Bryan Lewis and Samuel Frost on Talkshoe

May 15, 2012 by Samuel Frost

34 Comments 34 Comments

http://orthodoxwars.com/?page_id=638

No holds barred.

John Marra

Great show Sam! I thought you and Bryan really got to the heart of the issue of the complete incompatibility of Full Preterism and orthodoxy (reformed orthodoxy in particular). Every Full Preterist should listen to this show and deeply contemplate the issues you guys brought out and briefly expounded upon.

Coming from the reformed position myself, I spent several years attempting to synthesize the two and ultimately came to the same conclusion that you and Bryan did. It cannot be done! It is interesting that upon discovering this that we each went in different directions. You went back to orthodoxy, Bryan went to liberal theology, and I went a more existentialist route and concluded that there is simply no on-going application to anyone beyond the first century terminus. Ultimately each of us may be proven wrong, however we are at least being honest with ourselves and others. This is more than can be said for the typical Full Preterist who still wishes to be regarded as part of the orthodox Christian community.
- sam
  
  John, while I certainly cannot endorse your view, I do find that it is at least consistent with, or at least not opposed to, Full Preterism. With Jason and I, the more we tried to “sqaure” this with Christianity, the more we saw that it could not squared. As one disciple of the movement said, “I will follow it wherever it leads” – whatever cardinal doctrine it knocks down, the “time texts” are held in an almost idolatrous manner. The continuing incarnation of the “man, Christ Jesus”? Gone. God’s omniscience? Gone. Finality to history? Gone. Progressive sanctification? Gone. Bodily resurrection? Gone. Establishment of heaven on earth? Gone. The Gnostics, it appears, and the hard fought battle in the early church against them, were right after all.
Duncan

John,

No on-going application after AD 70? Think again my friend. That parable of the minas for example.
It shows the post-AD 70 reign of the saints at the full establishment of the kingdom of God:

Now as they heard these things, He spoke another parable, because He was near Jerusalem and because they thought the kingdom of God would appear immediately. Therefore He said: “A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and to return. So he called ten of his servants, delivered to them ten minas, and said to them, ‘Do business till I come.’ But his citizens hated him, and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We will not have this man to reign over us.’ And so it was that when he returned, having received the kingdom, he then commanded these servants to whom he had given the money, to be called to him, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. Then came the first, saying, ‘Master, your mina has earned ten minas.’ And he said to him, ‘Well done good servant; because you were faithful in a very little, have authority over ten cities.’ And the second came, saying ‘Master, your mina has earned five minas.’ Likewise he said to him, ‘You also be over five cities.’ Then another came, saying, ‘Master, here is your mina, which I have kept put away in a handkerchief. For I feared you, because you are an austere man. You collect what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.’ And he said to him, ‘Out of your own mouth I will judge you, you wicked servant. You knew that I was an austere man, collecting what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow. Why then did you not put my money in the bank, that at my coming I might have collected it with interest?’ And he said to those who stood by, ‘Take the mina from him and give it to him who has ten minas.’ (But they said to him, ‘Master, he has ten minas.’) For I say to you, that to everyone who has will be given: and from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. But bring those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.’” Luke 19:11-27

Jesus told this parable because his disciples mistakenly thought the kingdom of would be established immediately. Even though Jesus would receive the kingdom at his AD 30 ascension (Dan. 7:13-14; Matt 28:18), the full establishment of it would not happen till his Second Coming. It is at the return of the nobleman that his servants fully enter into the reign of his kingdom. (see the parallel parable of the talents in Matthew 25:14-46 where Jesus’ servants inherit the kingdom at his coming). The Second Coming is shown as the coming of God in Daniel 7:21-27.

The full establishment of the kingdom of God happened at the time (AD 70) that those citizens who did not want the nobleman to ruler over them (i.e., the Jews, cf. John 1:11) were destroyed (Luke 19:27). The Jews would be cast out of the kingdom at its AD 70 full establishment.

And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 8:11-12).

See also Matt. 21:33-43 (“Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.”)

This destruction of the Jews at the AD 70 full establishment of the kingdom of God is shown in Revelation 11:15-18.

Then the seventh angel sounded; and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ and He will reign forever and ever.” And the twenty-four elders, who sit on their thrones before God, fell on their faces and worshiped God, saying, “We give You thanks, O Lord God, the Almighty, who are and who were, because You have taken Your great power and have begun to reign. And the nations were enraged and Your wrath came, and the time came for the dead to be judged, and the time to reward Your bond-servants the prophets and the saints and those who fear Your name, the small and the great, and to destroy those who destroy the earth.” [the Land]
Revelation 11:15-18 NASB

The kingdom of this world that Satan had a princely rule over (cf. Luke 4:5-6) fully became the kingdom of God at AD 70. It should be noted that the phrase “destroy those who destroy the earth” (v. 18) is better translated as “destroy those who destroy the Land.” The Greek word gē is often better translated as “Land” (i.e. the land of Israel) in Revelation rather than “earth.”

AD 70 didn’t end the kingdom reign; it was at AD 70 that the kingdom reign fully began! It was at the AD 70 destruction of the little horn by the coming of God that the saints fully inherited they kingdom of God (Dan. 7:21-27; cf. Rev. 19:11-20:4).
John Marra

Duncan,

Thanks for sharing your perspective on these texts with me. Since I don’t think Sam or Jason would appreciate me attempting to hijack the comments section of posts on the RCM site and utilizing them as a forum to either promote or defend my personal theological perspective which is totally irrelevant to anybody but myself and the God I believe in and in the manner in which I personally perceive him, I will not weary anyone with a response to your points from my perspective.
sam

John, you have been cordial up to this point, and your views can certainly be discussed here. This is an educatonal site devoted to such discussions so that our many readers can learn from the horses mouth, so to speak. I am, for one, interested in your point of view if not only to display to other Full Preterists how many “other” FP’s think. As far I am concerning, you represent the current “drift” that Bryan and I talked about (and that Jason has seen for quite some time). Yes, I am a conservative, Bible believing, Reformed Christian. I make no bones about that. I find both “liberal” views and “existentialist” views wanting, yet Bryan and I are still able to hold court. Some folks just cannot do that, and there are some that I have difficulty talking to without personality issues getting in the way (and that gets the best of me from time to time). You do not appear to strike me as that kind of person. Some have issues with me, or Jason, or the way Paul Gates “comes off”, and that’s just normal, I guess. We all “come off” in certain ways, and to some it “gels” and to others, well, they are “offended”. It’s a difficult call because on the internet we cannot “see” who we are talking to (no body language). It’s a constant problem. Anyhow, hope to see more of what you have to offer.
pault

Sam, I hope John will continue posting. I’ve found him to be very cordial, honesty and has enough integrity to answer the question. This is so much unlike many in the community. It is very refreshing to find someone who is willing to engage in the discussion in a forth-right manner.
John Marra

Sam and Paul, thank you for being such gentlemen in your dealings with me. I certainly appreciate the opportunity and invitation to interact with well read and sincere men of conviction and faith such as yourselves. I always welcome the opportunity to test my own theories and conclusions so that I may discover my “blind spots” and perhaps learn from the experience.

I understand exactly what Sam means regarding the way we can sometimes “come off” to others on the internet when our true identity is hidden behind a keyboard. Unfortunately, I’m not always as careful in expressing what I’m trying to say as I should be in addition to having a tendency to get carried away by my own rhetoric at times. I can also at times be guilty of making assumptions about people and things which are unwarranted. Regrettably, I have had some misunderstandings like this in the recent past with Jason which I sincerely hope to avoid repeating in the future.

I’m not in the habit of making “presentations” of my views or promoting them in any way, but I will continue to comment on topics of interest to me as they relate to different aspects of what I believe and I will certainly attempt to answer any questions I might be asked as honestly as I can. However, a very wise old Reformed pastor friend of mine once told me to avoid putting anything in writing unless and until you really have something to say. That’s advice I have tried to follow though not always as successfully as I would have preferred.
Duncan

John,

Some more on the AD 70 full beginning of the reign of God’s people. Consider Daniel 7.

16. “I came near to one of those who stood by, and asked him the truth of all this. So he told me and made known to me the interpretation of these things:
17. ‘Those great beasts, which are four, are four kings which arise out of the earth.
18. ‘But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom, and possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever.’
19. “Then I wished to know the truth about the fourth beast, which was different from all the others, exceedingly dreadful, with its teeth of iron and its nails of bronze, which devoured, broke in pieces, and trampled the residue with its feet.
20. “and about the ten horns that were on its head, and about the other horn which came up, before which three fell, namely, that horn which had eyes and a mouth which spoke pompous words, whose appearance was greater than his fellows.
21. “I was watching; and the same horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them,
22. “until the Ancient of Days came, and a judgment was made in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came for the saints to possess the kingdom.
23. “Thus he said: ‘the fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom on earth, which shall be different from all other kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, trample it and break it in pieces.
24. ‘The ten horns are ten kings who shall arise from this kingdom. And another shall rise after them; he shall be different from the first ones, and shall subdue three kings.
25. ‘He shall speak pompous words against the Most High, shall persecute the saints of the Most High, and shall intend to change times and law. Then the saints shall be given into his hand for a time and times and half a time.
26. ‘But the court shall be seated, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and destroy it forever.
27. ‘Then the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people, the saints of the Most High. His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey Him.’”

In volume of my book I argue that the little horn is Titus (which is the classic Jewish position, see Rashi on Dan. 7). Even those preterists who disagree with me still tend to see this as AD 70 (some say the little horn is Israel). Notice the little horn overcomes the saints (the tribulation) and then the horn is defeated by the coming of God as the saints possess the kingdom at AD 70. This parallels Rev. 13 :5-7 where the beast overcomes the saints and then the Word of God comes and defeats the beast (Rev. 19:11-21) and then the saints possess the kingdom as the millennium begins in Rev. 20.

Consider the wedding parables. In Matt. 22:1-14 a king prepares a wedding for his son. Those invited make light of it and do not come. The king sends his armies and burns their city and then the wedding goes forward with a different people. This is so clearly speaking of the AD 70 burning of Jerusalem that skeptics say it has to have been written after AD 70.
One sees this same scenario in Revelation 18-19. A persectuing city (harlot Babylon) is burned (Rev. 18:8) and then a wedding happens (Rev. 19:1-9)

Consider the wise and foolish virgins. At the (AD 70) coming of the bridgroom the foolish virgins are shut out and the wise enter into the wedding. The Jews would be shut out at the AD 70 full establishment of the kingdom of God.
And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 8:11-12; cf. Matt. 21:43).

Go back to Isa. 65. God’s disobedient people would be destroyed (at AD 70) and then his true servents would be established in a new heaven and new earth (vv. 1-19). This is what Revelation 17-22 shows. Isa. 65 shows a contrast of mourning and rejoicing at this time (vv. 13-15). This is paralleled in the mourning over the fall of harlot Babylon (Rev. 18:9-20) at the time of the rejoicing at the wedding of the Lamb (Rev. 19:1-9).

All these scriptures show the kingdom as being fully established at AD 70, not ending at that time (cf. Mark 8:38-9:1). It would be very strange for God to fully establish his kindgom and then close up shop. Revelation says that God’s people “reign forever and ever” (Rev. 22:5).
John Marra

Duncan,

I don’t know if you consider yourself a Full Preterist or not. In other words, do you believe that the parousia, resurrection, and judgement already occurred? If you do not then what I have to say will largely not apply to you and the scriptural argumentation you have set forth. My perspective really doesn’t interact in any meaningful way with orthodox exegesis since the heretical theological conclusions I arrive at as a result of my hermeneutical assumptions exist on a completely different plain which lies completely outside the ecumenical theological presuppositions that most orthodox exegesis appears to be driven and constrained by.

So that we don’t misunderstand where each other is coming from and end up wasting each other’s time speaking past one another, here’s where I’m personally coming from as consistent Full Preterist. As unsettling as it may be, if I wish to maintain true epistemological integrity, intellectual honesty demands that I give sincere consideration to the potentially devastating possibility that a completely consistent exegetical application of the Full Preterist hermeneutic leads to the conclusion that the God of scripture already poured out all of the covenantal blessings and curses and already judged “EVERY MAN according to his deeds” that he ever intended to (Matt. 16:27) as well as completed all of his redemptive purposes which appear to have been specifically intended only for the faithful physical seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Jer. 31:31-34; Rom. 9:3-5) and whomever is meant by the term “Gentiles” or nations, by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem around AD 70, thus precluding the possibility of any ongoing fulfillment or application for anyone beyond that historical context since his “elect” as well as the “fullness of the Gentiles” and “all Israel” have already come in and been saved in that generation “upon whom the end or consummation of the ages has come” (Mt. 24:31, 34; Rom. 11:25-26; 1 Cor. 10:11, Heb. 9:26). I believe the hermeneutical strength of this position is it’s consistency in taking both the time frame references as well as the predicted events in a literal straightforward manner as opposed to most of orthodox Christianity which has largely taken the time frame references in a somewhat figurative or esoteric manner and the predicted events as literal, while the majority of Full Preterism takes the time frame references literally and the predicted events in a figurative or esoteric manner.

This is why I always find it amazingly disingenuous how men like Ed Stevens insist on taking the language of the Olivet Discourse so literally (the time statements and the reference to “all these things”) and citing all these extra-biblical sources in order to prove a literal fulfillment in the physical realm which could be seen with human eyes… that is until they come to verse 31 and then suddenly the rapture/resurrection takes place in the unseen spiritual realm in order for him to maintain his Individual Body at Death (IBD) view and on-going application of these prophecies after AD70.” This appears to be the “achilles heel” of the quasi-Full Preterist views of people like Ed Stevens, Don Preston, William Bell, David Green, Michael Sullivan, Alan Bondar, and anyone else who attempts to do the same thing in order to justify any variety of their Corporate Body Views (CBV). I find their exegetical approach to be inconsistent and unreasonable. You simply cannot read the “time statements” in a literalistic way and then “shift gears” and explain the resurrection texts as an invisible event that takes place in an unseen “spiritual” Kingdom. Here’s the critical problem with their methodology as I see it. The same logical argumentation that supports a literalistic interpretation of the “time statements” also demands a literalistic reading of the resurrection texts, as well as the covenants and promises that named only “Israelites according to the flesh” as recipients (Romans 9:3-5). This is also the main reason why I have largely given up on my previous goal of synthesizing Full Preterism with any kind of orthodoxy or on-going application after the parousia around 70AD. Though I’m personally not convinced that the hermeneutic utilized by orthodoxy yields the most accurate understanding of the true meaning of the biblical texts in their original context either, it certainly is “flexible” enough to not “paint itself into the same corner” that myself and many others have now recognized that the hermeneutic utilized by Full Preterism does for those who attempt to synthesize it with orthodoxy and/or allow for on-going application after the fulfillment of the “Big Three” eschatological events.

I hope this helps clarify where I’m coming from.
Duncan

John,

I am not a full preterist (i.e., I do not see all prophecy as being fulfilled at AD 70). I am not constrained by the creeds, however, as most partial preterists are. I think Russell was correct in saying that AD 70 was the time of the parousia and the beginning of the resurrection and judgement. I do not look for another coming of Jesus. I have given you a lot of Scripture that I think points to the full establishment of the kingdom of God at AD 70 (and ongoing fulfillment). I can not see that you have interacted with any of it, saying why you think I am wrong.
I see Revelation ending with the New Jerusalem bride coming to the new heaven and earth (Rev. 21:2, 9-10). I see this as a picture of the post AD 70 spiritual order of this planet. In this new heaven and earth (cf. Isa. 65-66) I see some who are part of the new covenant bride who have access to the tree and water of life (Rev. 22:1-5). I see those who are not part of the city/bride as not having this access (Rev. 22:14-15). Revelation end with the gates of the “city” open (Rev. 21:22-27). You seem to want to say they closed at AD 70. I see that nowhere implied. Revelation ends with “And let him who thirsts come, Whoever desires let him take the water of life freely.” I don’t see the concept of, “you better hurry up for the gates are about to close.” I also don’t see the concept of, “if you are not a physical descendent of Abraham forget it.” There were lots of people in the seven churches who had not physical connection to Abraham in any form.
In summary I think there are a lot of scriptures that you are not taking into consideration.
sam

Duncan, although it is plain that you take opposition against the FP position (and thank you, by the way, for your new book, I may offer a review of it after reading through it, which I found to be profitable, even though we may disagree strongly on certain topics), there are still some issues that have to be cleared up. The one thing, though, that is encouraging that you do understand that you can’t “cram” the whole Bible into AD 70 and still call yourself “historic christiainity.”

In this post, I take issue with the phrase, “constrained by the creeds”. This is a straw many Church of Christ and FP use against those of us who are fond of councils, creeds and confessions. We are not fond of them because they, apart from Scripture, have some intrinsic holiness about them. Far from it. “In as much as they affirm the teaching of Scripture” is their authority derived. We recognize that we can’t simply go around “qouting Scripture”, but also must “expound” upon it (as you have done in your book, and believe that your exposition is “Scriptural truth” in as much as it agrees with Scripture). Else, why teach it? Why write a book? Would it be fair to say that you are “constrained” by what you have written and researched in your book?
Duncan

Sam you are constrained by what you consider to be orthodoxy. If I understand you correctly, one of those constraints is that the resurrection and judgment are future. Thus, when you come to a scripture like Dan. 12, one thing you already have settled is that it cannot be the general resurrection (maybe a national one of Israel but not the general resurrection) either that or it cannot be AD 70. Your orthodoxy constrains you in that. It is the same with the full preterist and the millennium. Their full preterism necessitates the millennium ends at AD 70 (since there is prophecy that happens at the end of the millennium). Now just because one has hermenuetical constraints (we all have them) that does not mean I am right and you are wrong. What it does mean is that I am willling to say that Dan. 12 is the time of the resurrection (as is the dead being judged in Rev. 11:15-18). I am not constrained by the fact that that may make me unorthodox. This was the point I was trying to make to John. In essence I am looking at Scripture as best I can without trying to fit it into a preconceived box (whether that box be orthodox or full preterist).
John Marra

Duncan,

Thank you for clarifying that you are not a Full Preterist and that you don’t not see all prophecy fulfilled in AD 70. You’ve quoted a lot of different texts that you believe point to some kind of on-going fulfillment and application of the the Kingdom here on earth after AD 70 and for me to give a proper contextual response to each of them would require more time than I have. This is because I would first have to unpack your underlying theological presuppositions which allow you to believe that the resurrection and judgement began at the parousia and that the blessings of the new heaven and new earth described in Revelation 21 and 22 have been what you describe as the “spiritual order” on this planet since AD 70.

I agree with you that the parousia was clearly the time of the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:23-24). Jesus was resurrected out of an empty tomb (Luke 24:1-3) with “flesh and bones” (Luke 24:39) and his disciples clearly expected the same kind of resurrection for themselves (Phil. 3:21). This seems to be what resurrection entailed in scripture (Matt. 27:52-54) and I believe that at the parousia those that remained until that time, along with the dead saints (Dan. 12:1-2), were literally and physically “caught away” to heaven just as Philip was literally “caught away” from the Eunuch’s chariot (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17; Acts 8:39). Paul said they would “all”, both those remaining alive and the dead, experience this at the parousia (1 Cor. 15:51-52). I also believe that at the parousia the son of man judged “Every man according to his deeds” (Matt. 16:27; Rev. 22:12), which occurred after the “1000 year reign of Christ and the saints” (Rev. 20:7, 11-12) and that you claim only began at the parousia.

It would seem to me that according to your view faithful Christians have been dying and being “resurrected” right up until this day, yet their tombs are not empty. According to Peter the fact that David’s tomb was not empty (Acts 2:29) was an illustration that he had not yet been resurrected as Christ had (Acts 2:24). With all due respect, if you’re going to side with J.S. Russell and most quasi-Full Preterists and say that the one and only parousia has already occurred and then redefine both resurrection and judgement since that time in order to be able to say they have been going on for 2,000 years without any of the evidence that you see in scripture regarding these type of events, then just like Russell I don’t think your books are going to be taken very seriously by most of orthodox Christianity.

I could take the large amount of time and space necessary to give you my understanding as to why I don’t think that any of the texts that you quoted requires on-going fulfillment beyond the parousia, but what would be the point when you already disagree not only with myself but with all of orthodox Christianity on the very nature of the resurrection and judgement? It seems to me that you are straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel. That’s only my opinion and you and everyone else certainly has the right to decide for themselves what they believe in these matters. Peace my friend.
Duncan

John,

If you could just address the parable of the minas then I will let you go in peace ;- )

Now as they heard these things, He spoke another parable, because He was near Jerusalem and because they thought the kingdom of God would appear immediately. Therefore He said: “A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and to return. So he called ten of his servants, delivered to them ten minas, and said to them, ‘Do business till I come.’ But his citizens hated him, and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We will not have this man to reign over us.’ And so it was that when he returned, having received the kingdom, he then commanded these servants to whom he had given the money, to be called to him, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. Then came the first, saying, ‘Master, your mina has earned ten minas.’ And he said to him, ‘Well done good servant; because you were faithful in a very little, have authority over ten cities.’ And the second came, saying ‘Master, your mina has earned five minas.’ Likewise he said to him, ‘You also be over five cities.’ Then another came, saying, ‘Master, here is your mina, which I have kept put away in a handkerchief. For I feared you, because you are an austere man. You collect what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.’ And he said to him, ‘Out of your own mouth I will judge you, you wicked servant. You knew that I was an austere man, collecting what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow. Why then did you not put my money in the bank, that at my coming I might have collected it with interest?’ And he said to those who stood by, ‘Take the mina from him and give it to him who has ten minas.’ (But they said to him, ‘Master, he has ten minas.’) For I say to you, that to everyone who has will be given: and from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. But bring those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.’” Luke 19:11-27

Jesus told this parable because his disciples mistakenly thought the kingdom of would be established immediately. It is at the return of the nobleman that his servants fully enter into the reign of his kingdom. (see the parallel parable of the talents in Matthew 25:14-46 where Jesus’ servants inherit the kingdom at his coming). The full establishment of the kingdom of God happened at the time (AD 70) that those citizens who did not want the nobleman to ruler over them (i.e., the Jews, cf. John 1:11) were destroyed (Luke 19:27). The Jews would be cast out of the kingdom at its AD 70 full establishment (Matthew 8:11-12; cf. 21:33-43).
pault

Folks,

Duncan Mckenzie, the guy who isn’t honest enough to deal with what Scripture actually states as reviewed here, http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=5452, claims, “Sam you are constrained by what you consider to be orthodoxy.” As if orthodoxy is not defined by Scripture. LOL! What a ruse.

The fact is Folks, Duncan refuses to engage the Pauline corpus on the subject of the resurrection of the dead. Why? Because clearly if he were intellectually honest with the subject he would have to concede either of the two views he advocates is nothing but pagan rationalization. What is a killer is that Duncan will press people to address what he wants them to address yet for those clear didactic passages which even the Liberals admit are addressing the resurrection of the self same body, he remains silent.

Folks, the facts about Mr. McKenzie, is that he is constrained by what he believes is possible rather than what Scripture explicitly states on a subject. Proof of this claim will be his answer to this question.

Mr. McKenzie, which body is Paul referring to in this text, “Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body,”?

Folks, Mr. McKenzie won’t answer the question as he is stuck somewhere between Plato and the African Shaman on the subject and doesn’t want you to know it.

God Bless,
John Marra

Duncan,

I see the parable of the minas (Luke 19:11-27) in much the same way as the parable of the talents (Matt. 25:14-30), which is directly linked contextually with both the parable of the ten virgins (Matt. 25:13) and the judgment of the sheep and the goats (Matt. 25:31-46). The clear theme of all these texts is watchfulness because the parousia is not only the time for the full consummate establishment of the kingdom (Luke 19:11, 15), but also the time of both judgement and rewards (Luke 19:15-27) for EVERY man (Matt. 16:27; Rev. 22:12), both wicked and righteous (Matt. 25:31-46). I see no evidence that this judgment is to extend beyond those of the generation directly addressed since it is to those slaves to whom he had given the money before he left, and not some other slaves many generations later, that he addresses upon his return (Luke 19:15). I also fail to see any exegetical reason why the language of this parable, or any other text that mentions the parousia, resurrection, and judgement, requires these events to be continued beyond the time when the son of man comes in his glory and all his angels since it is “THEN” that he will sit on his throne and the nations will be gathered before him (Matt. 25:31-32), which as I said before seems to clearly take place “AFTER” the 1,000 years (Rev. 20:7, 11-15) not during it as you contend.

I understand the “reigning” of both Christ and the faithful slaves (Luke 19:27) as them “judging” the unfaithful members of the twelve tribes of Israel which again seems to clearly take place at the time of the son of man’s return to sit on his glorious throne and the faithful sit on twelve thrones (Matt. 19:28; Luke 22:30). Again, I see nothing in these texts that requires this judgment event to continue beyond its immediate context of the parousia and the surrounding events, especially in light of these events being after the 1,000 years as I mentioned before.

It’s seems very simple and straightforward to me. God plainly said that “ALL Israel (including THE FULL NUMBER of the gentiles” were “saved” at the Parousia (Romans 11:25-26) and that “the end” of the resurrection occurred at the Parousia (1 Corinthians 15:23-24) when God “became ALL IN ALL” (1 Corinthians 15:28). If “near” means “near” and “soon” means “soon”, then “all” means “all”. Thus, there is no more salvation or resurrection after AD70 just like there are is no more Parousia.

As far as your analysis of Revelation 21-22, I believe it contradicts your entire premise. God can’t be saving “ANYONE” Jew or Gentile after the parousia. The context of Revelation 21-22 shows that the vision of the New Jerusalem was happening before the Parousia while Jesus and the spirit were still calling people to be saved before the Book Of Life was opened at the final judgement. This is the conclusion I come to after reading Revelation 22:12-20. Jesus does in fact warn them to “hurry up” since he warns again that he is coming quickly (Rev. 22:12) and we know form the parable of the ten virgins that when he comes the door (or “gates”) is shut (Matt. 25:10). Also, as far as your contention that entering into the kingdom was available for those other than the physical descendants of Abraham, that’s a whole other issue which would take a lot of time to properly develop in a pan-canonical manner. However, there is a hint of it here based on the vision which says that there were “twelve gates for the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel” (Revelation 21:12) and that the “Tree Of Life” bore only “twelve kinds of fruit for the healing of the nations” (Revelation 22:2-3)!. What other 12 nations of people were “sons of Jacob” (Rom. 11:26 cf. Ish. 59:20)? There aren’t any gates for any other nations in this context.

I hope this answers your question in a satisfactory manner since its the best I can do in this limited format. Again, neither you or anybody else has to accept my conclusions which are nothing but my own personal and very fallible attempt at trying to have my own private spiritual questions answered. This is the reason that I don’t write books, have a web site, do a podcast, or try to “reform” orthodox Christianity or even claim that I’m a part of it which I clearly am not. Be well my friend!
Duncan

John,
It is at the coming of the nobleman that he destroys those subjects that did not want him to rule over them. His servants are judged and then they fully possess the kingdom reign (cf. Dan. 7:21-22 where God comes at the end of the tribulation and the saints possess the kingdom). In the parable they actually administer his kingdom from that time forward.

And so it was that when he returned, having received the kingdom, he then commanded these servants to whom he had given the money, to be called to him, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. Then came the first, saying, ‘Master, your mina has earned ten minas.’ And he said to him, ‘Well done good servant; because you were faithful in a very little, have authority over ten cities’ . . . .

Here is something from volume II.

THE JUDGMENT OF THE DWELLERS ON THE LAND
Chilton notes the following on John’s phrase “those who dwell on the land.”

“St. John uses the expression those who dwell on the land twelve times in Revelation (once for each of the twelve tribes) to refer to apostate Israel (3:10; 6:10; 8:13; 11:10 [twice]; 13:8, 12, 14 [twice]; 14:6; 17:2,8). In the Greek Old Testament (the version used by the early Church), it is a common prophetic expression for rebellious, idolatrous Israel about to be destroyed and driven from the land (Jer. 1:14; 10:18; Ezek. 7:7; 36:17; Hos. 4:1, 3; Joel 1:2, 14; 2:1; Zeph. 1:8).”38

That the land-dwellers are mentioned twelve times makes perfect sense; twelve is the number of Israel (cf. Rev. 7:4-8). The last time one sees the wicked dwellers on the land is in Revelation 17:8. They are not seen again because they were destroyed at AD 70 with the destruction of harlot Babylon. The saints possessed the land (i.e., the kingdom) at this time (cf. Dan. 7:21-27). The destruction of the land-dwellers and then the possession of the land by a new people is one of the metanarratives of Revelation. It is similar to the parable of the wicked vinedressers in Matthew. The wicked vinedressers are destroyed by the AD 70 coming of the owner of the vineyard (God) and then vineyard (the kingdom) is taken from them “and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it” (Matt. 21:43; cf. Luke 19:11-27; 1 Peter 2:6-10).

When Revelation was written, the saints had not yet fully entered into the kingdom reign (cf. Rev. 3:21). Consider Revelation 5:10 (NASB) “You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth.” The full reign of the saints would happen at the AD 70 destruction of those who were morally destroying the land (Rev. 11:15-18). At that point the sea disappears (Rev. 21:1) and the whole world becomes the land (i.e., the domain of God’s people; cf. Dan. 2:34-35, 44-45). Note, the souls of the saints who are calling for God to avenge their blood on the dwellers on the land (Rev. 6:10) are among the souls that will come to life at the AD 70 beginning of the millennium (Rev. 20:4).

Revelation is showing the time of the great tribulation. This time of distress was to focus on the land of Israel and would result in her destruction.39

But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. For these are the days of vengeance [cf. Deut. 32:34-36, 41-43], that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land [Gr. tēs gēs] and wrath upon this people. And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations . . . .
Luke 21:20-23

The Antichrist and the Second Coming: A Preterist Examination, volume II, 96-97.
John Marra

Duncan,

You said if I addressed the parable of the minas (which I have) you would let me go in peace, but I see by your most recent response that you were not being completely honest with me. As a result, what I’m now going to leave you with may sting a little, but I honestly believe it is something you might want to seriously consider.

Despite your most ingenious efforts to synthesize your quasi-Full Preterist hermeneutic with some type of on-going application after the parousia, resurrection, and judgment of AD 70, I respectfully remain unconvinced. It appears to me that you do not have the stomach to follow the logical and consistent conclusions of your hermeneutic which I have done my best to clearly illustrate to you previously. If you simply can not bear the loss of some of your most cherished theological “security blankets” or your religion itself, perhaps it may be time for you to consider not writing anymore books, chucking your quasi-Full Preterist hermeneutic altogether, putting on sackcloth and ashes and returning to true orthodoxy like Jason and Sam had the honesty and integrity to do. They are the ones you probably should be talking to about these issue instead of me. But that’s just my opinion.

As you seem to so desperately need, you have the last word on this matter my friend.
sam

John,

I hope that you are not inferring that the reason Jason and I returned to orthodoxy was because we needed a “security blanket”. Giving you the benefit of a doubt, we returned not because we were afraid of “change”. Not because of “creeds”. We returned because, like you, we saw an alarmingly rate of FP’s go your way. There were certain convictions (conscience) that we had as, through the years, we were seeing increasingly becoming compromised. I already let go of a future coming, a future bodily resurrection, progressive sanctification, the continuing incarnate body of the Lord, etc. However, as I continued to go through the systematic encyclopedia (confronted with the meaning of infinity), I saw that I would have to further drop classic theism, epistemology, anthropology, ecclesiology and the like. In short, I could no longer call myself a “Calvinist” or a “Christian” in the historic definitions of those terms. How much was I going to compromise? Now, with you, you went the whole route. And, I think you represent a growing rate among the FP crowd, who still want to play church, and pretend that they stand, “shoulder to shoulder” with the historic Christian Faith. They don’t.

Of course, I would question your “hermeneutics” at this point, and I think you are dead wrong at reaching the conclusions that you have, but, at the same time, I understand HOW you can reach them based on the FP hermeneutic. I would go the whole route of agnosticism. Even denying inerrancy. But, this may lead you to a wrong place, as well. How can you affirm inerrancy, and, at the same time, affirm that God is no longer concered with “today”? To me, like Bryan Lewis, it would be best to shrug off that doctrine as well. However, once this is done, then it is open that Jesus was simply a “failed visionary” in the “historical Jesus” sense (as most liberal scholars would be inclined to say, post Schweizter). It seems as if you, too, want your inerrant (this is what the Bible teaches) cake, and eat it at the same time (Christianity has no real orthodox hold on the truth). On one hand, you want to proclaim, “this is what the Bible says” (like that means anything), and then, on the other, say “it only applied to them”, so that it really says nothing to “us”. Like Liberalism, the Bible is “just” a historical book. As far as any pertinent relavence for us “today”, well, that’s only speculation and hearsay.

There is another solution.
John Marra

Sam,

I certainly was not inferring that my somewhat less than charitable speculations about the reasons that Duncan seems to remain with one foot in his quasi-Full Preterism and one foot in orthodoxy applies to yourself and Jason. Both you and Jason have well documented the reasons for your departure from FP and I have no legitimate reason to doubt the sincerity or question the wisdom of either one of you.

However, I don’t know Duncan well enough (or even at all) to give him the same benefit of the doubt since this is the first direct interaction I’ve ever had with him. As my posts show I was clearly reluctant to even engage with him at all on this level since I have no desire to “debate” these issues with him or anybody else here. However, he insisted I respond to his material which I finally did out of courtesy with the understanding that he would “let it go” if I did. It was only after he did not keep his word but continued to address me directly and try to “prove his point” that I responded in the manner that I did. I sincerely apologize if my choice of words offended anybody here. They were nothing but mere speculations about Duncan which I’m sure he will respond to and correct if my suspicions are in fact on the wrong track.

You are correct that I have gone the whole route of departing completely from the historic orthodox Christian faith. I no longer attend church and I certainly no longer consider myself a Christian in either the biblical or traditional historic sense. As you and Bryan Lewis pointed out in the podcast, this is the logical and consistent implication of the FP hermeneutic. Like Bryan Lewis I also no longer affirm verbal plenary inspiration or biblical inerrancy in any form. However, I do believe it to be the most historically reliable documents we have concerning God’s dealings with his covenantal people due to the veracity of the manuscript evidence. As a result I don’t hesitate utilize it in my efforts to sort out all of the historical data relating to the God of Christianity and trying to make the best rational sense of it in my own mind and for my own purposes. I have found this approach very functional when discussing theological issues with inerrantists.

As far as its actual relevance for anybody today goes I approach it this way. Though I can’t point to any scripture that I believe explicitly teaches it, including Genesis 1 & 2, I nonetheless believe that the God of scripture is the creator of the physical universe and everything in it. Because of this I believe that his moral attributes that are reflected in scripture are so interwoven into the very fabric of the universe that when societies and individuals operate within the parameters of them it normally leads to a higher quality of existence. But of course I must admit that this is ultimately just speculation on my part.

You say there is another solution and I would sincerely prefer to believe that. I hope you will share it with me since I would welcome something better than what I presently perceive the reality to be. That is the main reason I continue to frequent this educational web site.
sam

John, thanks, and my “benefit” served well. I find you honest and articulate. You noted “operate” and “paremeters”. I would use the word “application”. Obviously, you believe in a “creator” God. That has direct bearing to our lives, today. But, how? Would that only serve benficial to Israel? Why do I, being so far removed, need to know that the Bible teaches creation (“I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth”)? If this is the case, then you have already shown a direct link to “us” today. Once we understand that God created “the physical”, then immediately there are Ownership Rights that the divine places upon us. Commands. Or, as you would say, “higher quality of existence”, which is ethical, moral and applicational. Now, if this is “just” speculation, then you could not tag such “operation” with the adjective, “higher”. What’s high? What’s low? How do you know? (that actually rhymed!). If you apply “stealing” to “us” today, would that not be lifting the command from the text? Was that not a command written exclusively to Israel and Israel only? Or, as you said, is it not interwoven? However, once this is admitted, then we must discuss “sin” and “commandment breaking” – or “breaking that which is interwoven within the universe”. Although your FP hermeneutic gets you where you are at, consistently speaking, you can see that it ends up in a contradiction (self refuting), because, even you want to speculate as to the nature of the interwoven-ness of morality and ethics (which means you have to deal with immorality and unethical “sins”). Thus, FP is false. It is self refuting. There must be, then, another solution that your “interpretation” is not taking into account. Either that, or you cannot find any legitmate fault with the Jeffery Dahmers of the world. After all, if Jeffery Dahmer lived in the Aztexc or Mayan world, he would have been revered as a god.
http://gregoryleonkiser.blogspot.com/ QuantumGreg

“If a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed in the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing, and I’ve since come to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is truly God, and I believe that I, as well as everyone else, will be accountable to Him.” -Jeffery Dahmer
http://gregoryleonkiser.blogspot.com/ QuantumGreg

Duncan, you wrote, “Consider the wedding parables. In Matt. 22:1-14 a king prepares a wedding for his son. Those invited make light of it and do not come. The king sends his armies and burns their city and then the wedding goes forward with a different people. This is so clearly speaking of the AD 70 burning of Jerusalem that skeptics say it has to have been written after AD 70.”

I take that by saying this you are implying that the parable reaches beyond AD70, correct? This is something I’ve tried to point out to Dan Delegrave (full preterist). I’ve tried to show him this parable goes beyond AD70 more obviously than any other. There is clearly two judgments. Vss 1-7 end in AD70, but vss 8-14 go beyond AD70 to some point in the future where there is ANOTHER judgment.

His reply is to say that the future judgment is not a single event, per se, but rather happens billions of times in the individual deaths of men afterward, and that the judgment is “in heaven” not temporal.
- http://www.historicalpreterism.com Ken Palmer
  
  Hey, Greg,
  
  That is a major historical and theological stumbling block to the full preterist.
  They think they are one in the same.
  There is a temporal, theological, and historical judgement on Israel.
  But for man, his judgement is certain and is future. That wrath is removed for those who believe in Christ.
Duncan

Hey Greg,

I believe the parable of the wedding of the king’s son does talk about AD 70 and beyond. The wedding happens at AD 70. That is not the end of the story, that is the beginning of the story. It is like the parable of the minas. The nobleman returns (at AD 70) and fully establishes his kingdom. That kingdom reign is then given to his servants who share in his rule. Same in Daniel 7. The saints are overcome by the little horn (the tribulation) and then God comes (at AD 70) and they possess the kingdom.

21. “I was watching; and the same horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them,
22. “until the Ancient of Days came, and a judgment was made in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came for the saints to possess the kingdom . . .
27. ‘Then the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people, the saints of the Most High. His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey Him.’”

As for one of the wedding guests being cast out (vv. 11-14), I see that as also AD 70. It is the same as the evil servant being cast out in Matt. 24:48-51.

As for this judgment of the living at AD 70, I believe that an initial judgment—a spiritual separation of living believers from non-believers—happened at that time. At AD 70 there was a separation among the living in terms of who was part of God’s kingdom and who was not (Matt. 25:31-46). Believers were spiritually gathered into the New Jerusalem (symbolic of the new covenant), while non-believers were excluded from it (Rev. 22:14-15).

The New (covenant) Jerusalem came to earth at AD 70. Notice she is prepared as a bride (Rev. 21:1-2, 9-10) This is the time of the AD 70 wedding of the bride. This is not a cubed shaped city that dropped out of the sky (Rev. 21:16), it is symbolic of the AD 70 full establishment of God’s kingdom in the earthly realm (cf. Dan. 7:17-27). Today, those who are part of this new covenant “city” have access to the tree and water of life (Rev. 21:3-8; 22:1-5). Only those who are in the Lamb’s Book of Life are part of the New Jerusalem bride—now wife (Rev. 21:27). On the outside are those who are not part of the new covenant.

Blessed are those who do His commandments that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.
Revelation 22:14-15

Since AD 70, non-believers face a final judgment at death and are separated for eternity from the Lord in the lake of fire (Rev. 21:8). In contrast, rewards await believers when they die. For believers who have died since AD 70 it is not so much a judgment as it is an evaluation of rewards for their works:

“. . . Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on. [since AD 70, cf. Rev. 14:6-8] ‘Yes,’ says the Spirit, ‘that they may rest from their labors and their works follow them’” (Rev. 14:13).
- http://gregoryleonkiser.blogspot.com/ QuantumGreg
  
  Duncan, you wrote, “I believe the parable of the wedding of the king’s son does talk about AD 70 and beyond. The wedding happens at AD 70. That is not the end of the story, that is the beginning of the story… As for one of the wedding guests being cast out (vv. 11-14), I see that as also AD 70. It is the same as the evil servant being cast out in Matt. 24:48-51.”
  
  This puts vss 1-7 in parallel with vss 8-14. How can that be when vss 8-10 clearly say, “Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.’ And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests”.
  
  The sending out of the servants is the second invitation as the result of the first invitation being rejected. Those who counted themselves unworthy were judged and their city burned (v7); an obvious reference to what was coming in AD70. As a result of this rejection and consequent judgment, a renewed invitation is sent out to new people, not the same ones. How can v7 and v14 speak of the same judgment? One is on the original invitees and the next is on the second group of invitees.
  
  I’m saying the parable seems to me to be obviously: Vss 1-7 = AD30-70. Vss 8-14 = AD70 –> Last day (in our future).
  
  I don’t know if you realize it or not, but Jesus is still in heaven; as a Man. He will return as a Man. He is not “more spiritually” with us now than He was before AD70. He is still only “with” us by His Spirit, whom He Himself said He sent in His absence. Is He not still absent? I think so. Is His Spirit not still with us? I think so. These two things confirm that Jesus has not come in the manner in which the angel indicated in Acts 1:11.
  - Duncan
    
    Greg,
    
    Yes, I see one of the wedding guests being cast out as being parallel to Matt.24:45-51. I don’t know if you take Gentry’s position that Matt. 24 shifted to the end of time at verse 36 but it has some real problems (as the two comings theory does in general). I see AD 70 as the time of the wedding (Matt. 25:1-13; Rev. 19:1-9). Gentry sees the wedding references in Matt. 22:1-10 and Rev. 19:1-9 as being AD 70 but the wedding in 25:1-13 as being the end of time. How many times is God going to marry his people? I believe we become part of the bride (now wife) when we come to Jesus today. We become part of the New Jerusalem bride at that time (Rev. 21:9-10). I see those who are part of the bride as having eternal life today. I see those who are not part of the bride as being under judgment today and do not have access to the tree and water of life that are in the city (Rev. 22:14-15). I do not see anyone cast out of the New Jerusalem. The judgment for the believer today is an evaluation of rewards in terms of what they have done (Rev. 14:13)
    - http://gregoryleonkiser.blogspot.com/ QuantumGreg
      
      But, Duncan, you didn’t answer my question. It is a second invitation to a different people. How can vss 1-7 parallel vss 8-14 when they are connected in sequence and one is the prerequisite of the other?
      - Duncan
        
        Greg,
        The wedding was ready and essentially went off as schedualed. It was not postponed for 1000′s of years. I see it as the same as Matt. 24:45-51; do you see that as future? Some partial prets do of course (e.g., Gentry)
      - http://gregoryleonkiser.blogspot.com/ QuantumGreg
        
        Then why, Duncan, are we still looking for brides? (Inviting others in by the preaching of the gospel?)
      - http://gregoryleonkiser.blogspot.com/ QuantumGreg
        
        Notice: “So the wedding hall was filled with guests” (v10b). After it is filled, wouldn’t the invitations stop? After a finite number is reached, no more invites. Are we not STILL inviting guests? If we are, then the wedding hall is not yet “filled.” Or, do you believe we shouldn’t be inviting guests post-AD70?
      - Duncan
        
        I believe that believers post-AD 70 become part of the New Jerusalem wife. The bethrothal (sp?) was consumated at AD 70 (Matt. 25:1-13; Rev. 19:1-9) We are fully married today. It is just like the kingdom. It was fully established at AD 70 (cf. Dan. 7:21-27; Luke 19:11-27). This is shown in Revelation as the coming to earth of the New Jerusalem bride (Rev. 21:1-2, 9-10). The gates of the New Jerusalem are wide open today (Rev. 22:17). God did not close up shop at AD 70. Again, I do not see anyone being cast out of the New Jerusalem. I think you have a problem there if you apply Matt. 22:13-14 and 24:48-51 to the future.
John Marra

Sam,

Thank you for your insights. Your points are very well taken. Perhaps I should carefully reconsider whether or not I am in fact epistemologically “sawing off the limb I’m sitting on”. I’m sure will talk again.
Duncan

Greg,

I think the following is rather interesting on post-AD 70 stuff. For the most part Daniel is showing is showing us spiritual rulers (e.g., the kings of Persia and prince of Greece in Dan. 10:13, 20, 2; the prince of the Roman people, Dan. 9:26; cf. the prince of the Jewsish people in 12:1). Daniel 7 shows the continued existence of these spiritual rulers of Babylon, Persia and Greece past the AD 70 destruction of the spiritual rulers behind Rome. If this is correct, it is showing statanic evil continuing past AD 70 (although it is defeated and the kingdom authority is given to the saints, v. 12, 23-27) and would blow full preterism out of the water. Here is something from volume I on this.

THRONES PUT IN PLACE AT THE FULL ESTABLISHMENT OF GOD’S KINGDOM
In Daniel 7:7-12, we are shown the establishment of the kingdom of God at the destruction of the fourth beast:

7. “After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast dreadful and terrible, exceedingly strong. It had huge iron teeth; it was devouring, breaking in pieces, and trampling the residue with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns.
8. “I was considering the horns and there was another horn, a little one, coming up among them, before whom three of the first horns were plucked out by the roots. And there in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking pompous words.
9. “I watched till thrones were put in place, and the Ancient of Days was seated; His garment was white as snow, and the hair of His head was like pure wool. His throne was a fiery flame, its wheels a burning fire;
10. “a fiery stream issued and came forth from before Him. A thousand thousands ministered to Him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him. The court was seated and the books were opened.
11. “I watched then because of the sound of the pompous words which the horn was speaking: I watched till the beast was slain, and its body destroyed and given to the burning flame.
12. “As for the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away, yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time.”

The vision of thrones being put in place for the judgment (v. 9) equates with the beginning of the millennium in the NT: “And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them . . .” (Rev. 20:4; cf. 1 Cor. 6:2). This was the beginning of the judgment, the time when the saints inherited the kingdom of God (cf. Matt. 16:27-28; 19:28; 25:31-46). Notice that these events, the coming of God and the judgment, were to happen at the AD 70 defeat of the little eleventh horn (Dan. 7:11).

God’s throne is portrayed as having fiery wheels in verse 9; it is a chariot-throne. This is the coming of a warrior God. Verses 21-22 confirm this, as they show God coming to defeat the little horn. Revelation shows this coming of God in the form of the parousia of the Word of God. Notice how our Lord is arrayed for battle as he comes to defeat the beast in Revelation 19:11-21.

Daniel 7:7-12 depicts the demise of the fourth beast (the demonic rulers behind the pre-AD 70 Roman Empire) in the fire at AD 70. This parallels the beast of Revelation’s destruction in the lake of fire (Rev. 19:20) at the time that thrones are put in place as the millennium begins (Rev. 20:4). As I have discussed, neither Titus nor the Roman Empire was thrown into the lake of fire at AD 70 but rather the demonic ruler from the abyss (cf. Rev. 11:7; 17:8) working through Titus (Dan. 7:26, cf. v. 10). This was not the destruction of a man but the destruction of a demonic prince of the Roman people (cf. Dan. 9:26).

While the fourth beast was destroyed at the AD 70 parousia, the first three beasts are allowed to exist into this time of the full establishment of God’s kingdom (v. 12). Just as the destruction of the fourth beast was not the destruction of the physical rulers of the Roman Empire, so it was not the physical rulers of Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece who had their lives “prolonged” into the time of the kingdom. Those rulers were long dead by this time. It was the spiritual rulers behind Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece (cf. Dan 10:13, 20-21) that had their existence extended at AD 70. Baldwin writes the following about the unusual statement in Daniel 7:12 regarding the rulers of the first three beasts continuing to exist after the destruction of the fourth beast:

“It is a little surprising that the three kingdoms first mentioned still survive [the demise of the fourth]. Two points are clear: (i) whoever the original beasts stood for, their kingdoms continue to have a recognizable identity, and (ii) history has not yet come to an end, despite the intervention of God’s judgment, though a season and a time implies a limited future.”60

I find Baldwin’s second point especially interesting. People often talk about the final judgment occurring at the end of time. Daniel 7:9-10 depicts this judgment (i.e., the court being seated and books opened, cf. Rev. 20:11-12) but it is not the end of time. According to Daniel 7 the so-called final judgment began at the AD 70 defeat of the little eleventh horn (cf. Matt. 16:27-28; 25:31-46; Rev. 22:12). That is not to say the judgment was finished at that time, however; it is still “appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment” (Heb. 9:27). Since AD 70, those who die that are not in the Lamb’s Book of Life end up in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:15; 21:24-27), while those who die in the Lord after AD 70 inherit rewards (Rev. 14:8-13).

The continued existence of the first three beasts after the AD 70 destruction of the fourth has important implications for full preterism. Full preterists, believing that all prophecy was fulfilled by AD 70, are forced to posit that Satan and his forces were destroyed in the lake of fire at AD 70. This does not align with what Daniel 7:12 shows, however; verse 12 shows demonic forces existing beyond AD 70 into the time of the kingdom age. Although defeated at the cross (Col. 2:14-14), Satan and his forces will not be disposed of (in the lake of fire) until the end of the millennium (Rev. 20:7-10), an event that is still future to us.

The Antichrist and the Second Coming, volume I, 133-35.

Share with your friends!