Be sure to read part one of this two part article here.
As we continue, remember that one of the critical elements of modern Dominionism (Postmillennialism) is that AD 70 was a type or shadow of the “real” end, and that Bible prophecy was fulfilled many times over. (Be looking for my upcoming book, entitled AD 70: A Shadow of the “Real” End? that will, Lord willing, be available very soon).
Remember also that I shared with you that Joel McDurmon, in a speech in 2011 condemned the Dispensational view of “Double Fulfillment” of prophecy, calling it a hermeneutical “Double Cross.”
Remember that McDurmon claimed 1 Corinthians 15 and Revelation 20 had “a fulfillment” in AD 70. He likewise believes Daniel 12 and the resurrection at the end of the age foretold there refers to AD 70. Well, let’s take a closer look, shall we?
Daniel 12 and 1 Corinthians 15 were predictions of the end of the age resurrection / harvest of the elect foretold by Matthew 13:39-43 (Matthew 13:43 being a direct citation of Daniel 12:3). So, Daniel 12 = Matthew 13 = 1 Corinthians 15 = Revelation 20.
Daniel 12, 1 Corinthians 15 and Revelation 20 had a fulfillment in AD 70 but will be fulfilled again at the final, real fulfillment, per McDurmon.
But, this is where the inherent self defeating and self contradictory nature of the Dominionist hermeneutic raises its head. Look again at McDurmon’s comments on Jesus’ prediction of the Abomination, along with the separation of the wheat and tares (Matthew 13). He says Jesus “describes the then soon coming end of that old age and the destruction of its children, and the beginning of the gathering in of the true children of God’s kingdom. It should not be understood as teaching anything beyond this.” (My emphasis).
Do you catch the power of this?
On the one hand, McDurmon argues that the end of the age and the gathering of the elect occurred in AD 70 and we should not look for any additional application of those prophecies beyond that time. On the other hand, he says the end of the age in AD 70 and the resurrection that occurred then must apply to events beyond that time and those events! But, notice something else here, something devastating.
The harvest at the end of the age in Matthew 13 is the harvest at the end of the age in 1 Corinthians 15. If not, why not? It is the height of inconsistency to say otherwise, and there is no exegetical justification for such a claim. This has assuredly been the “historical” and “creedal” view of the church, right?
Well, if Matthew 13 = 1 Corinthians 15 (which is likewise equal to Revelation 20:10f), and if it is true, per McDurmon, that Matthew 13 was fulfilled in AD 70 and Matthew 13 “should not be understood as teaching anything beyond this” , then it must be true that 1 Corinthians 15 and Revelation 20 were fulfilled in AD 70 and “should not be understood as teaching anything beyond this.”
Note that McDurmon seeks to have that harvest begin in AD 70. This is patently false. The harvest began with Christ as the first fruit, and they were looking for the consummation – the full harvest – of the Old Covenant world – at the end of the age. This is what is undeniably present in Matthew 13. It is the end of the age harvest (“harvest is at the end of this age” (Matthew 13:40) after the planting of the seed.
In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul sets forth Jesus as the first fruit of the harvest and then says “afterward those that are his… then comes the end.” McDurmon’s theory has the harvest beginning at the end, which is a very clear violation of these texts. Likewise, in Revelation 14, the earth was ripe for harvest. It was the consummative harvest being anticipated.
The bottom line is, of course, McDurmon has flatly contradicted his own paradigm, his own hermeneutic. If the end of the age harvest, the destruction of the wicked children occurred in AD 70 and those events “should not be understood as teaching anything beyond this” then McDurmon was patently wrong to argue in our debate that 1 Corinthians 15 and Revelation 20 “had a fulfillment in AD 70,” but we are looking for the final (additional) fulfillment in our future.
It is specious, untenable and false to argue both positions. Just like Gentry revised his books to reflect a fulfilled view of Daniel 12 (without any indication of his change from his former view that Daniel 12 predicted the end of human history) I strongly suspect that there will probably be some quiet editing done on the next edition of Jesus V Jerusalem. Be sure to get your DVD or MP3 copy of the McDurmon -V- Preston Debate here.