches that there is “one resurrection” and “one judgment” at “the last day” which takes place at the end of the Old Covenant age in AD 70 and was therefore, “about to” take place in the first century (Daniel 12:2-3/Matt. 13:39-43, 49; 24-25:31-46/Acts 17:31YLT, WEY/Acts 24:15 YLT, WEY)?!?
Partial Preterist James Jordan understands the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3, and Daniel’s personal resurrection in (v. 13) as a spiritual and evangelistic resurrection/process for Israel which took place between Jesus’ earthly ministry to AD 70–with Daniel himself being raised and reigning after the tribulation period in the resurrection of Revelation 20. He believes this was a corporate resurrection for the Church which took place at this time. I of course would agree that the NT develops the resurrection from an “already”–transforming/becoming–not yet process. But the “righteous” “shinning” in Daniel 12:2-3 would refer to the “not yet” or glorification phase of the resurrection taking place at the end of the Old Covenant age, and not the process. Jordan fails to elaborate on Jesus’ use of Daniel 12:2-3 in Matthew 13:39-43 but instead applies it to the process of Matthew 13:1-23. Since many commentators understand the seed parables within this chapter to be descriptive of the same time period it may be that verses 1-23 describe the process while verses 39-43, 49 definitely describe the consummation or “not yet” to this resurrection.
There is a reason why Partial Preterist’s such as Mathison, Gentry, DeMar, McDurmon and Jordan are reluctant to identify the resurrection of the just and unjust in Daniel 12:2-3 with “end of the [Old Covenant] age” in AD 70 and then elaborate on how the rest of the NT develops this imminent resurrection. They are afraid of becoming “unorthodox.” As Gary North has written,
“Anyone who equates the fulfillment of [the parable of the wheat and tares] with A.D. 70 has broken with the historic faith of the church.”
North at least (I think) sees the implications of taking this passage as fulfilled in AD 70 – and how the rest of the NT would develop it. And yet as we have seen, North’s own son-in-law Joel McDurmon, has done just that—but carefully avoiding any discussion of Daniel’s resurrection (which Jesus is referring to) as being fulfilled at that time! Partial Preterists continue to steal Full Preterist exegesis and views giving the impression that they have come to these positions on their own—while at the same time ducking/avoiding the implications of their ever evolving “Inconsistent Orthodox” views. Selah. Lord willing McDurmon will begin answering some questions on the implications of him “breaking with the historic faith of the church” as Paul likewise applies the passage to AD 70.
Gentry seeking to refute our interpretation of Luke 21:20-22 writes,
“Thus, Jesus is referring to all things written in the Old Testament. At this stage of redemptive history those are the only prophecies that had already been written.”
“Furthermore, technically it does not even refer to any prophecy which Christ speaks. For these are not prophecies that have already been written. That being the case, the final resurrection (for instance) is outside of this declaration (Jn 5:28-29).”
“Yet we know that more prophecies arise later in the New Testament revelation.”
Gentry believes that hyper-preterists (and apparently the majority of Christianity for instance) whom believe Matthew 24:27-31/Luke 21:27-28 is a prophecy of the Second Coming are “naïve.” Surely men such as Gentry and Mathison understand that the Second Coming and resurrection was indeed predicted in the OT and apart of the law and prophets that Jesus says He came to fulfill (Mt. 5:17-18)? In Matthew’s gospel Jesus applies His coming upon the clouds of heaven with His Second Coming (Dan. 7:13/Matt. 16:27-28; 24:27, 30-31—25:31ff./Luke 21:27/Rev. 1:7, 13-17). Partial Preterists such as Gentry and Mathison are the ones who “naively assume” (Gentry’s term) what they haven’t proven – that the above texts are not (or may not be) Second Coming passages. Unfortunately for these men, the majority of Christianity along with Full Preterists can prove through sound exegesis and the analogy of Scripture that they are indeed referring to the one Second Coming event. The trumpet call and gathering/catching away/change of Matthew 24:31/1 Thessalonians 4:16/1 Corinthians 15:52 is grounded in Isaiah’s little apocalypse (Isa. 24—28) specifically Isaiah 27:13. When this trumpet sounded death would be swallowed up and the resurrection of Isaiah 25-26 would be fulfilled. And as we have seen already, since Jesus has identified the gathering at the end of the Old Covenant age in Matthew 13:39-43, 49 with the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 and virtually all concur that this gathering at the end of the age is the same as Matthew 24:2, 31, then the “all things written” of (Luke 21:22) would again include this OT resurrection text with AD 70.
And what of Gentry’s distinction between what was written and what Jesus was orally teaching? Uh, well Jesus’ teaching as was the Apostle Paul’s, included fulfilling all of the law and prophets (Matt. 5:17-19/Acts 26:21-23) and Gentry also fails to see the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 as Jesus’ source in John 5:28-29 as others have. It appears that Gentry seems to be implying what Mathison is in that the Second Coming was not really a doctrine developed by Jesus or the OT, but rather by the Apostle Paul.
The Daniel 12:2-3/Matthew 13:39-43, 49/Acts 24:15/Revelation 20:1-15 AD 70 Fulfillment Connection
To further demonstrate that the millennium of Revelation 20 is roughly a forty year “this generation” transition period between the Old and New Covenants and that the judgment and resurrection of the dead in this chapter takes place during the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, I will allow the views and exegesis of Mathison, Gentry and Kistemker to once again make our case. I will also use the rest of the NT to testify and solidify our points as to the inspired time frame of fulfillment.
The Partial Preterist position of Mathison and Gentry instructs the church that Revelation 1-19 is the judgment upon Jerusalem in AD 70. We of course agree. And yet Kistemaker claims that Revelation 20 recapitulates or uses “progressive parallelism” to describe the same time frame and judgment/salvation scene as shown in chapters 1-19 finding their fulfillment at the end of the age (242, 246-247, 254). Therefore, the “organic development” of these two “orthodox” interpretations/positions is that the millennium of Revelation 20 recapitulates the AD 30-70 fulfillment already depicted in chapters 1-19. If men such as Kistemaker and Strimple would stop spiritualizing the imminent time texts away in the book of Revelation and Mathison and Gentry would submit to the exegetical fact that Revelation 20 is recapitulating the same judgment of the dead and consummation depicted in the previous chapters, then there would be no problem reaching a consensus that the thousands years is a symbolic of a “this generation” time period between Christ first and second appearing’s. Selah.
Another point I would like to bring out is that the eschatological events that take place “after” the thousand years are “over” also fall within the AD 70 time period. I agree with Kistemaker’s criticism of Russell’s view of the millennium,
“Indeed, they [Russell & I would add Partial Preterists] claim that everything in the Apocalypse, with the exception of Revelation 20:5-10, has been fulfilled. But it is puzzling why these six verses are excluded, because they are an integrated part of chapter 20.” (246-247, brackets MJS).
If I can further demonstrate the first century fulfillment of these events that take place after the millennium, it will not only buttress the forty year millennial view, but at the same time refute some Partial Preterist’s who view the millennium as still taking place or some Premillennial Partial Preterists whom actually think “a” pariousia or “the” one and only parousia took place in AD 70 but the millennium actually began in (not ending by) AD 70.
We concur with our opponents that John was already in the millennium – “what is now” (Rev. 1:19). Thus the “binding” of Satan here began with the earthly ministry of Jesus. Therefore, Christians were already being raised and reigning on thrones, the saints were already a kingdom of priests (Matt. 12:25-29; Eph. 2:5-7; John 5:24; 1 Pet. 2:5). J. Marcellus Kik makes a good case that Revelation 20:4 is describing the lives of the saints while upon the earth (preferring the ARV translation of the text),
In the King James version the verbs sat, was given, lived, reigned, are in one tense; while the verbs had worshipped, had received, are in another. But in the Greek the same tense is used for all—the aorist. Since they are all in the same tense they must refer to the same time. That is, the time of not worshipping the beast and not receiving his mark is the same time as that of sitting on thrones and living and reigning with Christ.
He translates “psuchai” in verse 4 as, “And I beheld the lives of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus” indicating that they were already reigning and living victorious lives upon the earth through the work of Christ on the cross and the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit before they were martyred.
While John is living during the time of the millennium, the inspired time frame for Revelation’s fulfillment demands that he is now standing towards the end or consummation of it–the things which John was told would “shortly” take place “later” (Rev. 1:1, 19). John was told that no part of the vision was to be sealed up, because it was all to be fulfilled shortly and nowhere are we told that the millennium is not a part of that vision. If the millennium was not a part of the vision to be fulfilled shortly, we would expect John to be given instruction to seal at least that portion of the vision since it’s time of fulfillment would be “far off” – as Daniel was instructed. It is the Partial Preterist eisegesis of Mathison and Gentry which separates the imminent fulfillment of the millennium from the rest of the “at hand” prophecy. Although not a Full Preterist, Vern Pothress points out the inconsistency of the Partial Preterist view of Mathison and Gentry as we do,
“But 1:3 and 22:10 are like bookends enclosing the whole prophecy of Revelation. The fulfillment of everything, not just a part, is near.”
The Fulfillment of the Great Commission
The purpose of the binding of Satan is that he can no longer deceive the nations – so that the commandment of the Great Commission could be fulfilled by the end of the age (Mark 13:10; Matt. 28:18-20). But the NT teaches us that the Great Commission to all the nations was fulfilled by the end of the Old Covenant age:
“And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world (Greek oikumene) for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come” (Matthew 24:14)
“But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed:
‘Their sound has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world (Greek oikumene)” (Romans 10:18)
“And the gospel must first be published among all nations (Greek ethnos)” “And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, (Greek ethnos)…” “…I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.” (Mark 13:10; Mt.28:19-20)
“…My gospel… has been made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures has been made known to all nations (Greek ethnos)…” (Romans 16:25-26)
“And He said to them, ‘Go into all the world(Greek kosmos) and preach the gospel to every creature” “…And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues (Greek glossa) (Mark 16:15, 17)
“…of the gospel, which has come to you, as it has also in all the world(Greek kosmos), as is bringing forth fruit…,” (Colossians 1:5-6).
And he said unto them ‘Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature (Greek kitisis) “ (Mark 16:15)
“…from the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature (Greek kitisis) under heaven, of which I, Paul became a minister” (Colossians 1:23)
“But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth/land (Greek ge)” (Acts 1:8).
Prophecy had begun to be fulfilled: “And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues (Greek glossa), as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation (Greek ethnos) under heaven.
“But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed: ‘Their sound has gone out to all the earth/land (Greek ge), and their words to the ends of the world” (Romans 10:18)
Prophecy would be fulfilled “shortly” : “And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth/land (Greek ge), and to every nation (Geek ethnos), and kindred (Greek phule) and tongue (Greek glossa), and people, (Greek laos)” (Rev.1:1; Rev.14:6). See also Revelation 10:6-7; 20:3; 22:10-11 in regards to the Great Commission’s success to the “nations” of Israel and the Roman Empire along with imminent time of fulfillment.
God’s new Israel – the Church would accomplish the salvation of the remnant within a “short” period and “all nations” of “the world” would hear the gospel and bring forth fruit (Rom. 1:8; 9:28; 10:18; 16:25-26; Col. 1:5-6, 23). Per Kistemaker’s reasoning, if the Great Commission to the nations has been fulfilled, then the Church is no longer in the millennium (WSTTB?, 250). We agree. Partial Preterists have now surrendered “the end of the age” in Matthew 13:39-40 and Matthew 24:2 to be the Old Covenant age. Therefore, it is pure eisegesis to then approach Matthew 28;18-20 and then claim the term means the end of history etc…
The First Resurrection and the Resurrection of the “Rest of the Dead”
Those participating in the “first resurrection” is a subject that has been previously addressed in chapters 7 and 14 – these being the first century Jewish “first fruits” or 144,000 that were the first to believe in Christ and continued enduring through the great tribulation until the end. Therefore, they would partake in the harvest/resurrection at the end of the Old Covenant age. These are those who were coming out of their “graves” through the preaching of the gospel (John 5:24-27) and would soon participate and be joined with the rest of the dead in the consummative resurrection event.
In verse 5 “the rest of the dead” participate in the resurrection “after” the thousand years are over. This refers to the end time “harvest” at “the end of the [Old Covenant] age” encompassing the “all” of (John 5:28-29). This included not only all of the righteous dead pre-AD 70 but also that of unbelievers (Daniel 12:2/Matt. 13:39-43, 49). Therefore, we have the raising of all the dead, the emptying of Hades, the great judgment (along with Satan’s imminent judgment Rom. 16:20) taking place shortly after the millennium (20:10-14). The analogy of Scripture confirms this imminent end to the millennium period by describing the same imminent resurrection of all the dead and the judgment of the world, “…there is about to be a rising again of the dead, both of righteous and unrighteous; (Acts 24:15 YLT WEY). “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;” (Rom. 8:18 YLT, WEY). Contextually the glory “about to be” revealed in them was the “redemption of the body” in v. 23 and becoming sons of God in the New Creation.
Martyr Vindication, Satan’s Imminent Judgment and THE War
“After” the success of the Great Commission and at the end of the thousand year’s period, Satan is released for a “short” or “little while” (Rev. 20:3). In chapter 6 we are told that the martyrs are to wait a “short” or “little while” until the rest of their fellow brethren have been martyred (Rev. 6:10-11). This would be followed with God avenging and judging those who participated in their persecutions – “For the great day of their wrath has come and who can stand?” (Rev. 6:17). In Revelation 12:5-12 we see the same motifs to what we have seen in Revelation 6 and 20 — previous suffering followed by a “short” or “little while” of more to come, and then an imminent judgment upon their enemies. The “great city” or “Babylon” where Jesus was slain and whom God holds responsible for shedding the blood of the prophets and the saints is none other than Jerusalem (Rev. 11:8, 18:20, 24).
The analogy of Scripture confirms this. This “little while” time frame of Satan’s last persecution (through the Jews and Romans) and thus the martyrs having to wait “a little while” longer before justice is wielded out upon their persecutors is consistent with Jesus’ teaching that all of the blood of the martyrs of the prophets and those Jesus would send to Jerusalem would be avenged in a first century “this generation” with her “house/temple” being left “desolate” (Matt. 23:31-38). Pauline eschatology weighs in as well describing the same first century Jewish persecution and the Thessalonians being promised “relief” from God through Him giving their enemies the same kind of “trouble” they were giving them through Christ coming down from heaven in “blazing fire” “punishing” them with “everlasting destruction” along with the Man of Lawlessness (1 Thess. 2:14-16; 2 Thess. 1:5—2:12). Mathison believes this coming of the Lord and “everlasting destruction” and “punishment” of “fire” in (2 Thess. 1-2) was fulfilled in AD 70 paralleling much of this material with Matthew 24 for exegetical evidence. And yet all of the same elements that are present in Revelation 6, 12, 16 and 20 are present in 1 and 2 Thessalonians! The first century persecuted church wouldn’t have to wait much longer because the Man of Lawlessness (Mathison identifying as Nero) was “already” present through the work of Satan himself – awaiting “the rebellion” and then his judgment (2 Thess. 2:3-10). Once again Mathison is creedally selective in making AD 70 fulfillment “parallels” between 1 Thessalonians 2 and 5 and 2 Thessalonians 1-2 with that of Matthew 24 and neglecting those parallels concerning the resurrection of the dead found in 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 and Matthew 24:30-31. The paralleling of 1 and 2 Thessalonians with Matthew 24 and the book of Revelation, gives us the same time frame for the end of the millennium in Revelation 20: 1) The Thessalonians were already in the millennium, 2) They were being persecuted, 3) They were promised relief in their lifetimes, 4) Lord comes to close the millennium by destroying The Beast/Man of Sin with everlasting destruction and punishment and 5) raise the dead.
There are four main enemies of God and His saints in the book of Revelation and they are introduced in chapter 12 and onward in the order of Satan, the sea beast, the land beast and or false prophet and Babylon. As Revelation progresses their defeat in judgment is pictured in reverse order. These are different scenes of the same end time persecution and judgment of God’s enemies. Kistemaker understands the timing of the judgment scene and the casting of Satan into the lake of fire in 20:10 as the “presumed place” where the great harlot is burned with fire in 17:16. And he most definitely affirms that this takes place “at the same time” the beast and false prophet are cast into this fiery lake 19:20. Kistemaker affirms that there is only one final war or end time judgment in Revelation and it is consistently referred to in John’s use of the Greek phrase “to gather them for the war” in (Rev. 16:14; 19:19; 20:8) (244-245).  Strimple in a debate with Gentry over the millennium makes the same point, “In 16:14 kings are called forth to the battle. In 19:19 the beast and the kings of the earth come forth to the battle. In 20:8 Satan leads his host up to the battle. It seems clear that these three texts describe not three battles but one.” And yet Partial Preterists such as Mathison and Gentry understand “the war” of (Rev. 16:14), the burning of the Harlot in (Rev. 17:6) and the judgment of the false prophet and beast being thrown into lake of fire in (Rev. 19:20) as being fulfilled by AD 70. Once again we can readily see how Full Preterism is the organic development of our opponent’s views and effectively “bridges the gap” between them.
Let me briefly give two more texts regarding the judgment and destruction of Satan which further develops my point. Most reformed commentators correctly understand that the timing of Satan being thrown into the lake of fire in Revelation 20:10 is equivalent to him being “crushed” “shortly” in (Romans 16:20/Genesis 3:15). Partial Preterists such as Gentry inform us that this time statement along with all of the other NT imminent time statements refers to AD 70. And yet the majority of reformed commentators understand these passages to be addressing the “not yet” consummation of biblical eschatology (ie. the final defeat of Satan at the end of the millennium – followed with the Adamic curse of death being destroyed for the Church in the New Creation). Likewise, as stated previously, Mathison along with Partial Preterists such as Gary DeMar no longer divide Matthew 24-25 into two comings of Christ with two judgments – separated by thousands or millions of years. This necessitates that the judgment of the dead, with that of Satan and his angels into “everlasting punishment” would take place in Jesus’ “this generation” (Matt. 24:34—25:31-46). Again, most reformed commentators correctly understand Matthew 25:31-46 to be a depiction of the final second coming and the same “not yet” consummation judgment scene as taking place at the end of the millennium in Revelation 20:10. If Mathison and Gentry along with their other futurist colleagues become Full Preterists, then they can truly be said to be in “shoulder to shoulder unity” concerning last things – and not the blatant contradictions we find in their writings.
Earth and Sky Fled
In verse 11 we read, “Earth and sky fled from his presence,..” For Full Preterists and men such as Kistemaker this same de-creation event has already been recapitulated in connection with the Second Coming of Jesus in (Rev. 6:14 and Rev. 16:20) and will re-surface shortly in the next chapter (Rev. 21:1). But for Mathison and Gentry, the de-creation events depicted in (Rev. 6:14; Rev. 16:20 and Rev. 21:21) were “non-literally” fulfilled or are the removal of “Israel’s world” or the Old Covenant world in AD 70 being “parallel” to the AD 70 fulfillments found in Matthew 24:15-31. The question begging to be answered of course is, why can’t Gentry’s comments of an imminent de-creation non-literal fulfillment of Revelation 21:1 be applied to Revelation 20:11,
The description of the new creation and New Jerusalem bride-city extends from Revelation 21:1 to 22:5. Following immediately upon that, we read: “The angel said to me, ‘These words are trustworthy and true. The Lord, The God of the spirits of the prophets, sent his angel to show his servants the things which must soon take place’” (22:6 italics added). And for good measure, four verses later John adds: “Then he told me, ‘Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, because the time is near’” (22:10, italics added). A delay of several thousand years would override sound exegesis of these clear temporal statements.
Again, we must ask – How does Revelation 20:1-15 get separated from “the prophecy of this book” of which was said to be fulfilled “soon” and “near”?!? The truth of course once again lies in the middle of the two views – the de-creation of Revelation 6:14; 16:20; 20:11 and 21:1 are all depictions of the same events and were fulfilled “non-literally” and referring to the passing of “Israel’s world” or the Old Covenant world in AD 70 at Christ’s Second Coming.
The Dead Were Judged
In verses 12-15 the dead are judged, Hades gives up the dead and those whose names were not written in the book of life were thrown into the lake of fire. For Kistemaker, such passages as Revelation 2:23; 3:5; 6:17; 11:18; 16:14; 20:5, 12-15; 22:10-12; Daniel 12:1-2; Matthew 25:31-46 all refer to ONE final judgment at the end of the age. We agree, but it is the end of the Old Covenant age that the NT places this judgment and not the New Covenant age or end of world history. Between Mathison and Gentry, all of the above judgment passages were fulfilled at the end of the Old Covenant age in AD 70 except Revelation 20:5-15 allegedly being the exception. And yet all of the rewards (to be presented at the judgment) for the churches in Revelation 1-3 were to be given when Christ was to come soon and correspond to inheriting the New Creation in Revelation 21 – of which Mathison and Gentry claim arrived in AD 70. If the New Creation follows the millennium (and those events that take place soon after the millennium) in Revelation 20:1-15, then the judgment of the dead had to have taken place imminently at that time as well. To this we need to turn to the rest of Scripture for confirmation.
They will give an account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead.” “…But the end of all things is at hand; therefore be serious and watchful in your prayers.” (1 Pet. 4:5, 7).
And in the same context Peter in verse 17 uses the definite article to emphasize he is referring to “THE time” of “THE judgment,” not just “a” minor one in AD 70,
“For the time has come for the judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?” (1 Pet. 4:17).
“…because He did set a day in which He is about to judge the world in righteousness, by a man whom He did ordain, having given assurance to all, having raised him out of the dead” (Acts 17:31 YLT, WEY).
“I solemnly implore you, in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who is about to judge the living and the dead, and by His Appearing and His Kingship:” (2 Tim. 4:1 WEY, YLT).
Kistemaker once again confirms the judgment of the dead in Revelation 20:12-13 is one Day of Judgment and has already been addressed in the previous chapters “…sixth seal (6:17), the seventh trumpet (11:18), and the sixth bowl (16:14) all refer to the moment when the great Day of Judgment comes. John presents his Apocalypse in a cyclical manner and looks at God’s revelation from different perspectives. “And the rest of the dead lived not until the thousand years were completed” (20:5a). Here as well as in 20:12–13 the term alludes to all people: some receive rewards and others condemnation.
But in order for Gentry and Mathison to take the time texts literally in the NT and in the book of Revelation, they have to invent two judgments of the dead in order to stay “orthodox” when the analogy of the Scripture truly only affirms one judgment of the dead at the end of the Old Covenant age connected with one Second Coming.
Partial Preterists over the last 20 years have avoided our arguments for placing the resurrection of the just and unjust in AD 70 – Daniel 12:1-7. But now recently they are coming out in print claiming it was fulfilled in AD 70 – as if they came to this conclusion all on their own – lol. But it may take another 20 years before they can deal with the implications of their preterist interpretations of Daniel 12:2-3 being fulfilled at the end of the Old Covenant age in AD 70 and how Paul and John apply this resurrection with AD 70 as well.
 Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., THE GREATNESS OF THE GREAT COMMISSION, (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990,) 142, bold emphasis MJS.
 Kenneth L. Gentry Jr. HE SHALL HAVE DOMINION (Draper, VA: Apologetics Group Media, 2009 Third edition), 538.
 Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, Ibid., 235 n. 70, 243.
 Joel McDurmon, Jesus v. Jerusalem A COMMENTARY ON LUKE 9:51 – 20:26, JESUS’ LAWSUIT AGAINST ISRAEL (Powder Springs, GA: The American Vision, Inc., 2011), 48-49, see entire section 43-51.
 Peter J. Leithart, The Promise of His Appearing: An Exposition of Second Peter (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2004), 95.
 Keith A. Mathison, WHEN SHALL THESE THINGS BE? A REFORMED RESPONSE TO HYPER-PRETERISM, (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2004,) 160-161. In his newer book FROM AGE TO AGE THE UNFOLDING OF ESCHATOLOGY, (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2009) 281, Mathison believes that the majority of scholars “rightly understand” Daniel 12:1-3 as a [future] time for a [biological] bodily resurrection for all believers. In this same book he no longer divides Matthew 24-25 into two comings or two judgments – applying “both sections” (as some PP have interpreted the passage) to AD 70, 371-380. Since Mathison no doubt can see the implications of taking “the end of the age” in Matthew 24-25 as the Old Covenant age (as PP Gary DeMar and Joel McDurmon do) with that of Matthew 13:39-43, Mathison claims we just don’t know for sure because Jesus was “not specific,” 373. How convenient.
 Beale, G. K., & Carson, D. A., Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, UK: Baker Academic; Apollos, 2007), 598, bold emphasis MJS.
 James B. Jordan, THE HANDWRITING ON THE WALL A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, Inc., 2007), 618-628.
 See our book House Divided, 89-90 n. 26.
 Dominion, 544.
 Ibid., 544.
 Ibid. 544.
 Mathison, FROM AGE TO AGE, 365-366 n. 92.
 Mathison, Postmillennialism, 139-154. Kenneth L. Gentry, THE BOOK OF REVELATION MADE EASY You Can Understand Bible Prophecy, (Powder Springs: GA: American Vision, Inc., 2008), 13-98.
 Kistemaker, S. J., & Hendriksen, W. Vol. 20: New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Book of Revelation. New Testament Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1953-2001), 10, 65, 266, 530–549.
 J. Marcellus Kik, An Eschatology of VICTORY, (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing CO., 1971), 228.
 Kik, Ibid., 227.
 Vern S. Poythress, THE RETURNING KING A GUIDE TO THE BOOK OF REVELATION, (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2000), 34. Bold emphasis MJS.
 Mathison, Postmillennialism, 227-233.
 Kistemaker, S. J., & Hendriksen, Ibid., 544.
 Kistemaker, S. J., & Hendriksen, Ibid., 450.
 Craig A. Blaising, Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., Rober B. Strimple, THREE VIEWS ON THE MILLENNIUM AND BEYOND, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999), 125, bold emphasis MJS.
 Mathison, Postmillennialism, 153. Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., FOUR VIEWS ON THE BOOK OF REVELATION, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 81.
 Gentry, THREE VIEWS ON THE MILLENNIUM, 246.
 Kistemaker, S. J., & Hendriksen, W. Vol. 20: New Testament Commentary : Exposition of the Book of Revelation. New Testament Commentary, 546.
 Mathison, Postmillennialism, 148-149, 153. Kenneth L. Gentry Jr. HE SHALL HAVE DOMINION, 141-142.
 Gentry, FOUR VIEWS ON THE BOOK OF REVELATION, 87.
 Kistemaker, S. J., & Hendriksen, Ibid., 344).