Beyond Creation Science

October, 2024

These citations will help the reader to understand and digest Gary DeMar and Kim Burgess’ brand new form of Partial-Preterism:

Kim Burgess and Gary DeMar from “The Hope of Israel and the Nations: New Testament Eschatology Accomplished and Applied” - 2 Volumes, 2023-2024

Purchase Volume 1 Here

Purchase Volume 2 Here

Click here for YouTube Video Review of Volume 1

“To head off any misunderstanding up-front, another vital point needs to be put on the table for the thesis that is to be developed in the Episodes that follow. The period of AD 30 to 70 in OT Israel’s history of redemption is not the whole eschatological story, nor can it possibly be so.”

Volume 1, p. xvii.

“Will the physical/material creation be redeemed too, eventually, from the effects of the sins of men as more and more people among the nations of the world are redeemed? Will the physical creation be permeated too by the leavening effects of the Gospel of the Kingdom? Yes, it will! We cannot for a minute break the cardinal link between creation and redemption IF we wish to have a full-orbed Christian salvation as opposed to some sort of Gnostic one."

Volume 2, p. 95

“So my point is that the redemptive contexts of Romans 8 and 2 Corinthians 4-5 are different in focus even though the language used is quite similar in both! So, one more time it bears clarifying: Romans 8 is stated in the context of covenantally objective (redemption accomplished) while 2 Corinthians 4-5 is presented in the context of covenantally subjective (redemption applied)….

To be more exact, in redemptive-historical terms, this “outer man” is who we are as human beings defined bodily, that is, outwardly, visibly, and materially the embodied biological sons of Adam. But because of the fall of Adam, this outer man, given the aging process, is subject to death; it is a “mortal body” (Rom. 8:1); the body is dead because of sin (Rom. 8:10) and it is, therefore, “decaying” or “wasting away” and will, in time, pass away entirely from this world. Down in 2 Corinthians 5:8-9, this outer man is what Paul is referring to when he spoke of being “absent from the body” so as to be “at home (present) with the Lord.”

Volume 2, pp. 123-124.

“I think the reason for the fatal mistake here — and, of course, the hyper preterists are all going to come screaming at me for saying this — is because they equate the “covenants” and the “ages” as if “this age” is absolutely nothing more and nothing less than the Old Covenant order, such that when the Old Covenant order ceases to exist — and we all agree that it ceased to exist in AD 70 — then “this age” is done and gone forever. This is a horrendous error, and I will therefore take sharp issue with it in Episode 19.”

Volume 2, p. 211.

“My making this necessary corrective assertion is precisely where the real controversy comes in in the debate among preterists and it needs to be dealt with here….

Though I myself am a consistent preterist when it comes to the objective covenantal accomplishment of redemption in the period of AD 30 to 70 in OT Israel, but am only a partial preterist when it comes to the yet-on-going subjective application of this redemption in the world today, what I am going to say here about the relationship of “the covenants and the ages” is not going to anger the traditional creedal futurists or the traditional partial preterists because they will essentially agree with me as this is just straight-line, traditional Reformed Biblical theology at work. Rather, it is the AD-70 full stop preterists who alone will sharply disagree with me as they do not allow for a key distinction between the two covenantal administrations — Old and New — and the two ages — this age and the age which is about to come. So, once again, the cardinal question is this: Is it right to speak of “the Old Covenant age” and “the New Covenant age” per se as though “covenants” and “ages” are simply interchangeable and synonymous terms? I’m here to say, no, I don’t think so.”

Volume 2, pp. 240-241

“We clearly know what these two “covenants” refer to, but when it comes to the two “ages,” the focus is on what I call the Adamic world order level as centered, per Romans 5:12-19 and 1 Corinthians 15:45, on the first and “last” Adam or Adam and Christ as two federal heads of these two ages or world orders. When it comes to the two ages concept, we have moved on beyond the limited domain of OT Israel’ in the creation-wide world of the first chapter of Genesis….

But, once again, the question is, are they synonymous concepts? No, they are not because there are two transitions going on in the NT, not just one, and in summary form, they can rightly be labeled as (1) from Moses/David to Christ (the two covenantal administrations in Israel and (2) from Adam to Christ (the two ages/world orders) on the Genesis 1 world stage.

Volume 2, p 242-243

“Whereas the transition of the two covenantal administrations in OT Israel — Moses/Old Covenant order to Christ/New Covenant order — was completed by AD 70 in Israel (thus, redemption accomplished), The second transition (that of the two ages or world orders) from this age to the age that was about to come, though it had surely begun then and there was not complete by AD 70. It is still underway to this day in the world among the nations. It is concerned with the application of this redemption on the world-order stage. This is the transition from Adam to Christ….”

“So what does “this age” mean in the NT, “This age” is not simply the Old Covenant order as per the AD 70 full-stop preterists… “this age” is the world-order of “sin, condemnation, and death” in fallen Adam….

“When you come to the second transition from Adam to Christ, from the first to the last Adam, this transition has definitively begun, but it is still in process of being worked out. It is still underway and has yet to be fully and finally completed/consummated.”

Volume 2, p. 243-244

“Moses is not the source of any “age.” No “age is said to begin with Moses. The age of sin, condemnation, and death began with Adam. Once again, “age” in the NT is used not as a synonym for “covenant” or “covenantal administration,” but as an Adamic and, therefore, world order term.

Volume 2, p. 245

“We still have a foot in this fallen Adamic world that has its claim on us and will continue to do so, even as Christians, until the day we die and are “absent from the body” to be forever “at home/present with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:8), “for he who as died is freed from sin” (Rom. 6:7). This is why Paul says what he says in Romans 8:10, “the body is dead because of sin.” This is why he refers to the human body in fallen Adam, even for the Christian, as a “mortal body” (Rom. 6:12) or as “mortal flesh” (2 Cor. 5:11).

Volume 2 p. 245.

“On this individual level, this is precisely why all people in this world, including Christians, age or grow old and die. It is all a part of “this age” in fallen Adam “passing away,” but we will come to this in greater detail….

“Biblical eschatology thus has two dimensions. The first is the redemptive-historical, covenantally objective work that is done/finished/completed in Christ in OT Israel in the period of AD 30 to 70. This is the first transition, the Moses/Old Covenant order to Christ/New Covenant order. The second dimension of Biblical eschatology, from this age to the age still in the process of coming, is this covenantally-subjective application of redemption on both the individual level and world order or cosmic level, and this is still underway.”
Volume 2, p. 247.

“This age” in the NT is not simply “the Old Covenant age” as we are being told by all the AD-70 full-stop preterists. It is rather this age/this world-order in fallen Adam.”

Volume 2, p. 250.

“To be sure, this age of sin and death in fallen Adam met its definitive end in AD 70, and it has been on its way out ever since, as we will see, but it continues down to this day in the world…. As for we Christians, well, we now live in two ages simultaneously. Through our material/genetic bodies, we are still linked to fallen Adam, our federal head in the natural realm, and so we still inhabit “mortal bodies” (Rom. 6:12, 2 Cor. 5:11) that are subject to death and thus are slated to die (Rom. 8:10) in and with this age in Adam.”
Volume 2, p. 251.

“Now I am hearing AD-70 full-stop /hyper preterists saying, like a mantra, okay, all of world history post-AD 70, well, this is now the ‘Christian Age.’ So, they are strictly identifying this “coming age” in Christ and generic world history, post-AD 70, as if they are one and the same thing. But is this correct? Is this redemptive-historical structure of “this age vs. the coming age” simply a BC (before Christ) and Anno Domini/AD (in the year of our Lord) sort of thing? I do not think so. This would be another case of over-simplification or reductionism so that these people can maintain their hyper preterism.”

Volume 2, p. 260.

“So, this is what I am understanding the NT to be saying when it talks about this “coming age.” It is not just simply saying that all of world history, post-AD 70, is the ‘Christian age’ as we are so often told. Since this coming age in Christ indeed has no end, but is itself eternal (thus, “eternal life”) and so extends forever beyond the temporal confines of this life/age/world, then, by their false linkage here, AD-70 full-stop preterists dare to assert that generic history as we presently know it in a fallen world-order of “sin and death” will not, and, indeed, they foolishly say, cannot ever end in the sense of coming to a telos (goal or consummation) of its own just as OT Israel’s special history of redemption did in AD 70. Now what kind of a Christian Gospel is this?

This fallacious perspective is utter nonsense because it totally denies and rips apart the cardinal Biblical connection between “creation and redemption” which then severely guts and shortchanges the scope and goal of Christian salvation in Christ in this world/age. As the old beloved Christmas carol, “Joy to the World,” has it quite correctly, “He [Christ} comes to make His [saving] blessings flow as far as the curse is found,” and this curse is nothing less than creation-wide! This Christian salvation/redemption will not stop short of resulting in the full and final reality of a “new heaven and new earth” in Christ as this “new creation” has indeed already definitively begun (AD 30-70) in Christ and His New Covenant Kingdom and continues to be progressively worked out (however slowly) in world history over time in what Paul referred to in Ephesians 2:7 as “the ages to come.” The “leaven” of the Kingdom will not stop short until the whole lump that is Genesis creation is fully and finally leavened in and for Christ (Matthew 13:33)….

This salvation of the whole creation is all made possible because Christ was fulfilling two distinct roles in this redemptive process.

Volume 2, pp. 261-262.

“But, as we have seen, the eschatological goal of the world order, as conveyed particularly in Revelation 21:24, 26 and in 22:2, is for the nations of this world to be brought progressively into this New Jerusalem, into this coming age that is eternal life; that is the Kingdom of God as the Gospel leaven of the Kingdom works its way into the world. It is then, slowly but surely, that the “two ages” will start to come together as this age in fallen Adam is transformed by the Gospel of the Kingdom more and more into the coming age in Christ as the King and Lord of all., telos/goal of Isaiah 11:9 (Hab. 2:14) and Psalm 22:27-28.

This is the telos/goal of the whole process of the on-going application of this Christian redemption in this world per what Scripture tells us to expertly, namely, that in the end, “The earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea” (Is. 11:9, Hab 2:14). And then, when it is all done, full and finally, in the world’s/the creation’s own eschaton, this coming age will have worked itself out, permeating (leavening) the world, so that the two ages will become one and the same age in Christ. All the nations will come to the Lord. All the nations will belong to Christ in existential/experiential fact even as they already do so in principle by God’s own decree (Psalm 22:27-28; 2:8). We are yet a long way from seeing/experiencing this today, but the fact remains that, as of AD 70, it is already true definitively or in principle at least (cf. Rev. 11:15) and is now progressively becoming more so. But yes, for sure, we are still today at the early headwaters of this transition of the two ages.”

Volume 2, p. 271.

“I prefer to label these two eschatological transitions, respectively as “micro-eschatology” (in OT Israel; Moses to Christ; done!) and “macro-eschatology” (in the world order; Adam to Christ; yet underway today).”

Volume 2, p. 272.

“We have got to get our heads around this time tension if we are not to be tripped up in confusion by it. It is not an either-or (past or future) scenario. Rather, it is very much a both-and (past and future) one, with the past (definitive) event opening the way and providing for this future. It is definitive (past), it is progressive (present), and it will eventually be full and final (future). Biblical eschatology and these two transitions — of covenants and of ages — worked, or work in the latter case, the same way.

Hyper preterists want to put the period at the end and say “AD-70 full-stop.” They are right in one sense (that of redemption accomplished), but they are wrong in another (when it comes to the on-going process of redemption applied). But the creedal futurists all say, “No, no, no; it is all in the future.” They are right in one sense too, but they are also wrong in another. Each perspective is falsely pitting the past against the future. The proper tension to be taken into account here is how does the past — the preterist reality, the definitive reality — affect both the present and the future reality that flows forth from it?…

Is it right to simply speak of “the Old Covenant age” and the New Covenant age” as if “covenant” and “age” are synonymous, interchangeable terms? No, it is not.”

Volume 2, 274.

****The reader should note how this Partial Preterist view abandons key conclusions about “the end of the age” as taught by other Partial Preterists and even American Vision’s own published books and articles over many decades:

“So we can say that Christ and His first-century followers appeared at the end of an age — the age of Judaic Temple worship, the aeon of the shadows. This age was to be followed by, if I dare say it, a new age. This new age is the Christian aeon, in which we live. In this age, the age in which the biblical writers referred to as the age to come, the Temple is a spiritual one and will never be torn down, much less rebuilt.”

Douglas Wilson, “Biblical Pictures of the New Cosmos” in And It Came To Pass, p. 20.

“So, from the teaching of Jesus, Paul, and the author of Hebrews, we get a very clear picture of two primary ages: one that endured up until the time of Christ, and another that began around the same period. I believe these two periods, being hinged upon the coming and work of Christ, pertain obviously to then Old and New Covenant administrations…

This, of course, is exactly why Jesus tied “the end of the age” to His prophecy of the destruction of the Temple [Matt. 24:3]…..

A clear understanding of then parable of the wheat and tares emerges only after the proper translation of aion (age) and the biblical teaching concerning the two ages….

The separation of the wheat and tares, then, pertained to the destruction of Jerusalem and the separation of God’s true fruit-bearing people from the weeds, the unbelieving Jews of that time….

Thus, the parable describes the then-soon-coming end of that old age…”

Joel McDurmon, Jesus V. Jerusalem, pp. 47-49.
[***Note: This book is published and sold by American Vision]

“Let us be clear about this: The destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem was not merely the end of the Hebrew-Israelite-Jewish period of history that began with Abraham. It was the end of the entire Old Creation from Adam forward. The Church is the replacement not merely of Israel, but also of the older and larger Gentile world that began with Adam and continued through the Noahic covenant. The Kingdom of Jesus is a wholly New Creation, and nothing less.”

James B. Jordan, Matthew 23-25: A Literary, Historical, and Theological Commentary, p. 69 (from then chapter titled: “The Judgment of the Old Creation”
[***Note: This book is published and sold by American Vision]

“Theologians sometimes use ‘Old Covenant’ to refer to the Mosaic covenant. There is truth to this in that the Mosaic covenant published most fully the distinctive character of the Adamic covenant under curse. Yet ultimately the Old Covenant is the covenant of the original garden of Eden. Ultimately, there are two covenants, Old and New. There are two Adams, Adam and Jesus. There are two heavens and earth, the first in Adam and the second in Christ.”

James B. Jordan, Through New Eyes, p. 311
[***Note: This book is sold by American Vision]

“The disciples understood the significance of this. They knew that Christ’s coming in judgment to destroy the Temple would mean the utter dissolution of Israel as the covenant nation. It would be the sign that God had divorced Israel, removing himself from their midst, taking the kingdom from her and giving it to another nation (Matt. 21:43). It would signal the end of the age, and the coming of an entirely new era in world history — Jesus Christ’s New World Order. From the beginning of creation until A.D. 70, then world was organized around one central Sanctuary, one single House of God. Now, in the New Covenant order, sanctuaries are established wherever true worship exists.”

David Chilton, Paradise Restored, p. 88.

[***Note: This book is published and sold by American Vision]

“Here we have the introduction to Herod. Herod the Great is the climax, in one way, of the entire history of Adam."

James B. Jordan, Handwriting on the Wall, p. 597.
[***Note: This book is published and sold by American Vision]

“In my debate with Dr. Michael Brown on the fulfillment of Matthew 24, he spent considerable time dismissing the argument that the “end of the age” (v. 3) referred to the end of the old covenant system of sacrifices, cleansings, food regulations, and priestly oversight. He implied that the “end of the age” was yet in the future….”

“What “age” or “period of time” was about to come to an end when Jesus’ disciples asked about “the end of the age” in Matthew 24:3 after they heard Jesus say that the temple was going to be “left desolate” (23:36)? The end of the old covenant age was on the horizon with the ministry of Jesus.”

“The New Testament church was in a transition phase (AD 30–70) between the passing away of the old covenant age and the new covenant age. With the end of the temple, its sacrificial system, and its earthly priests, the old covenant came to an abrupt and consummating end.”

Jesus follows up their three-part question with a description of the signs that will lead up to the temple’s destruction and the end of the old covenant age (24:4–35).

Gary DeMar, "The End of the Age (Part One)" (Dated 2022)

[***Note: The recent publication of The Hope of Israel with a futurist view of “the end of the age” means that Gary DeMar now is in print agreeing with Dr. Michael Brown that the “end of the age” is not the old covenant system, and remains to be fulfilled in our future.

Also, DeMar has belatedly conceded in all of his debates against Tommy Ice who argued that the “end of the age” was not the end of the old covenant, but the final, worldwide end that remains in our future. DeMar’s new book published with Kim Burgess as co-ashows how DeMar has abandoned what he has taught from Last Days Madness regarding the “end of the age” at least up until 2022, or more than 3 decades of writing and teaching on the subject.

“Within the preterist framework, we conclude that the angels who sinned were judged in the first-century judgment on the Old Covenant. Perhaps this is why 1 Peter 4:5 says that Jesus is ‘ready to judge the living and the dead.’ The fall of Jerusalem was a judgment not only of apostate Judaism, but on the pre-flood generation as well. All the blood from Abel on were charged to that generation.”

Peter Leithart, The Promise of His Appearing: An Exposition of Second Peter, p. 71.

One final note alluded to in the above quote.

The 2 Volumes of “The Hope of Israel and the Nations” contain over 700 pages of material, and yet there is not one mention or discussion that I can find regarding this explicit statement of Jesus which sets then full context of the end-of-the-age covenant judgment on Israel as rooted in the earliest stories of Genesis 1-3. Maybe the reader should ask Gary DeMar and Kim Burgess why Jesus included the blood-guilt of Abel upon the last generation of Israel?

35 that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

Matthew 23:35-36 NKJ

Could it be that Jesus knows that the Old Covenant begins in Genesis 1-4?