In the Flesh


or The Rapture is History

“And after my skin is destroyed, this I know, that in my flesh I shall see God.” Job 19:26

Full preterism leads logically to gnosticism. If death is already defeated, salvation has come to the world, and all is now perfect, then of necessity all three — death, salvation and perfection — have to be redefined. They are only Covenantal, “spiritual.” You can probably understand why doctrines like these don’t originate from the persecuted church. Some hope.

However, that said, I agree with 97.3963798475% of full preterism. Their take on the parousia texts is logical and contextual. Jesus actually did come back soon, as He promised, to rescue the persecuted firstfruits church. The textual ping-pong of the well-meaning partial preterists (who can’t agree between themselves on which parousia texts refer to the end of history) is a confusion of which our God could not possibly be the author. So what’s the answer?

The answer is structural, and it relates to the nature of God’s Covenants, and to the world as God’s Tabernacle. The final part of every Covenant concerns succession, or Continuity. It dictates the inheritance for the Covenant faithful. At the end of the Old Covenant in AD70, the faithful dead (the saints under the Altar) received a “heavenly country,” a heavenly Land. The earthly Land — the Bronze Altar — was broken in two. There is now a human government in heaven, a golden Altar of Incense. (For those new around here, this is what is going on in the Revelation. The Old Covenant angels retire in Rev. 4. Jesus takes over in Revelation 5. The firstfruits church is converted, then martyred by the corrupt Old Covenant vassals, the Herods, and finally all the martyrs follow Christ into heaven, calling down the Levitical and Deuteronomic Covenant curses upon the Temple. [Lev. 26; Deut. 28])

The 40 year overlap between the Old and New Covenants is what causes the confusion between preterists. Think of it this way. A Covenant is an administation by God’s vassal for a limited period of time. When a vassal violates the terms of the Covenant, for the good of those under the vassal’s authority, God organises “bridging finance.” He founds a new house for the faithful before He demolishes the Old. For the safety of the kingdom, many princes were anointed king before their fathers died. They were anointed when their fathers were no longer fit to rule. The Lord established Ezekiel as Israel’s High-Priest-in-exile, and Daniel as Israel’s king/vassal in exile, before He wiped out the old order. They represented man as a temporary Israel until the re-establishment of Temple worship under Ezra.

Just as the anointing of David spelled the end of Saul’s reign, the ascension of Christ as the mediator of a New Covenant spelled the doom of the Old. As with the reigns of Saul and David, there was an overlap. The parousia was indeed AD70. The Old Covenant ended with a physical resurrection. We know it was physical because it is described as a marriage. Jesus fulfilled Leviticus 1 in the first century. He ascended in the flesh as the Covenant Head. The firstfruits church was martyred and ascended in the flesh as Covenant Body. The marriage supper in heaven required both Head and Body to be flesh and blood, bone of His bone and flesh of His flesh – and Spirit of His Spirit as well. That’s marriage. All the promises to Israel were fulfilled.

But that wasn’t the end of the New Covenant, and this is where the full preterists go wrong. [1] It was only the coronation of Greater Solomon. There is another resurrection, and it is also physical, despite their desperate claims. This end is described in Revelation 20, and the New Covenant, like the Old, ends with a physical resurrection when all the New Covenant promises are fulfilled.

Just as the Old Covenant saints and the Firstfruits martyrs entered into heaven as a new administration – in the flesh (flesh finally justified before God), so the New Covenant saints will also be resurrected physically, in the flesh at the final judgment.

So the full preterists get it all right, except for Revelation 20. The so-called “partial” preterists get Revelation 20 right. But both sides tend to spiritualize one of the resurrections, which is an error. Except in type and prefigurement, resurrections by definition involve flesh and blood. [2] Both sides are guilty of gnostic interpretations when it comes to the promises, the blessings of the Covenant.

Also, as described in Bible Matrix, beginning with Jesus’ resurrection (and Matthew’s testimony that saints physically came out of their graves to testify), God reclaims the territory corrupted by Adam (Garden/Priest – AD30), Cain (Land/Kings – AD70) and the Sons of God (World – yet future). This triune pattern runs right throughout the Scriptures, architecturally, historically, and also in the literary structures. It is also the  pattern laid out in 1 Corinthians 15.

Finally, if Revelation 20 is basically the only text that remains to the partial (or orthodox) preterists to prove a final judgment and resurrection, is there much of a case? Yes, much in every way! The answers are structural, and built of extremely sturdy girders founded in the solid concrete of the Torah.

Revelation is a Covenant lawsuit, as Ray Sutton describes (although I disagree slightly with his breakdown of it. He puts the Trumpets and Bowls in the wrong place. The Trumpets are part of the Ethics, and the Bowls are the sanctions.) Revelation 1-19 also follow the Feast pattern, ending with Tabernacles, the marriage supper, Jew and Gentile in one new bridal body. But chapters 20-21 can’t be forced into this final feast. This section is a unit. It has its own chiastic “Tabernacle” structure. [3] There is a good reason for this.

Full preterists sometimes accuse partial preterists of being “futurists.” Well, the final chapters of the Revelation concern, briefly, the Continuity of the New Covenant, the succession arrangement made for the heirs of the Old contract. It is of necessity “futurist.” This is the only part of the Bible that is, for us, future. It is being fulfilled as the gospel spreads throughout the world during this new administration of “1000 years.” [4] The final section of every Covenant concerns the future. A Covenant is God’s means of bringing history to fulfilment, to maturity. At the end of every Covenant age there is  a combine harvester. The New Covenant is the same. [5]

So the rapture described by Paul is first century history. [6] It was imminent. It was the end of the old administration. But the second resurrection, the reckoning of the New Covenant, is still in our future. Like Job, Abraham and Paul in the first century, we shall also see Jesus in our flesh, flesh justified in His sight (!) through transfiguration in the fiery Spirit. We shall see Him because we shall be like Him: holy flesh, His body.

[1] See A Chronic Hysteresis
[2] See Ten Days of Awe.
[3] See The Altar of the Abyss – 7
[4] See For a Thousand Years.
[5] One thing that amazes me about the Bible is God doing the same thing over and over and over, and yet in new and surprising ways every time. The Gospel really shouldn’t have been a surprise at all, but it was. It was just like everything that had gone before, and yet nothing like it. In any trade we ply, our best work is done at the end. The best wine is still to come.
[6] See That Which Is Perfect.

Share Button

28 Responses to “In the Flesh”

  • Dave Says:

    This brings up a question I’ve often wondered about since I’ve become a (insert appropriate adjective in place of “partial”) preterist: What do we do with communion/Lord’s Supper? In a sense it may have applied mainly to the 1st century saints prior to that first resurrection. I know it could apply also to us, but not necessarily. What are your thoughts on this?

  • kingneb Says:

    Mike, just wanted to drop in and say hello. I run RCM for Sam Frost. I’ve recently come to see the dangers in full preterism, but still feel that “97.3963798475%”. You have probably landed on where i’m heading. I look forward to reading more from you.


  • Mike Bull Says:

    G’day Jason
    Yes, it’s a tough one. Logic dictates the parousia texts are first century, but leaving out a final judgment pulls the rug out. I welcome discussion on this so feel free to toss things around.

  • Daniel Franzen Says:

    Good stuff Mike.

    “So the full preterists get it all right, except for Revelation 20. The so-called “partial” preterists get Revelation 20 right. But both sides tend to spiritualize one of the resurrections, which is an error. Except in type and prefigurement, resurrections by definition involve flesh and blood. [2] Both sides are guilty of gnostic interpretations when it comes to the promises, the blessings of the Covenant.”

    So 1 Cor is entirely past? Jesus handed over the kingdom to the Father already? What am I missing/not seeing?

    Also, is Rev 21-22 a recapitulation of sorts or entirely future to us?


  • Mike Bull Says:

    Good question.
    I don’t believe 1 Corinthians has been divided up properly:

    Regarding Rev 21-22, the New Jerusalem is the church, this age. Nations are hauling in their treasures. Or, the city is expanding its borders.

  • Travis Says:

    I linked this post to a H-P friend who co-wrote the H-P book “House Divided”. Here is his address

    Here are his comments having read your post:

    I read the article. It was a mess. He started out by saying that he agrees with FP that there are not TWO parousias in the NT. But then still believes that the resurrection of 1 Cor. 15 is physical and still future?!? Does h…e not understand that the resurrection and “end” involved in 1 Cor. 15 takes place at Christ’s ONE parousia in AD 70?!? He claims that FP believe there is an end to the NC? Really, I don’t believe that and wouldn’t recognize this teaching to be FP. The Bible describes it as an “age/world without end.” He claims there was a physical resurrection in AD 70 and therefore there must be one in our future (at what event or coming?). Really, PP that see the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 taking place in AD 30-70 understand it as spiritual/evangelistic not physical (example James Jordan). He is not well-read but wants to portray himself as thus – and hope people swallow what he has to say without providing ANY good exegesis. Like I said, it is an exegetical joke to try and separate Revelation 1-19 from 20-21 (again read Beale or any good Amill on this point) as he and other PP have attempted to do without any success.
    I don’t separate Revelation 20 from the rest of the book, nor do I separate it with the rest of the OT or NT. The NT teaches that the resurrection was imminent and inseparably connected with Christ’s coming. PP attempt at teaching that the NT teaches TWO comings and resurrections (one in AD 70 for Israel and another at the end of time) is an exegetical joke. We have taken it apart, Amill’s have, and shoot even Dispy’s have!
    I have given my exegesis both of Rev. 20 and Acts 1:9-11 in our book which deals with the point that the resurrection of the flesh is allegedly in the future and that Jesus allegedly still has a physical body. If he wants to interact with that exegesis, then I would be willing to respond to the article.
    Wow, Just briefly read his theory that there are THREE resurrections in 1 Cor. 15. Grammatically and contextually it is a sham (as he attempts to do) to separate Christ’s parousia (the resurrection for Israel and the Church in AD 70) from “the end” (which he alleges is supposed to be the end of time and is physical). That is about as exegetically feasible as his separation of Revelation 20-21 from Revelation 1-19.
    Did you ever listen to the Preston / Jordan debate? Preston exegetically destroyed Jordan’s theory that 1 Cor. 15 is dealing with two consummations/resurrections – one in AD 70 for Israel and then another “Genesis” consummation in the futu…re. Paul knows nothing of two eschatons separated by thousands of years (contrary to PPism). “THE DEATH” (that came through Adam) is overcome when the power of “THE LAW” (the Old Covenant Mosaic Law) is destroyed. “The end” of the Old Covenant age is when “the death” is conquered.

  • Mike Bull Says:

    Hi Travis

    Maybe he should talk to his co-author Sam Frost or to Jason Bradfield, who have both recently left this theory behind. They have seen what damage it can do, and the doctrinal free-for-all that is the hyperpreterist camp.

    My response:

    1 He has the same belittling tone as most HPs.

    2 1 Cor. 15 quite obviously mentions three events. Paul doesn’t put any time between Christ and the firstfruits, and as I see it, the firstfruits and the end are separated in the same way. BTW, this is not Jordan’s argument, which I do not see as entirely logical. I do believe that the first resurrection is a microcosm of the second, as Jordan does, but this passage only moves in one direction. It is Firstfruits, Pentecost and Ingathering (Booths), treating the entire church age as a harvest year. Do they deal with this? I think they are ignorant of Paul’s source material.

    3 I didn’t say HPs believe the New Covenant has an end. That is exactly their problem. They want it to be something entirely different to all previous Covenants, a farming year without a harvest.

    4 My reasons are not simply textual, but structural. Does he have an argument against the observation that 20-21 are the Continuity section of the document?

    5 He is not aware of the use of the matrix in the Revelation, which makes these things pretty obvious once you know what you are looking for.

    6 The statement that teaching that the NT teaches two comings (let’s say judgments) and resurrections is not an exegetical joke. Revelation 20 explicitly mentions two resurrections. 19 ends the judgment upon the Land, and horses go out again, into the world. (The book of Zechariah does the same thing. He should listen to Jordan on Zechariah.) The subject of 1-19 is the firstfruits church. That is the first resurrection. The subject of Rev 20-21 is the church age that resulted from their sacrifice. It’s really not that hard to see.

    7 I have read hyperpreterists on what a resurrection actually is. Their claim that even Jesus left His physical body when He ascended rides right against the ascension rite. But I don’t see HPs interacting with the typology of the sacrificial rites. All they do is prooftext and footnote. They are beetles fighting over scraps of paper. They need to take into account the careful literary structure of the book, and the Old Testament sources of these structures.

    8 Revelation 20 not only begins a new “cycle” structurally, but it contains the “1000 years” symbol. Chronologically, there was 1000 years of tents (Abraham to David) and 1000 years of Temple (Solomon to Herods). Now there is 1000 years of church. The only factor against a postmill interpretation of chapter 20 is their preconceived framework.

    9 The Amills I have read do have some helpful observations, but unlike Jordan, they have no idea what Revelation is about or why it was written. Those who think it is a polemic against the emperor cult have missed its Covnenantal nature entirely, and also misunderstood the nature of the Bible. It is not thoughts of man about God, but direct revelation to man.

    10 Hyperpreterism leads naturally to gnosticism, as mentioned above.
    The HP camp is where the real mess is. Satan has been destroyed? Death has been destroyed? Christ has already handed the kingdom to the Father? Well, was Jericho the end of the conquest of Canaan? No, it was the beginning. The fire at the end of Rev 20 is the church’s Hazor.

    These gents need to stop reading the Bible as if it were only a legal document. It is most certainly a legal document, but it is also a consistently arranged architecture. They are not aware of how their theory contradicts patterns laid down previously.

    I might not have read as widely as your friend, but I’ve listened to Jordan on Revelation for 144 hours. I can tell you what every verse means, why it says it the way it does, and why it says it in the order it does. Totus Christus pretty much lays it all out, and the revised edition will be even better.

    Thanks Travis

  • Travis Says:

    No. Thank you. Have you posted on the “Incarnation anyway” idea?

  • Mike Sullivan Says:

    Hi Mike,

    I found your article lacking any exegetical or logical support:

    1) You agree with us real FP (and classic Amill’s) that the NT only teaches ONE second coming and with us that it happened in AD 70. You say to teach two parousias is “confusing” and God couldn’t be the author of that, and yet you then offer a more confusing (and unorthodox) position that there are TWO resurrections with the alleged physical one not associated with the parousia? Your view is supposed to be not confusing and historically orthodox while FP isn’t? Come now.

    2) To separate Revelation 20 from the rest of the recapitulation structure of chapters 1-19 (see Beale for example) is classic PP creedally driven eisgesis as is your theory that the NT teaches one coming but two resurrections.

    3) Full Preterists don’t believe there is an end to the New Covenant age. It is described in the NT as having no end. The old covenant age is described as having an imminent end in AD 70.

    4) Some Partial Preterists believe that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 understand it to be a spiritual/evangelistic resurrection and was fulfilled for Israel by AD 70 (see Jordan’s commentary on Daniel). This is not a “physical” resurrection. He also believes that Hades was emptied in AD 70 – again no “physical” resurrection there either.

    5) Your unorthodox and artificial division theory of three resurrections in 1 Corinthians 15 is just as much without support as your isolation of Revelation 20 from chapters 1-19. The parousia is connected to “the end” (of the Old Covenant age) which is connected to “the death” being destroyed when the power of “the sin” and “the law” (Mosaic OC law in AD 70) are abolished for the Church.

    Conclusion: Your form of Partial Preterism is no less confusing than any of the others (if not more!) and is typical of those wanting to be as preterist as they can come without getting the rode from creedal “Mother Church.”

    In Christ,
    Mike Sullivan

  • Mike Bull Says:

    Hi Mike S.
    Thanks for your reply. I’ll do my best to explain my apparent craziness.

    1) I guess this is something new, a bit of a hybrid. And yet I can’t see any reason to doubt it. Physical resurrection in Garden, Land, and World, the whole 3-level Tabernacle, the entire Ark. All physical. Happy to send you my book so you can see this in action in the Old Testament and the gospels.

    2) Beale is wrong on historical recapitulation. It’s Genesis to Judges, with a “seven” at every point. Law given, Law opened, Law received.

    3) I know FPs don’t believe the NC has an end. But every Covenant does. Jesus fulfills His Nazirite vow and offers His own crown (Nazirite hair), the kingdom, to the Father. That is future. Jesus is still reigning, no? Till all His enemies are under His feet.

    4) I think, for the promises to be fulfilled and the OC ended, AD67 was a physical resurrection/ascension. The subject matter is the firstfruits church. The first century Cainites are the living dead (eaten by birds) and all the OC Abels get the heavenly country – in the flesh. They are one flesh with Jesus at the wedding supper. So I disagree with JBJ on this point, the only difference being that he sees them in heaven without physical bodies until the end, and those living and reigning with Christ are the church on the earth. But the subject matter is the firstfruits church. Jesus promised them thrones and they got ‘em. It’s the whole point. Angelic wise men retired in Rev 4 (as OC Nazirites) and human wise men take their place and call down judgments.

    5) For your view to be correct, Jesus must not be reigning now, and have no enemies. That was a short reign! No. When Solomon took government, the first thing he did was wipe out his father’s enemies. But that only began his dominion. As mentioned in my post, Revelation also follows the 5-fold Covenant model. Chapters 20-21 are the “Continuity,” the future. And you have to disregard the OT significance of the 1000 years. It is a literary allusion to a long period of worship administration, beginning with a costly sacrifice (offering of Isaac on Mt Moriah to David’s purchase of the same site: 1000 years; construction of Solomon’s Temple to Temple’s destruction under Titus: 1000 years.)
    FPs should be made to spend a year on a farm. The firstfruits was firstfruits. One act. Pentecost was the wheat harvest. One act. And Ingathering (Booths) the final act, grapes and olives, which take longer to mature. You guys have no final harvest, no grapes and olives, just Jesus picking random ears here and there.

    Re conclusion: It actually works like clockwork. It takes the imminent texts as imminent, which PPs often fail to do, and it takes Rev 20 as future, Succession, Continuity, Inheritance. Let me send you my book so you can get with the program! Or least see where I’m coming from. The answers are all in previous structures.


  • Mike Sullivan Says:

    Hi Mike,

    1) Thank you for conceding what you are proposing is “new” and a “hybrid.” Maybe even a PP “confusing” “free-for-all” (to use your terms)? I could give you several exegetical reasons to reject it if you like? Was the harvest/resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3/Mt. 13:39-43 which Jordan and Leithart say took place for Israel at the end of the OC age in AD 70 “physical”? Please explain.

    You can send your books to: Mike Sullivan, 64 Homestead Place, Cherokee, NC 28719. I will read them and respond.

    2) No, Beale (Amill’s) and FP are not wrong in connecting Revelation 20-22 with the previous chapters of Revelation. I’ll be more than happy to go into more depth on that later connecting Rev. 20-22 with the rest of Revelation and the rest of the NT for that matter.

    3) I have no desire to go beyond what is written. If the Bible says the New Covenant age has no end, then I’ll stick to that. Concerning the “enemies” and how the NT uses the OT in that respect, see Hebrews 10:13-37. His “enemies that were made his footstool” are exegetically connected to ALL of the imminent time texts in that chapter culminated at His “in a very little while return.” The “Day approaching” (v. 25), the judgment that was “about to” “consume the ENEMIES of God” (v. 26). Context makes clear when these “enemies” would be judged. Paul in 1 Cor. 15 is not using Psalm 110 any differently than the writer to Hebrews (which could be Paul). The ONE imminent coming and judgment puts the “enemies” down during Christ’s pre-parousia reign. There is no debate on the issue of if Christ is still reigning. The issue is context and exegesis which I don’t see you providing.

    4) Not sure I’m following you with your #4. I know, “read the book.” :) Scripture interprets itself. There is ONE eschatological harvest/resurrection and judgment in the NT just as there is ONE parousia Mike. It is described for us in Mt. 3, 13, 21, 24-25; John 4-6; Rev. 7, 14, 20; 1 Cor. 15. Your “new” “hybrid” view does not pass the analogy of Scripture test.

    5) It will take some time to untangle and correct what you are saying in your point #5. So how are you wanting me to use 1,000 in Revelation 20 “according to the OT” since you use it spiritually and literally? Again, you have to isolate Rev. 20 from the rest of Revelation (also from the gospel’s, and the rest of the NT) to arrive at your “new” “hybrid” view Mike. Yes, we have a final harvest which takes place at the end of the [OC] age associated with Christ’s ONE parousia (the “orthodox” view); it’s just not your philosophical endless typological (which likewise you PP have a hard time agreeing on at any given time, let alone which coming is AD 70 ect…) “read my book and maybe you can figure it out” one :).

    In Christ,
    Mike Sullivan

  • Mike Sullivan Says:

    Since you listen a lot to James Jordan, have you listened to his debate with Don Preston? Do you think there may be a reason why all forms of PP don’t offer that debate and we do? Please take the time to listen to that debate. You can find it being offered on my site or Don Preston’s.

  • Mike Sullivan Says:


    When you said that Sam has left the theory of FP behind, are you saying that Sam NOW sees the inconsistency of claiming that the FP view of the New Creation is “Gnostic-like” “Neo-Platonic” and “unorthodox” but somehow his FP view of the resurrection isn’t? Or maybe Sam is developing but yet another “hybrid” “new” “free-for-all” PP Postmillennial view?

  • Mike Sullivan Says:

    Regarding your appeal to Sam Frost and your theory that somehow Revelation 20 can be isolated from chapters 1-19, I would kindly ask you, Sam, and Jason to respond to this:

  • Mike Bull Says:

    Hi Mike

    1) Regarding being a hybrid, it’s not a free-for-all. It listens to the arguments of both the FPs and the PPs. What’s more important, it follows structures laid down throughout the Old Testament. I do believe the end-of-OC resurrection was physical. Christ is flesh in heaven as Head. The martyrs are flesh in heaven as Body.

    2) Regarding recapitulation, as mentioned, these guys have no idea what is going on in the book and do not deal with its structure except in vague terms. Do they understand the Covenant model? No. Do they see the Feasts pattern in Rev? No. Do they correctly identify the harlot? No. Do they understand the book takes Israel out of Egypt into Canaan as a corporate mediator, totus Christus? No. Recapitulation is out of the question, except where the “Law” is “repeated” “Deuteronomically” just before the conquest.

    3) Regarding enemies, Christ reigned from age 30 for 40 years as David, was enthroned as Solomon, and continues to reign. I agree Paul’s context is first century. Revelation takes us beyond that with Covenant continuity.

    4) The firstfruits are the subject of Revelation. You can say there is one resurrection, but Revelation says there are two, separated by an entire age of worship. Simple as that.

    5) 1000 years is a literary allusion, a symbol. The OT tells us what its significance is. 666 refers to the Herods, who amassed gold and thought they had wisdom. The numbers are symbols.

    This view is not free for all. It came out of a structural analysis. Revelation follows a pattern used thousands of times throughout the Bible. As I went through Revelation with this tool I found I was just ticking the boxes. “This should be next…” and there it was. It’s not just a bunch of facts, it’s a worship service that uses a prescribed order, one that goes back to Genesis 1 and gets fleshed out along the way in history.

  • Mike Bull Says:

    Regarding Sam, I don’t know the details. I’ve read some of what he has recently said on a couple of sites. Either way, he has rejected the hopelessness of a suffering world without end. I am not appealing to Sam for authority, but to literary structure and clear structural allusions.

  • Mike Bull Says:

    Your alignment of events in 1-19 with 20 is not entirely wrong, but it is not recapitulation. After Christ’s ascension (ch. 4-5), Satan is expelled from heaven. Just as “coals of fire” are thrown down at Pentecost – putting the city under the ban – so a lying spirit fills the false prophets. We see the same thing with David and Saul. Just as Christ’s ascension as Head brings a fire and a holy “swarm” (Creation pattern), so Satan’s fall brings a false church, locusts. The church faces three attacks: Jewish persecution, then false doctrine (a river of bitter water), and then finally Satan turns the Roman guardian against the church. He tries once to more to build a false totus Christus by gathering the nations against Jerusalem. When Jesus rescues the girl He ties up the dragon.
    What we see in Rev 20 is his release to do the same again, this time not in first century Palestine, but gathering the nations of the world, whom he has been withheld from uniting (deceiving) until that time. He is put under a lid, as the harlot was in Zechariah 5. She was exposed and seen riding the beast, released to be destroyed. Satan is currently under a lid and will be released to be exposed and destroyed. Once again, his defeat is tied to a resurrection, this time worldwide. Jordan explains in his lectures why there are so many references to the book of Esther (and its prediction in Ezekiel 38-39).

    I’ll send you Bible Matrix today so you can see the basic structure. 1-19 is its own structure. 20-21 flows out of this, but actually caps off the same structure at a higher level, the one that covers the entire Bible.

    Thanks for the comments.

  • Mike Sullivan Says:

    I have provided a FP article by Sam Frost refuting your particular separation of Revelation 20 from chapters 1-19 – that you nor Jason have responded to. Here is one from an Amillennial online article:

  • Mike Sullivan Says:

    1) Mike, I don’t disagree that Revelation takes us “beyond AD 70″ (ex. Rev. 22:17). Can you please provide me with a passage that teaches the destruction of the planet earth?

    2) I am aware of Sam’s emotional arguments about sin and evil existing. I responded to those kind of emotional arguments concerning the New Creation in our book – responding to RC Sproul Jr., Mathison and Kistemaker. Sam hasn’t even touched them.

    3) I understand why you have a problem with Satan being “crushed” “soon” (Romans 16:20/Genesis 3:15) and being thrown into the lake of fire since that doesn’t fit your futurist interpretation of his activity in the millennium today?

    In Christ,
    Mike Sullivan

  • Mike Sullivan Says:

    I guess I should have said the destruction/transformation of the planet earth.

    In your Ezek./Esther connection, do “nations” mean “worldwide”? I thought DeMar (taking up Jordan’s position here) pointed out that they were the local nations – “world as they knew it”?

  • Mike Bull Says:

    Hi Mike

    I did respond to the article by Sam that you posted. I didn’t do it by dealing with the particulars but by showing that the structural allusions of Revelation make your assertion of recapitulation impossible.

    “(1) The book consists of seven sections. (2) These seven sections run parallel. Each of them spans the entire dispensation from the first to the second coming of Christ. The period is viewed from one aspect; then from another (p.25).”

    The sections do not run parallel at all.

    Sam’s arguments aren’t emotional. They are based on common sense.

    I don’t have a problem with Satan being crushed “soon.” AD70 completed the totus Christus – the body ascended AS FLESH. This is the Covenant Head and Covenant body as a corporate High Priest (mediator), standing in the veil, on the neck of the accuser, until all the nations have passed through the Laver of baptism. Only then will he be loosed for a short spell – as the Azal goat. You haven’t dealt with my arguments above. The answers are not in the New Testament, but in the structure of the Old. Check out the last few chapters of Bible Matrix when you get it, and “all will become clear to you, earthling.”

    Ezekiel 38-39 are a prophecy of the Book of Esther, and their place within the structure of Ezekiel support this:

    Esther has nothing to do with AD70. The allusions are used because the people of God are living in all provinces and God is working behind the scenes. Also, because Satan is the ultimate Amalek (Haman). The process God used to destroy Haman (i.e. give him enough rope to hang himself) is exactly what God will do in the final “battle.” It won’t be much of a battle at all.


  • Travis Matthew Finley Says:

    Mike B,

    Kindly open my eyes on this new thought for me:

    1) “The Old Covenant ended with a physical resurrection. We know it was physical because it is described as a marriage.”
    Are you saying that the saints in heaven now have resurrected bodies, b/c “resurrection” in Evangel-ese means bodily.

    and 2) please flesh out(!) the idea that covenants have an end. If that is the case and the NC ends with the future resurrection…is that an end to covenant life? “Every new beginning comes from some other beginning’s end” and so had Adam not failed his covenant structure would have matured into a new phase. By your definition that NC would have an end….and then that NC would have an end….Am I missing something? Thanks, Mate.

  • Travis Matthew Finley Says:

    So, in Rev 20 when it says that “the rest of the dead” did not live until the 1000 ended, who were these and why were they not raised with the first fruits?

  • Mike Bull Says:

    Hi Travis

    I do believe the “first resurrection” saints have physical bodies. Besides the facts that Jesus has a physical body in heaven and there is nothing in the text to indicate otherwise, there is the Garden, Land, World pattern. The Land resurrection mediates the Garden resurrection with the World. Those saints “live and reign” with Christ throughout this gospel age until it ends.

    And, yes, all Covenants have an end. A Covenant is like a tour of duty. This current tour will end, just as all the others did. This one will end in victory. It doesn’t mean “Covenant life” will end. It means the mission – the Great Commission – will have an end. Only then can the Son hand the completed kingdom to the Father.

    On the rest of the dead, see:

  • Travis finley Says:

    So, it seems you disagree with jbj on the corporate aspect in Rev 20. Is Matt 25 a part of your scheme bc i am not sure where the resurrection fits into all of this. Not only that, but no one i know would say this. If i endorsed a first c. physical resurrection for OT folk, i wouldnt be ordained…

  • Mike Bull Says:

    Yeah, but he does believe they went to heaven. So it’s only a disagreement over whether they are in their final glorified state or not. No sweat. But I do think it wrecks the pattern if they are not in the flesh. For the mediators in the Holy Place, between the Most Holy and the Sea, the ministry was about keeping flesh holy until the coming of the Spirit. I don’t think it can be avoided if we understand the big picture.

    But I won’t tell anyone if you won’t.

  • Mike Bull Says:

    Also, endorsing a physical resurrection in the first century doesn’t mean you deny one at the end of history. I really don’t understand how we have gotten this so wrong. Why is it so hard to believe there are two corporate resurrections when this is precisely what the Revelation teaches?

    So, I think you are safe as long as the final resurrection remains intact in your thinking.