By: Michael J. Sullivan

This article will focus on Kenneth Gentry’s confusing comments about the disciples question concerning “the end of the age” in Matthew 24:3 and Mr. Gentry’s admission that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 was a corporate body resurrection for the Church in AD 70 and is not addressing a fleshly corpose resurrection at the end of time. It is my proposition that: 1) Gentry’s position that the NT imminent time texts “demand” an AD 70 fulfillment and that Daniel 12:2-3 and Matthew 24:30-31 were fulfilled by AD 70 is correct and 2) That the standard Reformed position which understands these passages to be referring to the general resurrection (connected to Matthew 13; John 5; 1 Cor. 15; 1 Thess. 4; Rev. 20) is also an exegetically sound proposition to take. However we need to press the question as to which church tradition and public confessions and creeds concerning the end of the age/the age to come and the resurrection are “infallibly certain” and which ones aren’t: 1) the partial preterist view or 2) the classic amillennialists view? And is it possible to bring the two together to form a more exegetical and orthodox (“straight”) position on the timing and spiritual nature of the general resurrection as defended by the Biblical preterist position of the author?    

Gentry’s confusion on the “end of the age” in Matthew 24:3

Here is what I was trying to reconcile in Gentry’s writings on the “end of the age” as both taking place in AD 70, and yet also allegedly being a reference to the end of the world?

“Christ’s teaching here is extremely important to redemptive history.  He is responding to the question of His disciples regarding when the end of the “age” (Gk., aion) will occur (24:3).  In essence, His full answer is:  when the Romans lay waste the temple…”[1]

“The change of the age is finalized and sealed at the destruction of Jerusalem; allusions to the A.D. 70 transition abound:  “Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste of death till they see the kingdom of God present with power” (Mark 9:1)”[2] 

And therefore this “change of the age” and one of the “allusions to the AD 70 transition” judgment of this change can be found earlier on in John the Baptist’s teaching,  

“Matthew records John’s warning that “the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire” (3:10).  Here John draws his imagery from God’s judgment against Assyria (Isa. 10:33-34):  that sort of judgment soon will break upon Israel.  Indeed, “his winnowing fork is in his hand” already (Matt. 3:12).”[3]

R.C. Sproul claims that a “fundamental” hermeneutic of “preterism” (partial or full), is the interpretation that the “end of the age” harvest/judgment in Matthew 3 and 13 was fulfilled by AD 70:

“Fundamental to preterism is the contention that the phrase “the end of the age” refers specifically to the end of the Jewish age and the beginning of the age of the Gentiles, or church age.  J. Suart Russell begins his exposition of this concept by referring to the content of Matthew 13:” 

“…Kosmos in ver. 38, 40, refers to a period of time, and should be rendered age or epock… It is of the greatest importance to understand correctly the true meaning of this word, and of the phrase “the end of the aion, or age.”  Aion is, as we have said, a period of time, or an age.  It is exactly equivalent to the Latin word aevum, which is merely aion in a Latin dress; and the phrase, sun-teleia tou aionos, translated in our English version, “the end of the world, should be “the close of the age.”

Russell argues that the end of the age signals not merely an “end,” but a consummation of one age that is followed immediately by another.  This was part of the traditional view of the Jews with regard to their Messiah.  The new age that would be called the “kingdom of heaven.”  The existing age was the Jewish dispensation, which was drawing to a close.  This idea was central to the preaching of John the Baptist, who spoke of the time that was “at hand.”[4]

Indeed the analogy of Scripture principle of interpretation and that of the majority of commentaries (Reformed and Evangelical) tie the harvest/judgment of Matthew 3:2-12, Matthew 13:40-43, with that of Christ gathering His elect at His coming at the “end of the age” in Matthew 24:3-31. This of course begs the question as to which is a more “orthodox” and exegetical interpretation to embrace in these texts–preterism or futurism? In the above quotes Gentry in Matthew 24:3 and Matthew 3:10-12 along with Sproul, seem to take these passages to be clearly teaching that the end of the age happened in AD 70. But let’s now examine where Gentry’s “eschatological schizophrenia” sets in.     

In the same debate with Thomas Ice, Gentry writes,

“In these questions we sense once again the bewilderment among the disciples at Jesus’ teaching—a bewilderment such as is seen elsewhere in Matthew, as in their confusion about the “leaven of the Pharisees” (16:6-12), Christ’s death (vv. 21-23), the purpose of the Transfiguration (17:4-5), Christ’s interest in children (19:13-15), and the nature of kingdom service (20:20-25).  Quite clearly Christ divides their question into two episodes in His answer:  (1) He speaks about the coming Great Tribulation resulting in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70 (24:4-34, which is in “this generation,” v. 34); and (2) His distant future second coming at the end of history (24:36-25:46, which is after a “long time,” 25:19).”[5]

It is important for Gentry to assume the disciples were “bewildered” so that Gentry (like all futurists) can eisegetically slip in the concept that the discourse has something to do about a coming of Christ to end the planet. Gentry has sought to clarify what he meant by the disciples “bewilderment” and their alleged false assumption of the “end of the age in Matthew 24:3 by writing to me,

“I hold that the disciples assumed (wrongly) the destruction of the temple would mean the end of the world.

Philo assumed its perpetual endurance: “The temple has for its revenues not only portions of land, but also other possessions of much greater extent and importance, which will never be destroyed or diminished; for as long as the race of mankind shall last, the revenues likewise of the temple will always be preserved, being coeval in their duration with the universal world” (Spec. 1:76).

Josephus records that the Jews “put your trust in the walls of Jerusalem” (J.W. 2:16:4 [378] LCL).”[6]

Yet, once again, Sproul claims to assume that the disciples were asking a question grounded in making a “false assumption” that the temples destruction—end of the age—and coming of the Son of man, were not apart of the same eschatological event, is simply not a hermeneutical distinctive of either partial or full preterism,

“Calvin regarded as erroneous the disciples’ assumption that the destruction of Jerusalem would coincide with the coming of Christ and the end of the world.  This means that Jesus was answering a question that contained false assumptions.  The preterist view of J. Stuart Russell differs sharply from the view of Calvin.  Russell argues that the disciples’ assumption was correct – with one crucial qualifier:  the disciples were asking not about the end of the world, but abut the end of the age.  This distinction is critical not only to Russell, but to virtually all preterists.  The end in view is not the end of all time but the end of the Jewish age.”[7]

Indeed, it is not a disagreement that only made by full preterists, but partial preterists as well. A postmillennial partial preterist colleague of Gentry’s, Gary DeMar writes,

“The disciples’ question involves three interrelated, contemporary events: (1) the time of the temple’s destruction; (2) the sign that will signal Jesus’ coming related to the destruction of the temple; and (3) the sign they should look for telling them that “the end of the age” has come. These questions are related to the destruction of the temple and the end of the Old Covenant redemptive system and nothing else.”[8] 

Gary correctly develops the context in Matthew’s gospel to support his (and others such as Milton Terry’s) position,

“The “woes” of Matthew 23 and the destruction of the temple and the city of Jerusalem were a result of all that John the Baptist and Jesus had been warning the scribes, Pharisees, and chief priests regarding the judgment that would come upon them if they did not repent.  “All these things,” Jesus cautioned, “shall come upon this generation” (23:36).  It is after hearing about the desolation of their “house” – the temple – that the disciples ask about the “temple buildings” (24:1).  Jesus answered the disciples’ questions relating to the time and signs of Jerusalem’s destruction, always with the background of Matthew 23 in view, since His comments in that chapter had precipitated the questions (24:3).  The Old Covenant order would end with the destruction of Jerusalem.  This would be the “sign” of the “end of the age,” the end of the Old Covenant, and the consummation of the New Covenant.”[9]

Unfortunately, Gary in his Last Days Madness book avoids any exegetical interaction of Jesus’ discussion about the end of “this age” in Matthew 13 and how this phrase is exegetically and contextually tied into the flow of Matthew’s gospel with that of Matthew 3 and 24. He does however concede that “The end of the age” is a covenantal phrase.”[10] I think Gary saw the lights of the imminent resurrection train coming and would therefore just avoided this passage altogether. However, as we will see later in our discussion of the resurrection of Daniel 12, Gary does publish and endorse (to some extent), James Jordan’s view that this resurrection closed the end of the Old Covenant age in AD 70.

But what about those passages that Gentry referenced to somehow prove that the disciples were allegedly confused in associating the temples destruction with the end of the world? Let’s go over them and see if perhaps they end up “proving too much” and in fact make our case.

The first text Gentry cites is (Mt. 16:6-12) where the disciples were confused over the “leaven of the Pharisees.”  The text clearly states that they didn’t understand and thought Jesus was talking about literal bread (v.7) and then Jesus rebukes and corrects them (vss.8-11).  From there Matthew tells us that they then understood (v.12) “then they understood.”  So on the first “proof text,” it only proves our case in that when the disciples are confused about something Matthew explicitly states it! 

The second text Gentry cites is (Mt. 16:21-23) where the disciples are confused over Jesus’ statements of His impending crucifixion.  The text clearly explains this confussion in the words of Peter trying to correct Jesus and then the following rebuke of Jesus (vss.22-23).  Again, where there is confusion or error Matthew clearly points it out.

The third text Gentry cites is (Mt.17:4-5) concerning the disciples confusion over the transfiguration.  Again, the text states their error of seeking to pitch tents for Moses and Elijah because the Father rebukes them (v.5).  The first part of the disciples confusion was in their seeking the abiding (“let’s make tents”) of the glory of the Old Covenant (Moses = law & Elijah = the prophets) with the EVERLASTING New Covenant (Jesus = NC), (cf. Also 2 Cor. 3 & 4; Mt. 24:35).  The second thing they were confused on was why Jesus didn’t want them to speak of the vision (vss.9-10)?  After all wasn’t Elijah coming in the vision a fulfillment of prophecy they asked (v.10)?  Jesus corrects their understanding of this by pointing out that Elijah’s prophecy had already been fulfilled in John (vss.11-12).  Then Matthew as a responsible narrator clearly tells us the readers, that then they “understood” (v.13).

The fourth text that Gentry gives is the disciples being rebuked by Jesus because they were rebuking those who were brining children to Him (Mt. 19:13-15).  Jesus rebuking them makes it clear in the text that the disciples were in error and then He instructs them on the kingdom using the children.   

The fifth example Gentry gives is that of the disciples understanding of being great in the kingdom (Mt. 20:20-25).  Jesus clearly states, “You do not know what you are asking,” (v.22).  Then He proceeds to instruct them that there can be no crown in the kingdom without suffering first (vss.22-23).  Then He follows this with instruction on humility (vss. 24-27). 

To conclude these “examples” in Matthew’s gospel we are forced to a much different conclusion than Gentry.  For in each of these cases Gentry cites, Matthew is a very responsible narrator and explains when there is confusion on the part of the disciples and when there isn’t.  When we come to the one question broken down in three parts in Matthew 24:3 there is no hint at all from Matthew that the disciples were confused let alone Jesus “correcting them” or “ignoring” them as John MacArthur has eisegetically claimed.  At this point Gentry is just as much of an irresponsible “exegete” as MacArthur, Ice and others who have read their  personal creedal confusion of the second coming into the Olivet Discourse.  We should however thank Mr. Gentry for taking the time to cite these passages that explain when the disciples were confused, for in doing so Gentry has proven too much and made our point—according to Matthew’s gospel if the disciples were confused in the Olivet discourse Matthew would have pointed it out to his readers as he does everywhere else – selah.  Gentry also fails to address the very clear statement that the disciples did in fact understand Jesus’ teaching on the “end of the age” in Matthew 13:51 – oops.

The other issue here demonstrating that the Olivet discourse is not about the passing of the literal planet (contrary to Gentry’s eisegetical claims), has to do with how the Jews understood the temple and their land to be “heaven and earth” (Mt. 24:35).   I too would reference Philo and Josephus in a different context than Gentry has, that is, in their understanding of how the literal temple represented the “heavens and earth.” For example Josephus writes,

“However, this proportion of the measures of the tabernacle proved to be an imitation of the system of the world: for that third part thereof which was within the four pillars, to which the priests were not admitted, is, as it were, a Heaven peculiar to God…”[11]

“When Moses distinguished the tabernacle into three parts, and allowed two of them to the priests as a place accessible to the common, he denoted the land and the sea, these being of general access to all; but he set apart the third division for God, because heaven is inaccessible to men.”[12]

Reformed and Evangelical theologians are finally seeing a grammatical/historical connection between the “heaven and earth” and the literal temple. For example G.K. Beale concedes,

“…that ‘heaven and earth’ in the Old Testament may sometimes be a way of referring to Jerusalem or its temple, for which ‘Jerusalem’ is a metonymy.” [13]

And I especially like Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis on Mark 13:31,

“The temple was far more than the point at which heaven and earth met. Rather, it was thought to correspond to, represent, or, in some sense, to be ‘heaven and earth’ in its totality”[14]

Indeed the temple was set forth as a creation of heaven and earth: 

To interpret Jesus’ words in Matthew 24:35 as a reference to the temple, fits within the immediate context of the destruction of the temple and offers a much better grammatical/historically approach to interpreting the Olivet discourse than Gentry’s position.

For the sake of being thorough, lets take a look at Gentry’s quote of Philo again and address the eternal “revenues” of the temple, “Philo assumed its perpetual endurance: “The temple has for its revenues not only portions of land, but also other possessions of much greater extent and importance, which will never be destroyed or diminished; for as long as the race of mankind shall last, the revenues likewise of the temple will always be preserved, being coeval in their duration with the universal world” (Spec. 1:76).” Like Josephus,  Philo was correct to see the literal temple as a creation representing “heaven and earth,” but was sadly mistaken in his understanding that the OT prophets predicted that the “revenues” of the coming New Covenant temple were literal and that a literal temple would stand forever upon the earth. In light of the inspired NT teachings concerning the Messianic New Covenant temple, we understand the “revenues” of men beautifying the temple not as literal riches, but with the riches or glory of their purified faith (Jew and Gentile) and fruits of the Spirit which is produced by God Himself and who in return glorifies the believer with the splendor and righteousness of Christ (Haggai 2:7-9; Isaiah 60-66; 1 Peter 1:7, 2:4-5; Revelation 21-22:17). 

Before leaving Matthew 24, I wanted to briefly address the allegedly “clear” two sections argument of Gentry,

“Quite clearly Christ divides their question into two episodes in His answer:  (1) He speaks about the coming Great Tribulation resulting in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70 (24:4-34, which is in “this generation,” v. 34); and (2) His distant future second coming at the end of history (24:36-25:46, which is after a “long time,” 25:19).”[16]

It can’t be that “clear” if Gentry can’t even persuade friend and fellow postmillennial partial preterist Gary DeMar, who contextually rebuts his interpretation,

“In every other New Testament context, “a long time” means nothing more than an extended period of time (Luke 8:27; 23:8; John 5:6; Acts 8:11; 14:3, 28; 26:5 29; 27:21; 28:6). Nowhere does it mean centuries or multiple generations.”[17]

In every parable in Matthew 24:43-25:30 Jesus as the Thief, Master, or Bridegroom returns within the lifetime of the individual’s in the story. So a “long time” in this context for the Master to return home for example, may be a year or two. There is no exegetical evidence that would support Gentry’s claim that this is a 2000 + years “long time” of Christ’s return. The Olivet Discourse is laid out with recapitulation and so this alleged “second section” is in actuality still one united teaching fitting within Jesus’ “this generation” time frame of His return.     

Gentry’s confusion on the resurrection and judgment of Daniel 12:2-3/Matthew 13 and the analogy of Scripture

I am not sure if Gentry has this in print anywhere, but in answering my question on the timing of the resurrection in Daniel 12:2-3, 7, Gentry concedes,

“Dan 12 sees the “resurrection” of Israel in the birth of the Christian Church, which is the New Israel. Thus, it bears similarities with Eze 37 and the resurrection of the dry bones of Israel.”

Dan 12 is not dealing with bodily resurrection but national resurrection (as does Eze 37). Dan 12 sees the “resurrection” of Israel in the birth of the Christian Church, which is the New Israel. Thus, it bears similiarities with Eze 37 and the resurrection of the dry bones of Israel.”[18]

This is practically the same view taken by James Jordan in his recent commentary on Daniel. Here are some good excerpts from this excellent commentary,

“The death of the Church in the Great Tribulation, and her resurrection after that event, were the great proof that Jesus had accomplished the work He came to do. The fact that the Church exists today, nearly 2000 years after her death in the Great Tribulation, is the ongoing vindication of Jesus work.”[19]

“Revelation takes up where Daniel leaves off, and deals mostly with the Apostolic Age and the death and resurrection of the Church.”[20]

“What Daniel is promised is that after his rest in Abraham’s bosom, he will stand up with all God’s saints and join Michael on a throne in heaven, as described in Revelation 20, an event that came after the Great Tribulation and in the year AD 70.[21]

We of course agree that Daniel 12:2-3 is addressing the national or corporate body resurrection of the Church as it was in the process of being raised out from the persecutions and the dying corpse of Old Covenant Israel and the Adamic body of sin, death, and thus the Old Covenant “the law” by AD 70 (Matthew 21:43/1 Peter 1:9, 4:5-7; Matthew 24:28; Ezk. 37/John 5:24-30; Romans 5-8, 11:15-25; 1 Cor. 15:54-55). 

Gentry, however has been silent in answering my followed-up question which arises from his (new?) interpretation of Daniel 12:2-3. That being, how does he now interpret the parables of the sower and that of the wheat and the tares in Matthew 13:1-29; 24-43? Reformed theologian and Pastor Peter Leithart has conceded that the end of the age in Matthew 13 is a reference to the end of the Old Covenant age in AD 70,

“Jesus parable of the tares has been interpreted for centuries as a parable about the church age, but it makes much better sense as a parable about the parabolic description of the post-exilic history of Israel.  With the return from exile, Yahweh sowed the land with the seed of man and beast, but since that time Satan has been busy sowing tares among the wheat.  Jesus has now come with His winnowing fork, and before the end of the age, the wheat and tares will be separated.  The end of the age thus refers not to the final judgment but to the close of “this generation.”[22]                         

Jordan connects the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 as an “evangelistic” resurrection which took place in our world tying it to the Parable of the Soils,

“…The Parable of the Soils fits here (Matthew 13:3-23): three different kinds of people come to life, but only one of the three kinds is awakened to persevering, everlasting life.

     During His ministry, Jesus raised the nation back to life. He healed the sick, cleansed the unclean, brought dead people back to life, restored the Law, enterend the Temple as King, etc.”

     “Thus, a resurrection of Israel is in view. The wicked are raised, but do not profit from it, and are destroyed. The saints experience a great distress, and live with God forever and ever.”[23]         

One of the things I like about Jordan’s interpretation of Daniel 12:2-3/Matthew 13, is that it supports our view of an “already and not yet” with the present and progressive tense being used of the death “being destroyed” and the corporate seed/body of the Church “being raised” in 1 Corinthians 15. The gospel and Israel were being sown in the Old Covenant world of Israel/Roman Empire and Her glorious transformation would soon be completed within the lifetime of the first century Corinthian Church (2 Cor. 3/1Cor. 15).[24] The wheat and the tares were growing side by side as their hearts and minds were reacting to the gospel of Jesus Christ as it was being thrown out among the Land of Israel and the Roman Empire. One group was being transformed into the resurrection image of Christ and was ready to bring forth fruit at the end of the Old Covenant age/harvest in AD 70. The other group became so hardened that they sought to persecute and destroy God’s people only to be raised to “everlasting condemnation” and thrown into the lake of fire. 

Another hermeneutical issue which Gentry and Jordan fail to address is that Daniel 12:2-3 is not the only corporate body or national (cf. Ezk. 37) resurrection text in the OT referenced in the NT. Jesus and Paul reference Isaiah 25, Isaiah 28, and Hosea 13 in Matthew 24 and 1 Corinthians 15 concerning the description of the resurrection as a trumpet “gathering” or “change.” The “death” in these contexts is a spiritual-corporate-covenantal death for Israel as She violated “the [Mosaic] Law/Torah and thus she is banished (cf. Deut. 28) from Her land and exiled into death and “sown” and buried in the soil of the Gentile nations (same kind of national resurrection as Ezk. 37 of which Gentry cites). Once again Gentry has some problems with the consistency or lack thereof with his partial preterist hermeneutics.                 

Gentry, has no choice but to agree with Leithart and Jordan that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 took place by AD 70. Why? Because Jesus references Daniel’s resurrection in Matthew 13:43 and states that this harvest/judgment/resurrection will take place at the end of His (Old Covenant) “this age” (v. 40 NKJV). It sounds as if Gentry may be getting a call from Gary North who states of those taking a preterist interpretation of Matthew 13 and the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares, “Anyone who equates the fulfillment of [the parable of he wheat and the tares] with A.D. 70 has broken with the historic faith of the church.” How can Gentry answer this charge of “breaking from the historic faith of the Church” and associating with Jordan and Leihart who very clearly do? Perhaps with a 2000 + years of an “already” and “not yet” eschatology: one for Israel and one for the Church? The problem for Mr. Gentry is that the text clearly defines the “not yet” to be closed at the end of the Old Covenant age and not the Church age which is described as having no end (cf. Ephs. 3:20-21). Since Gentry wants to reference historical sources, we should remind him that the Jews of Jesus’ day clearly understood the phrase “this age” to be a reference to the Old Covenant Mosaic age of the Law and the “age about to come” as the New Covenant Messianic age. So the “birth” of the Church takes place after the harvest/judgment/resurrection of the Old Covenant age in AD 70 – selah. 

The other problem here is that postmillennialists posit the growth of the wheat and tares to be a description of the Church age which is equivalent to the millennium period of Revelation 20. Therefore, the “not yet” period which closes the millennium of Revelation 20 is the “soon” Second Coming of Jesus to raise the dead at the end of the Old Covenant age in AD 70! Jordan is correct in that Daniel’s soul/spirit came out from Abraham’s Bosom to be raised to everlasting life and the living were changed or raised with an evangelistic resurrection which placed both groups into union with Christ and thus made them a glorified New Covenant Body/Temple/Creation. 

It is my proposition that the phrase “end of the age” means the same thing throughout the gospel of Mathew – chapters 13, 24, and 28:18-20. Gentry, Jordan, and Leithart are forced to arbitrarily pick and choose. If they claim the “end of the age” in Matthew 28:18-20 is the end of the world or NC age, then they have: 1) created two great commissions – one brings an end to the OC age (Mt. 13 & 24) and another allegedly brings an end to the NC one (Mt. 28); and 2) they need to explain how the charismatic gifts are not for today in order to help carry out the second great commission which allegedly lasts until the end of the world (Matthew 28:18-20/MARK 16:15-18).  

The chart below refutes Gentry’s view that the NT describes 2 Great Commissions with only one being fulfilled by AD 70:

PROPHECY            FULFILLMENT

The harvest/resurrection/ judgment of the dead which brings God’s people into the new creation is identified in Revelation 7, 11, 14 and 20 and is identified as being fulfilled “soon” and “shortly” through an imminent tribulation and Second Coming of Jesus. The amillennial view is correct to link the recapitulation structure of the harvest/judgment/resurrection of Revelation 7, 11, 14, with that of chapter 20. We agree and this is what Simon Kistemaker has done in WSTTB and in his commentary on the book of Revelation along with G.K. Beale’s observations on recapitulation in Revelation on these texts.  Gentry rejects this very clear hermeneutical approach and amillennialists such as Kistemaker and Beale reject the common sense approach that the time texts “demand” (Gentry’s word) a AD 70 fulfillment which cannot be double fulfilled! Gentry rejects the recapitulation of the judgment and resurrection of the dead in Revelation with that of chapter 20 and also denies the common sense point that the seventh and last trumpet of chapter 11 for the dead is equivalent to that of the trumpet blasts in 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4!

There simply is no 2000 + years-and-counting “not yet” resurrection taught in the NT. We affirm with Gentry and DeMar that the NT time texts “demand” a preterist interpretation and there can be no “double fulfilling” of the Olivet discourse or the book of Revelation post AD 70. However, the problem for these men arises when it becomes apparent that the NT authors clearly foretold an imminent first century “not yet” resurrection (Acts 17:31YLT, 24:15, 25YLT; Romans 8:18YLT/WEY). Commenting on the imminent resurrection of Acts 24:15 Sam Frost writes,

“There, the Greek ‘mellein esesthai’ is rendered “about to be”. The two verbs, respectively, are present infinitive active and future infinitive middle (deponent). We only find this particular construction in Luke’s Acts of the Apostles three times. The other two spots are Acts 11.28 and 27.10. The first is Agabus’ prediction about the coming famine. Certainly something “about to happen” (and did). The final verse is Paul, while on the boat, predicted that their voyage was “about to” end in disaster. Certainly something on the horizon.

This construction occurs three times in Acts only. Two times is clearly of events “about to happen” in terms of time. One passage, because it deals with the resurrection (24.15) is not. I have yet to hear any sound answer to what appears to me as arbitrary exegesis on the basis of assumptions. I have studied all occurences of “mello” in the LXX, the GNT, and the Apos. Fathers. It is a word that sharpens the vague future indicative. It adds to it the certainty of the event from the standpoint of the speaker (hence, it is often translated “certain”). The event in question is certain because it will most certainly happen within the near time of the speaker, without doubt. That is the way this word is used, and particularly this unique construction in Acts. Therefore, I can exegetically conclude that the “resurrection of the just and the unjust” laid for certain in the time of Paul as something that would take place within his own lifetime, and that he based that certainty upon the source that he based all of his assuredness: “the Holy Spirit speaking through the Scriptures” (Westminster Confession).”

And to confirm Sam’s support of the Young’s Literal Translation of mello in these passages, we need only to quote Gentry himself who supports that imminence should be the primary meaning in Revelation,

“Nevertheless, when used with the aorist infinitive — as in Revelation 1:19 — the word’s preponderate 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.” Mello wit h the infinitive expresses imminence (like the future).”[25]

One of these texts I cited in Acts uses the same Greek construction that Gentry admits (above) should be translated to communicate imminence and not just certainty! Gentry is not interested in using the analogy of Scripture when it comes to the timing of the resurrection. So let’s explore some more “Scripture interprets Scripture” problems that Gentry’s partial preterism creates.   

The majority of Reformed and Evangelical commentaries (along with Reformed Study Bibles), affirm that the resurrection mentioned in Daniel 12:2-3 and Matthew 13 are addressing the final eschatological resurrection. Virtually all of the Reformed co-authors with Gentry in their book Seeking to refute us in, WHEN SHALL THESE THINGS BE? A REFORMED RESPONSE TO HYPER-PRETERISM state clearly that these texts are dealing with the final resurrection (WSTTB, 97n.81, 161, 188, 244, 295, 297). In fact most commentaries align the final resurrection and judgment of Daniel 12 and Matthew 13 with that of Christ’s parousia and “end” in 1 Corinthians 15. 

Most of the Reformed community and most definitely creedal statements and confessions of faith disagree with Gentry’s partial preterist interpretation that Christ’s coming in Matthew 24:27-31 took place in AD 70. According to Chuck Hill, Gentry’s co-author, Gentry violates The Didache, which he states is the “manual of church teachings” and thus Matthew 24:30-31 is a reference to the “unmistakable last coming of the Son of Man” (WSTTB, 72)? Another author Richard Pratt, in the SPIRIT OF THE REFORMATION STUDY BIBLE of which he is the general editor, correctly identifies the coming of Jesus to gather the elect in Matthew 24:30-31 with Matthew 13:41; 16:27; 25:31; 1 Co 15:52; 1 Th 4:14-17 and states this passage is “…a reference to Christ’s final coming in judgment.”  

Matthew 24-25/Luke 21 & Matthew 13 Parallels

1)      Evangelism in the world takes place (Mt. 24:14/Mt. 13:38).

2)      There is persecution, tribulation, apostasy, & faithfulness (Mt. 24:9-13/Mt. 13:19-30).

3)      The subject is the growth and reception of the kingdom at which time the judgment at the “end of the age” takes place (Lk. 21:31-32/Mt. 13:43; Mt. 24:3/Mt. 13:40). 

4)      The Son of Man comes with His angels to gather the sheep/wheat into His barn/kingdom and the wicked goats/tares are gathered and thrown into the fire and burned (Mt. 24:30-31, 25:31-41/Mt. 13:39-42).

5)      Christ’s coming is most likely described as the sun or bright light coming for the east to the west whose bright light/glory and heat burn up the wicked tares while at the same time giving light/glory to His elect fruitful trees producing fruit and redemption (Mt. 24:27= Lk. 21:27-28/Mt. 13:6).[26]    

Matthew 24-25/Luke 21 & 1 Corinthians 15 Parallels

1)      Christ’s coming/parousia and trumpet call (Mt. 24:27, 31/1 Cor. 15:23, 52).

2)      This is the time of the “end” (Mt. 24:3, 14/1 Cor. 15:24).

3)      At this time God judges His enemies (Mt. 21:43; Mt. 22:41-44; Mt. 24-25/1 Cor. 15:24-28).

4)      This is the time for inheriting the kingdom (Lk. 21:31-32/1 Cor. 15:24).

5)      This is the time for God’s final redemption when the sin, the death, and the Law are destroyed for God’s people (Lk. 21:27-28/1 Cor. 15:23, . The temples destruction =’s the death being swallowed up in victory over “the [Mosaic Torah] Law” (1 Cor. 15:55-56/Dan. 12:7).

Matthew 24 & 1 Thessalonians 4-5 Parallels

And probably the clearest parallels can be found between Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 4-5. G.K. Beale correctly writes,

“…4:15-17 describe generally the same end-time scenario as 5:1-10. Specifically, Paul narrates the resurrection at the end of the age and then recapitulates in chapter 5 by speaking about the timing of this event and about the judgment on unbelievers, which will happen at the same time. That both 4:15-18 and 5:1-11 explain the same events is discernible from observing that both passages actually form one continuous depiction of the same narrative in Matthew 24, as apparent from the chart…”

It is more than difficult to know how men like Gentry, North, DeMar, Jordan, Leithart, Sproul, etc. can stick their heads in the sand when these two passages are laid side by side and when Paul specifically tells us that he is getting his teaching from “the word of the Lord” (1 Thess. 4:15). But ignoring the Westminster Confession of Faith’s exhortation to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture and that the confession itself could be wrong, Gentry feels his confession and creed must be “infallibly certain” (WSTTB, 44) here because the subject is the resurrection. Yet again, the Westminster Confession of Faith states that the coming of Christ and redemption of Luke 21:27-28 and Romans 8:18-23 are parallel references to the Second Coming and final redemption/resurrection for the Church. Yet Gentry arbitrarily claims Luke 21:27-28 happened within Jesus’ “this generation” in AD 70 and yet ignores that as that generation was ending the glory and redemption of Romans 8:18-23YLT was “about to be revealed” “in” them in Paul’s day!

The “Not Yet”

From the very start Gentry and his Amillennial co-authors run into problems.  Both believe that the resurrection of John 5:28-29 is the “not yet” of a physical resurrection at the end of history, but  Amillennialists believe the “not yet” resurrection “hour” of Daniel 12:1-2—John 5:28-29—1 John 2:17—Revelation 14:7 are all the same event and yet Gentry believes the resurrection or “hour” of Daniel 12:2—1 John 2:17—Revelation 14:7 were fulfilled in AD 70!

Another problem for Gentry here in John 5:28-29 is that he identifies Jesus’ eschatological “not yet” phrase of “The hour is coming” in John 4:21-24 with AD 70, which places the burden of proof upon him to prove why Jesus has switched to a 2000+ years and cound of “the hour is coming” in the very next chapter! 

As stated earlier most correctly connect the judgment, end and resurrection of Daniel 12 with 1 Corinthians 15 as depicting the same event:

We affirm the reformed and orthodox view which is that the resurrection of Daniel 12 was fulfilled in AD 70 (Gentry and Jordan) at Christ’s parousia, and that Daniel‘s resurrection is the same resurrection as that of 1 Corinthians 15.  However, it is clear that Gentry and Jordan have had to force TWO resurrections for Daniel’s soul – 1)  in AD 70 when he was raised out of Abraham’s Bosom to inherit eternal life and placed in God’s presences, and 2)  another physical one at the end of time.  Such distinctions are forced and eisegetical attempting to deal with the significance of the time statements and AD 70 while at the same time trying to appease their creedal supporters.     

Gentry and Inconsistent Orthodoxy

Gentry breaks the Nicene Creed when it states that, “And He will come again with glory…” citing (Matthew 24:30-35) and DeMar violates it doubly when it also cites (Matthew 25:31) of which he also applies to Christ’s return in AD 70. The Nicene Creed states, “And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come” citing (Revelation 21:1-17) which Gentry believes came in AD 70 and which we are currently in. Mr. Gentry arbitrarily claims which creedal statements are “infallibly certain” on eschatological matters and which are not. The Nicene Creed and Westminster Confession of Faith weren’t “infallibly certain” on Matthew 24:27-31/Luke 21:27-28, Revelation 22:1-20, nor in the Reformed creeds which state that the Pope is the Anti-Christ—per Gentry! Who is to say that the organic Body of the Church cannot modify the Creeds and Confessions more in the areas of the timing and nature of the Second Coming and resurrection?      

We have examined Gentry’s assumption that the disciples were “bewildered” into associating the temples destruction with the Second Coming and end of the age/world. His “proof texts” for making this point only ended up making ours. 

There are a lot of hermeneutical questions that Jordan, Leithart, and Gentry leave open in their interpretations of the resurrection /judgment/harvest that they claim took place in AD 70 referencing Daniel 12:2-3/Mt. 13:40-43. If they can use Daniel 12:2-3 as a national-corporate-covenantal resurrection for Israel in AD 70 (using Ezk. 37 as their guide), then there is no exegetical or hermeneutical reason why we can’t do the same in allowing Ezk. 37 to interpret the coming out of the graves in John 5 as spiritual and happening in AD 70, or allowing Isaiah 25-28 and Hosea 13 to teach a national-corporate-covenantal resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15—selah.   

Obviously there is a serious problem and “house divided” among Reformed and Evangelical theologians in the area of eschatology. Some of the authors of WSTTB and within the Reformed community in general, claim that the Church is currently in the new heavens and earth or the “age to come” which historically the creeds and confessions have denied as stated above by the Nicene Creed. Many such as John Owen, John Lightfoot, John Brown, David Chilton, Peter Leithart, R.C. Sproul, and Gary DeMar (to list just a few), contradict the Westminister Confession of Faith and believe that 2 Peter 3 was fulfilled in AD 70. Gary DeMar and Keith Mathison contradict most of the Westminister Confession of Faith’s proof texts for a future judgment and coming of Jesus in 1 and 2 Thessalonians and apply all of them (except 1 Thessalonians 4) to AD 70. Some Reformed theologians claim we are still in the “last days” and others claim the “last days” as described in the Old and New Testaments are in fact describing the end of the Old Covenant age and economy in AD 70 and have no reference whatsoever to the end of the New Covenant age. Some claim the NT is teaching only one Second Coming while others claim there are two redemptive comings of Jesus. Some teach there are two “ends” and “ages” (one for Israel in AD 70 & one for the end of time), while others see the terms as always describing the end of time and world history. Some like Gentry claim the NT is teaching in effect two Great Commissions and others only one. J.I. Packer understands that to NOT believe in a fleshly/physical resurrection of our corpses at Christ’s parousia is “scholarly” approach and well within the “main stream of resurrection faith,”[28] while others would damn us to hell. The list could go on!

The Biblical preterist position unites, synthesizes and bridges the gap between  the two sides of the house divided of Reformed eschatology.  Our position truly allows the Scripture to interpret itself. In so doing we offer an organic and Creedal approach to the Churches understanding of Christ’s return and the judgment and resurrection of the dead. In the end, our view is purely founded and built upon the exegesis of Reformed theologians and honors and most importantly actually practices “Sola Scriptura” and “Semper Reformanda.” We sincerely hope that Mr. Gentry will join us in our vision to bring together the Reformed community in the area of eschatology instead of selling books/debates that only further polarize them—selah.           

Categories: Uncategorized

Mike Sullivan