Be sure to read the previous article to be “up to speed” with what we are presenting here.
In addition to positing the fulfillment of the Zion promises, McDurmon went so far as to say that the resurrection prophecy of 1 Corinthians 15 and Revelation 20 had “a fulfillment” in AD 70. You read that correctly. It is not a typo. McDurmon affirmed “a fulfillment” of 1 Corinthians 15– due to some temporal indicators in the text– in AD 70. Yet, he insisted that there is yet to be a “final” fulfillment in the future. Be sure to get your own copy of that debate, to see McDurmons’s incredibly illogical argumentation.
(Side bar: It is logically inconsistent to affirm the fulfillment of the OT Zion promises without thereby positing the fulfilment of 1 Corinthians 15. Paul said that the resurrection he was anticipating would be in fulfillment of (among other OT prophecies) Isaiah 25. But, Isaiah posited the resurrection on “Zion.” So, resurrection (the “final resurrection) would be on Zion. But, the Zion promises have been “spiritualized” per McDurmon, and fulfilled. Thus– irrefutably– the resurrection prophecies have been fulfilled).
Patently, if you admit that there was a fulfillment of the resurrection promise of 1 Corinthians 15 in AD 70, and you say that there is yet to be a “final fulfillment” of Corinthians, then you are thereby suggesting one of two things:
1.) The “double fulfillment” of prophecy, or,
2.) That the AD 70 fulfillment of Corinthians was typological of the “real” resurrection. (This is in fact what Kenneth Gentry now teaches. He once claimed that Daniel 12:2 foretold the end of human history resurrection. Now, however, he claims that Daniel 12:2 was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70, but, that typifies the real resurrection at the end of the Christian age. See my documentation of Gentry’s radical change in my Shadow book.
I have offered extensive documentation of the Dominionists position that AD 70 was a typological foreshadowing of the “real” end. However, I feel it is necessary that the reader have no doubts as to the current theology of the Dominionist world in this matter. The problem for the Postmillennialists is that while on the one hand they blithely affirm that AD 70 was a type of the real end, in truth, they contradict themselves– badly– in this regard. Worse, they contradict the Bible.
Some prominent Postmillennialists reject– at least ostensibly– the idea that prophecy is fulfilled over and over again: Lorraine Boettner, said : “Another principle of interpretation is that when a prophecy or promise has been fulfilled once, there is no valid reason why it must be fulfilled again, or repeatedly.” (Lorraine Boettner, The Millennium, Philadelphia, P and R, 1957)105). It is, perhaps, important to note that Boettner was writing against the Dispensational claims of double fulfillment when he said this.
On that note, in 2011, McDurmon presented a lesson at the American Vision Bible Prophecy Conference: “Double Fulfillment: Double Cross.” In that lesson he noted the Dispensational claim that prophecy must be fulfilled twice. He rejected that view as untenable and un-Biblical. Likewise, in his attack on the Dispensationalists who often acknowledge the first century appearance of anti-christs, (as typological of yet future events), McDurmon says that claim “distorts the scripture.” (J-v-J,185).
Gentry, commenting on the Great Tribulation says: “Copious, clear and compelling evidence demonstrates that the great tribulation occurs in the first century.” (Dominion, 2009, 356). So, Gentry teaches that the Great Tribulation occurred in the first century, in the events surrounding the War of the Jews.
Remember that we demonstrated above that Gentry believes that the events of AD 70 were typological of the real end. Well, in truth, Gentry and the Dominionists are highly selective in what they believe was typological.
C. Marvin Pate, Dispensationalist, agrees with Gentry that the events of the first century were typological. Pate agrees that the prophecy of the Man of Sin was Jewish in nature, and had a first century fulfillment. However, as Gentry says, “Pate specifically notes that the mark of the beast ‘can be understood as pointing a guilty finger at those Jews in the first century.’” Pate does not stop there, however, insisting that the first century anti-Christs foreshadow yet future events.
Gentry responds: “Why, then, should we look for further fulfillments beyond this most relevant first century one?” (Kenneth Gentry in, Four Views of Revelation. (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1998)45). In other words, Gentry rejects the idea that first century events were typological– when such an admission conflicts with his eschatology.
He also says: “There are those, moved by the strong arguments for a preteristic understanding of Revelation, who hold there is still a beast in our future. The means by which they attempt this is through ‘double fulfillment.’ These interpreters argue that though there is a past fulfillment of the beast, there will nevertheless be another climactic fulfillment in the future. Such an approach to the beast of Revelation is highly unlikely.” (Kenneth Gentry, Perilous Times, A Study In Eschatological Evil, (Texarkana, Covenant Media Press, 1999)133).
In alignment with Gentry and other Dominionists, in our debate, McDurmon claimed that the physical events of the Old Testament foreshadowed the spiritual fulfillment in Christ. However, stunningly, he claimed that the spiritual fulfillment of those things now typifies the coming physical fulfillment of those promises! So, as I commented several times, McDurmon’s hermeneutic was Physical foreshadowed the Spiritual, which now in turn typifies the physical.
One has a perfect right to ask in light of these documented Dominionist views: If AD 70 closed out the typological era, (per Gentry) then how in the name of reason does the end of that typological era establish another typological era?
How can it be claimed, as Bahnsen did, that the typological Sabbath has given way to another typological Sabbath? And how in the name of reason can one castigate the idea of “Double Fulfillment” as un-Biblical, and yet then posit “multiple fulfillments” of prophecy? That is– to use a pun– double talk. I agree with Holwerda, “When fulfillment happens, the institutions that were types or symbols of that reality are no longer necessary. They are displaced by the reality they symbolize.” (Jesus and Israel: One Covenant or Two, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1995)75).
It should be more than clear to the objective reader that the Dominionist paradigm is fundamentally and fatally flawed.