The Lords Table, The Kingdom of God And That Last Day

This past Sunday our church had communion and the passage for the sermon was Mark 14 and so I couldn’t help but think about the recent controversy going on with Gary DeMar and his crossover into Hyper/Full Preterism. I then started to flip to the other gospels in Matthew and Luke also to Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. A few key points popped out at me that I thought I would share with you all which I believe is another death nail to DeMar’s and to his FP allies eisegesis.

First of all the vital importance of the already not yet distinction in eschatology cannot be overlooked and or ignored. To either not take this distinction seriously or reject it all together is what brings not only eschatological problems but more importantly theological problems. I bring this up for a very important reason so stay with me.

FP is a result of rejecting this clear biblical distinction. Some of them in a failed attempt try to claim that this distinction only applies to the period between Christ first coming and 70AD but this doesn’t work because of several other theological implications which is not the focus of this article and to which I will get to another time. Dispensationalism is also a result of rejecting this distinction but they are not the focus of this blog article.

The Already

The already not yet view does the most justice of the biblical data regarding the very words of Jesus Christ when he speaks of the kingdom already being present during his ministry and when he speaks of the kingdom still in the distant future. Let’s take a look. I will be using the English Standard Version (ESV).

Matthew 12:28

²⁸ But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. 

Luke 17:20

²⁰ Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed, ²¹ nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”

Jesus clearly teaches that the Kingdom of God is already a present reality. As a sidenote regarding Luke 17:20 notice what Jesus says here, “The kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed” but yet the FP and to be fair many Partial Preterists claim that the kingdom came in clear observation at the destruction of Jerusalem and all that went with it in 70AD. Just saying.

The Not Yet

Here is where I want to make my point. Jesus own words on the not yet still future fulfillment of the Kingdom of God. Notice also the vital importance of “that day” in his statement about the future kingdom. This statement correlates with Jesus other statements about “that day” and our resurrection.

Matthew 26:29

²⁹ I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

Mark 14:25

²⁵ Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

Luke 22:16;18

¹⁶ For I tell you I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”

¹⁸ For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”

1 Corinthians 11:26

²⁶ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

According to these verses when does the fulfillment of the Kingdom of God come? When Jesus Christ comes to consummate all things and hands over the kingdom to the Father on that last day and resurrects the psychically dead in finally defeating the last enemy, physical death.

1 Corinthians 15:24-28

²⁴ Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. ²⁵ For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. ²⁶ The last enemy to be destroyed is death. ²⁷ For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. ²⁸ When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.

John 6:39,40

³⁹ And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. ⁴⁰ For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

John 11:24

Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.”

On this passage I would like to point out that both Gary DeMar and his counterpart Kim Burgess have claimed that the resurrection on the last day is actually when a believer dies and goes to heaven and gets some kind of spiritual body. This passage alone refutes that false presupposition which then becomes an interjected and forced interpretation because they have absolutely no passage whatsoever to make such a unorthodox claim.

Notice here that Martha is repeating what Jesus has been teaching about the resurrection on the last day. Jesus here doesn’t correct her and tells her not to worry because he will resurrect at 70AD and get a spiritual new body in heaven when he gets out of Sheol or wherever Gary thinks OT saints are prior. DeMar’s nor Burgess view comports with the clear biblical data and is a forced eisegesis based on their 70ADism. Again notice Lazarus is already physically dead when Martha repeats what Jesus has been teaching about the last day and the physical resurrection which Jesus then goes on to give them a taste of by physically resurrecting Lazarus and then says that he is “the resurrection and the life” and that all who believe in him “though he die, yet shall he live”.

Kim Burgess, who apparently is Gary’s teacher and or his counterpart for the last 40 years and went to seminary together, has asked several people on Gary’s posts on Facebook a very confused and misinformed question regarding physical death. So in an attempt to stump us Burgess has been asking “why is it that genuine Christians whose sins have all been fully atoned for in Christ still die biologically/physically?”. To be quite honest this is a silly question and is based on his own private interpretation and imposed presupposition. Well Jesus here answers this question and corrects that false understanding.

Jesus says “though he die, yet he shall live” but then in the very next verse says “and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die…” It seems to me that Burgess would have us believe that this is a contradiction since Kim’s emphasis is on the part that says “…shall never die”. This of course is not a contradiction. Jesus is clearly teaching here that we do die biologically/physically but that we will be resurrected biologically/physically and so in the ultimate sense we “shall never die”. This is basic Christian doctrine folks and very easy to understand when the proper hermeneutical rules and distinctions are made.

That was a sidenote as I was typing but let’s carry on.

The judgment on the last day correlates with our resurrection on that last day

John 12:48

The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day.

Matthew 11:24

But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you.”

Finally, when is that last day?

Matthew 24:36

³⁶ “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.

Selah

Advertisement

A Reformed Layman’s Plea to Orthodox Preterist Theologians

There is some obvious confusion regarding the definition of the term “Full Preterism” and or “Full Preterists”(FP going forward). I have posted about this issue regarding the use or actually the rejection of the label by prominent leaders of this cultic movement despite their views being clearly full preterist basic tenets.

In recent years FP have been trying to distance themselves from the term altogether and trying to say that they are just Preterists. The main reason that they are using to justify this is because of the common definition used to describe FP.

This common used definition basically says that FP believe that all of or 100% of biblical prophecy has already been fulfilled. They argue that since they believe that salvation is still going out to the Gentiles and that the consequences of the 70AD event is still future that this is proof that they are not FP and they even call other FP “hyper preterists” who do not believe in any continued consequences like the FP called “Israel Only” which teaches that biblical revelation in its entirety (The fall, sin and the promise of redemptive salvation) was for the people of ethnic Israel and that there is no benefits for anyone else after the 70AD event.

Therefore this brings me to my main point.

My plea to all reformed orthodox Preterists theologians is that we need to be more precise and accurate with our definition of Full or Hyper Preterism.

Let’s be very clear here. These are the three main doctrines that FP reject:

1. The future physical return of Christ.
2. A future final judgement in that last day at the end of temporal history.
3. The general and physical resurrection of the dead.

To reiterate many FP are now are claiming that they aren’t FP because they still see as future the gospel spread, God’s law implemented and the resurrection of the dead which Gary DeMar and his teacher Kim Burgess define as when one dies and goes to heaven with a new spiritual body.

Therefore they will claim “I am not a FP because I don’t believe “all” or 100% of prophecy is already fulfilled in the past since this is the basic and general definition of FP.

These claims by the FP are disingenuous and totally misses the point. Why?

The actual definition of FP should accurately be that the main or central end time prophecies concerning Christ return, the end of the age and the resurrection of the dead have been fulfilled already in the past. This definition sets the table for everything else that needs to be discussed that are related to the above doctrines.

It is my strong opinion that this is the vital qualifier that needs to be understood and so it is a big mistake to just generalize the definition into all prophecies.

As shown above these people that see the three central end time prophecies as already past are without a doubt Full/Hyper Preterists.

As we already know being eschatological scholars, theologians and theological laymen nerds like myself we need to strive to be more clear and precise with our terms and definitions. Confusion only leads to more confusion and the mark of great teachers and communication is biblical and theological precision.

My prayer and hope is that my plea to be more accurate will not fall on deaf ears.

Currents In Preterism Part 1

As one who is barely holding on to the label of “Partial Preterism” for various reasons that I gave in a few recent posts on Facebook and in a podcast that I did where I interviewed Dr. Sam Frost who is a worldwide known former Full/Hyper Preterist, I have noticed over the last few years an over realized or an over emphasis on the prophetic role of ethnic Israel in the Preterist camp in general. Both full and many Partial Preterists make this same emphasis and it is due to their wooden or hyper literal interpretation of many if not most passages that deal with the promises made to Israel. Sound familiar? Well it should since that is precisely what Dispensationalists do and in my humble opinion this is a foundational error.

Dispensationalism has most if not all these prophecies in the future and Full Preterists have all these prophecies in the past at 70AD along with many Partials who have most in the past at 70 AD and who are holding on to very few passages left to maintain a future coming of Christ and our physical resurrection. In order to maintain these views Dispensationalists are hyper literal in their hermeneutics while Full Preterists are hyper spiritual in their hermeneutics (think Gnosticism) but with a hyper literal emphasis of these prophecies being fulfilled in ethnic Israel just like the Dispensationalists. Yes it is very weird.

Now of course I am fully aware that not all Partial Preterists fall into this category and make this error like Dr. Kenneth Gentry who is in my opinion the best on this topic and one of the best reformed theologians out there. Dr. Gentry for example does not see the end of the age in Matt. 24 as the end of the old covenant age or the “last days” as the last days of the old covenant or Jewish age.

I think we have adopted these popular phrases like “Jewish age” and “OC age” that were made popular by some Partial Preterists who eventually went Full Preterist and then we ran with it and allowed them to define the terms and control the narrative. We refer to 70AD as only to the end of the Jewish/OC age or to only “those last days” and while we affirm an already not yet distinction to eschatology in general we tend to ignore this distinction in Matthew 24 and by “we” I mean the reformed theological community.

The vital importance of the Already/Not Yet distinction in eschatology cannot be overlooked and or ignored. To either not take this distinction seriously or reject it all together is what brings not only eschatological problems but more importantly theological problems. Both dispensationalism and full/hyper preterism are a result of rejecting this clear biblical distinction and as I said above rejecting this vital distinction leads to both extremes where either you have all prophecies in the past or all prophecies in the future. As I have said before and will say it again in my opinion full preterism is just dispensationalism in the past.

As Dr. Sam Frost and I discussed in our video discussion once you claim that Matthew 24 is referring only to the “Jewish” or “Mosaic” or “old covenant” age then yes it’s a very slippery slope into FP. Interestingly Dr. Frost has called this view hyper partial preterism which I can agree with because it makes sense. This overemphasis on ethnic Israel based on a wooden literal hermeneutic can indeed logically lead to FP.

It makes sense to me now why Dr. R.C Sproul called his and Gentry’s view “limited partial preterism”. This view sees Matthew 24 as referring to the end of the present evil age or temporal history while correcting the disciples question in the Olivet Discourse.

I believe it has to be both and not either or since it was erroneously mixed and conflated within the question of the disciples. The end of the OC or Jewish age for them meant the coming of the age to come and the end of the present age or the end of the world and this is because the Jews affirmed only two ages the present age and the age to come so it is no wonder why they confused the end of the age with the end of the world as they know it. So while “ion” is used it also means cosmos for them. This argument that it can’t be the end of the world because “ion” is used instead of “cosmos” is weak and makes the same mistake the disciples made but in reverse.

Another false presupposition that many but not all Preterists make and impose into the time texts is that the new covenant and Christ Kingdom came in 70AD when actually Jesus inaugurated the NC at the last supper. The kingdom was already present during his ministry with his resurrection and ascension being the confirmation of his power and rule along with the justification that he is who he claimed to be the incarnate Son of God.

The end of the OC and the announcement and application of the NC actually began with Jesus earthly ministry which was made clear at the Lords supper with the disciples which was then solidified or verified by Jesus death and resurrection and to which the 70AD event was just the beginning of Christ’s Kingly vengeful judgement and ruling with the rod of iron.

The main focus was the exaltation of Christ in his coming to his throne to rule and put all his enemies under his feet and conquering the world through the gospel to then physically raise up the dead at the end at that last day and judge the rest of the world like he did at the judgement of apostate Israel in 70AD.

Unbelieving Israel’s destruction along with the Temple was the judgmental seal of Christ’s vengeful and Kingly wrath and the beginning of his conquest but this conquest has a consummation. That “last day” where Christ consummates all things to himself is the main emphasis. 70AD was a major event in the history of the Church but it was a means to an end and the judgement on 70AD was a sample of the last judgement. Those last days are still these last days until “that day’ comes.

Following this first part of this series of articles I will present the biblical evidence in parts 2 and 3 for:

1. That Christ coming in clouds is not a reference to 70 AD but to his ascension.
2. That the “Last Days” is not a reference to the so called old covenant age but rather to the entire Messianic ministry of Christ until “the last day” with an emphasis to my Postmillennial brothers and sisters.