Preterist and postmillennialist Jeff Durbin has recently put out a spate of material and videos on eschatology. The problem with them is they are incredibly shallow, clichéd, and dismissive of futurist interpretation. They may work for his listeners but not thinking people.
I was actually disappointed because I like some of the other material he has put out on abortion and such. I recently challenged him to debate ex-preterist, now-futurist Dr. Brock Hollett, who was willing to debate. Pastor Durbin cited his health and declined the debate. Fine, but he did not show any willingness to debate once his health cleared up. The invitation remains open. Nevertheless.
I found his argumentation against premillennialism and futurism to be really, really bad (he and Gary DeMar are stuck in the 1970s and 80s on pop-pretrib literature and show zero familiarity with scholarly or even semi-scholarly futurist literature).
I wanted to at least respond to him so his listeners and readers can hear the other side—surely he will encourage this. We shall see.
So to begin, I have chosen to start with his mishandling of Jesus's "left behind" passage in Matthew 24. Recently in an in-studio interview with DeMar, he gave a cursory and flawed reason why he thinks it is the righteous who are left and the wicked taken rather than the other way around. So I will juxtapose his reasoning (the righteous are left behind) with my reasons for my interpretation (the righteous are taken).
I trust this will be an instructive exercise why Durbin should not be dismissive of the futurist interpertation. The following link is to my response to Durbin on the left behind passage.
https://www.alankurschner.com/2019/09/05/a-reply-to-jeff-durbins-mishandling-the-left-behind-passage/
Thanks Alan. I have listened o
ReplyDeleteTo Durbin on occasion and found myself concerned, but I couldn't put my finger on the issue.
This will help me understand what I'm hearing from him.
In the past few months, I’ve noticed James White making comments to theonomy and eschatology - both subjects he either disagreed with, or avoided (in that order) in the past. I’m guessing this might be due to his joining Apologia church. He’s mentioned many conversations he’s been having that have caused him to change his mind on issues.
ReplyDeleteAs a great philosopher once said, “Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them... well, I have others” (Groucho Marx).
DeleteEvery evangelical view point of eschatology has weaknesses within itself.
ReplyDeleteI found Gary DeMar’s books, RC Sproul , and Ken Gentry, and Keith Mathison to be very good on many points but I was not completely convinced .
My biggest problem with the partial-Preterists is that they take Matthew chapter 13 verses 38 to 42 to be about 70 A.D., which seems really crazy to me.
Also Gary DeMar takes second Peter chapter 3 as also about 70 A.D. and that is even more crazy and ridiculous. (IMO)
But they seem to be right to emphasize the connection between Matthew 23:36 and following it through to Matthew 24:34
Although in my opinion the hardest aspect of that is Matthew 24:29 to 31 and seeing that as well fulfilled in 70 A.D.
It seems to me that the disciples question in Matthew 24:3 is combining the events of 70 A.D. with the future second coming of Christ and Jesus’s answer is a mixture of the fulfillment of 70 A.D. with the second coming of Christ which is still future to us .
Matthew 23:36 to Matthew 24:2 seems clearly about 70 AD.
3 As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen (70 AD), and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” ( 2nd coming)
Matthew 24:3
The disciples question is in three parts and they are the ones that mix the events of 70 A.D. with a literal second coming of Christ the end of the age. it seems crazy to interpret the end of the age as only the end of the Old Testament, end of the old of covenant, Jewish age, etc. rather than what Matthew 13:38-42 and Matthew 28:20 where He clearly says that the end of the ages all the way to the second coming .
However they made lots of good points about the word “coming”, and that in many contexts it is referring to a nearby judgment - for example in Revelation chapter 2:4-5, taking away the lampstand of the church at Ephesus seems to be clearly about something that happened in the near future, then later, in the invasion of the Goths in the 260’s AD, and then later the Arabs in 600s - 700s, then later by Seljuk Turks and Ottomans, 1000-1453, seem to be fulfillment’s of that, and the judgment on all or most all of the churches of north Africa & the Middle East and what is today called Turkey seem to be a fulfillment of Revelation 2:4-5.