Humiliated by his many false forecasts of impending doom, 90-year-old Harold Camping of the Family Radio network says that he’s trying to figure out why May 21st’s Judgment Day was a bust and how the universe failed to collapse on Oct. 21.
“We are living in a day when one problem follows another,” he says in a five-minute audio message on Family Radio’s website, “When it comes to trying to recognize the truth of prophesy, we are finding that it is very, very difficult. Why didn’t Christ return on October 21? It seems embarrassing for Family Radio, but God was in charge of everything — we came to that conclusion after quite careful study of the Bible.”
Of course, it does not take much study of the Scriptures to conclude that after spending millions of dollars of the faithful’s donations on billboards, placards, bus bench signs, newspaper ads and flyers declaring Jesus would return on May 21, nothing happened.
Camping “guaranteed” that the skies would part, the trumpet would sound, the dead in Christ would rise from their graves — and that the living and the dead would be judged. When it didn’t happen, he then explained that it actually had. We were just unable to realize it with our human senses, he explained.
But, he warned, on Oct. 21 the universe would be destroyed — and Earth with it. On October 22, the universe, Earth and Camping were still here. His explanation?
“I am very encouraged by letters that I have received concerning this matter,” he says, “Amongst other things, I have been checking my own notes more carefully than ever. And I do find that there is other language in the Bible that we still have to look at very carefully.”
Indeed, he advises his followers, “We should be very patient about this matter.”
“He is very fortunate that he is not living in Old Testament times,” notes journalist Jay Tower of Christian Crusade Newspaper. “They were a sterner lot than we are today. They took false prophets out behind the city gates and stoned them.”
“There is one thing that we must remember,” says Camping in a halting, strained voice — as he seems to fumble for words. There have been reports he suffered a stroke after the May 21 predictions failed. ”God is in control of this whole business and we are not. What God wants to tell us is His business. When he wants to tell us is His business.”
In the recording, he apologizes for stating that anyone who did not believe his May 21 prediction is not a Christian. “I should not have said that,” Camping says quietly.
However, he does not apologize for his failed forecasts. According to ABC News, Camping has predicted the end of the world 12 times. His first doomsday prediction dates back to 1978.
His audio message and leaves the door open to the possibility that, as he has done in the past, that through his complex numerology-based mathematical system of evaluating the Bible, he will discover another doomsday date.
“In the meanwhile, God is continuing to allow us to cry to Him for mercy – O my, how we need His mercy — and continue to wait on Him,” says Camping. “God has not left us. God is still God. We have to be very careful that we do not dictate to God what He should do.”
You would think that after taking months to prepare a response Jerry would have been able to present a more substantive negative. But such is the weakness of his (and my former) eschatology, that he could not present anything better if he took a year or more. Frankly, I continue to be stunned at his desperation, and the “new theology” being created right before our eyes.
Now, I have presented well over 25 valid logical syllogisms. Jerry signed his name to answer my arguments. But, he admits he has not done so. But of course, he ridicules me if I don’t address every word he writes. This is not playing the role of the negative respondent.
Jerry notes that Jesus said: “I have finished the work that thou gavest me to do” (Jno. 17:4). Jerry admits Jesus had not yet literally accomplished all things, but had, “set things in motion that would put him on the cross and would cause his work to be finished. In the same manner when Christ died on the cross, he set things in order that would fulfill everything. Thus when he died on the cross the law was fulfilled.” Pure double-talk.
Jerry admits that until Jesus literally died, the Law was not actually fulfilled. He agrees that Jesus had to actually die to fulfill the law. Yet, he wants us to believe that Jesus did not have to literally accomplish the “all things” of Torah for the law to pass. On the one hand he says the law was fulfilled at the cross; then he tells us the cross set in motion the fulfillment of all things.
Well, Jesus said that until every jot and tittle in the law – which included the”accomplishment” of everything foreshadowed in the Sabbaths and Feast Days– none of Torah would pass. Jerry totally ignored my chart on Jesus’ use of genetai.
Jesus did not say, “Until things are set in motion for the accomplishment of every jot and tittle.” (Jerry, Jesus “set in motion” the process of fulfillment when he was born, but that does not mean all was fulfilled by his birth, does it?)
Jesus had to literally die to accomplish what Torah foretold. He also had to literally accomplish all that was foreshadowed in the Sabbaths and Feast Days– which Jerry admits refers to the Judgment and Resurrection.
JERRY AND THE SONG OF MOSES
Jerry cannot escape the implications of the Song and he knows it.
Jerry initially told us that the Song of Moses was fulfilled in Moses’ day and then in Revelation 15. “I specifically said that the first time the song was sang it was sang at the beginning of Israel’s existence as a nation. The next time was when Spiritual Israel sang it and it became the song of the Lamb (Rev. 15:3).” (Second Negative).
Now, however, Jerry says the Song in Revelation 15 is from Exodus 15 not Deuteronomy 32.
DEBATE CONVERSION! Here is his quote: “Then in Revelation 15 they sang the song of Moses, which was the song sang in Exodus 15, and it became the song of the Lamb, but no where do they sing the song of Deuteronomy 32:19-21.” (Third Neg).
He has undeniably changed his position; his desperation is palpable.
The Song spoke of the conversion of the Gentiles in Israel’s LAST DAYS. Both Paul and John quote it as being fulfilled– and about to be fulfilled– in their day. So, Jerry changed– YES, HE DID– and said the Song did refer to Israel’s last days, but not to AD 70. Note that he has consistently refused to identify Israel’s last days– WHEN THE GENTILES WOULD BE SAVED. This is critical, folks.
Jerry fills the air with smoke. He offers a chart in which he reiterates what he originally said: “Don sees “the last days” in everything, but Deut. 32:20 is not talking about the last days, but their end was simply their apostasy from God. The rejoicing (v:43) was that God would avenge the blood of his people upon the Nations of Canaan. None of Deuteronomy had to do with the last days, but with what was going on at that time.”
Jerry is all over the map.
He says the Song applied strictly to Moses’ day, not the last days– even though the Song twice says it was about Israel’s last days.
Fact: The Song applied to the time AFTER MOSES’ DEATH, when Israel would fill the measure of her sin (31:29-30) and “evil will befall you in the last days” (31:29).
The Song applied to MANY GENERATIONS TO COME (32:7) when Israel would look back on the time that Jerry says the Song applied to.
If the Song applied to Moses’ day:
1.) Israel met her “last end,” her last days, in Moses’ day. After initially denying that the Song was about Israel’s last end, Jerry then gave us the lexical definitions that prove the Song applied to her last end after all.
2.) The Gentiles were converted in Moses’ day.
Jerry has not, and cannot refute the fact that the Song is applied by the NT writers to their generation.
Paul cited the Song in promising the persecuted church that vindication was coming (Romans 12:19).
Paul said the Song was being fulfilled in his Gentile ministry. Jerry hopes you will not remember this glaring problem, but it will not go away.
The Song of Moses was “the law.”
The Song of Moses foretold the conversion of the Gentiles in Israel’s last days (32:19-21).
Not one jot or one tittle would pass from “the law” until it was “fully accomplished (genetai).
But, the Gentiles were being converted in Paul’s ministry, in fulfillment of the Song.
Therefore, the Law had not passed at the time of Paul’s Gentile ministry.
Jerry misrepresents me by claiming that I said the Law would pass when the Gentiles were converted. My point was that the law could not pass until (among other things) the Gentiles were converted. I did not argue that Torah would pass at that juncture.
My point was clear to anyone not willing to distort my argument. The fact is that Torah foretold the conversion of the Gentiles in Israel’s last days. The Gentiles were not converted at the cross. Therefore, Torah did not (could not) pass at the cross. Jerry simply distorted my argument.
I asked Jerry, “Did God call the Gentiles to be his people in Moses’ day?” His response: “It was always God’s intention to bring the Gentiles in and give them salvation. I don’t know if Moses ever stated this or not, but several of the prophets did.”
Jerry’s desperation is glaring. He refused to answer my question directly. JERRY, I DID NOT ASK IF GOD “ALWAYS INTENDED TO CALL THE GENTILES,” DID I? I asked if the Gentiles were called to be God’s people, in Moses’ day, which is where you claim the Song was fulfilled. I asked: If the Song applied only to Moses’ day, why did Paul say it was being fulfilled in his Gentile mission? Once again, you refused to answer. This powerfully exposes the falsity of your theology.
JERRY ON 1 CORINTHIANS 15 AND THE RESURRECTION
Jerry wants so desperately to deny that the resurrection was a Covenant promise made to Israel “after the flesh”, to be fulfilled at the end of her Covenant age.
He says the resurrection is the hope of all men. Well, Jerry, that could only be true if / when God kept His promises to Old Covenant Israel. Salvation was: “To the Jew FIRST, then to the Greek.) (Chart-WhyFirst)
Jerry has Israel cut off, not receiving her promised resurrection, and the resurrection ripped from the end of her age to the end of the Christian age. This is as false to the core.
Let me reiterate my argument on 1 Corinthians 15 that proves the resurrection belonged to Israel’s last days. Don’t miss this!
The resurrection would be when “the law” that was the strength of sin was removed.
The law that was the strength of sin was “the law of Moses” (JMcD).
Therefore, the resurrection was– nor will be– when the Law of Moses was– or will be–removed.
TALK ABOUT AN ACHILLES HEEL!
Jerry asked if Martha expected and Jesus predicted a physical resurrection. He says I ignored the questions. False.
The resurrection that Martha anticipated was the resurrection of Daniel 12.
The resurrection of Daniel 12 would be when the power of the holy people (Torah) was shattered.
The power of the holy people was shattered in AD 70.
Therefore, the resurrection anticipated by Martha was in AD 70.
The resurrection that Martha anticipated– and Jesus predicted– was the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15.
The resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 would be when the”the law” that was the strength of sin was removed.
The law that was the strength of sin was Torah– the Law of Moses– JMcD.
If the resurrection has not taken place, the Law of Moses remains as the law that is the strength of sin.
JERRY, IS THE LAW OF MOSES STILL BINDING TODAY AS “THE LAW THAT IS THE STRENGTH OF SIN? YES OR NO? DO NOT EVADE THIS QUESTION!
THIS ARGUMENT FALSIFIES ANY FUTURISTIC APPLICATION OF ANY TEXT THAT JERRY MIGHT MAKE– AND HE KNOWS IT.
PRESTON’S ACHILLES HEEL?
Jerry claims my Achilles Heel in 1 Corinthians 15 is this: If Paul was drawing from Isaiah 25:6f, then since Paul was predicting the raising of human corpses “that must be what Isaiah 25 was predicting.” Jerry’s presuppositional theology is on full display here.
Jerry assumes, without one iota of proof, that Paul was discussing the raising of human corpses. He is guilty of begging the question. He assumes what he must prove. Neither Jesus or Paul taught such a resurrection.
Jerry turns Paul’s words completely around. Paul was drawing on Isaiah. THAT IS WHERE PAUL GOT HIS DOCTRINE. Paul said that when the resurrection took place, what Isaiah and Hosea foretold would be fulfilled. Jerry must therefore, be able to show that Isaiah foretold the raising of human corpses since Let me show Jerry’s problem.
The resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 would be deliverance from death as foretold in Hosea 13.
The death of Hosea 13 was “sin-death” covenantal death: “When Ephraim sinned, HE DIED… yet they sinned more and more (Hosea 13:1-2). Kinda hard for corpses to sin, is it not?
Therefore, the resurrection of 1 Corinthians would be deliverance from “sin-death” covenantal death.”
Jerry can’t get biological death out of Isaiah 24-25 or Hosea. It is therefore, not in Corinthians. And in fact, Jerry has abandoned 1 Corinthians as a future resurrection! Watch this:
Commenting on Isaiah 25– the source of Paul’s resurrection doctrine in 1 Corinthians 15, Jerry says in a chart– “Isaiah tells of the coming of the Christ and the setting up of his church. Through Christ we have victory over death. OUR VICTORY OVER DEATH IS NOT THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST, BUT WAS THE FIRST COMING OF CHRIST. Because Christ died and rose, we have victory over death. OUR VICTORY OVER DEATH DOESN’T HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE 2ND COMING, BUT HAPPENS WHEN ONE OBEYS THE GOSPEL.” (My emp.).
Isaiah 25:8 and Hosea 13 foretold the victory over death.
Isaiah 25 and Hosea are the source of Paul’s resurrection doctrine in 1 Corinthians 15 (v. 54-56).
But, “Our victory over death (Isaiah 25 / Hosea 13- DKP) is not the second coming of Christ, but was the first coming of Christ” (JMcD).
Therefore, Paul’s resurrection doctrine (Isaiah 25 / Hosea 13 / 1 Corinthians 15) was not a prediction of the victory over death at the Second Coming.
Jerry now says that we have NOW what Isaiah 25 and Hosea 13 foretold– victory over death. We don’t have to wait until the Second Coming!
JERRY HAS ABANDONED HIS OWN RESURRECTION DOCTRINE!
He is affirming that the resurrection is past!
Jerry has entrapped himself, again.
RE: THE MESSIANIC BANQUET OF ISAIAH 25:6-8.
Isaiah foretold the Messianic Banquet at the time of the resurrection.
1.) The Messianic Banquet is the Wedding Banquet of Matthew 22 – Which occurred at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
2.) This matches Jesus’ teaching on the Banquet (Matthew 8:11). Jerry says Matthew 8 does not tell us when that would be. Yes, it does.
It would be when “the sons of the kingdom will be cast out.” In the parallel text, it says when “you yourselves are cast out” (speaking to the Jews– Luke 13:27-28).
I have repeatedly noted Galatians 4. Paul said OT Israel would be cast out for persecuting Christians. Chart– Galatians 4. Jerry has not offered a syllable of response.
3.) It is the time of the salvation of Israel. Remember, Paul said that the salvation of Israel would be at the coming of the Lord in fulfillment of Isaiah 27– the time of the judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood.
4.) The time of the salvation of Israel would be in fulfillment of God’s covenant promises to her– Romans 11:25-27. Jerry has ignored my arguments, but they are fatal to him.
The resurrection is the time of Israel’s salvation (Isaiah 25:8-10).
The resurrection / salvation of Israel would be in fulfillment of God’s covenant with her (Romans 11).
The resurrection has not happened (JMcD).
Therefore, God’s covenant with Israel remains valid– or failed. Which is it, Jerry?
Jerry claims that my position denies that Christ was physically raised from the dead. He says I deny the resurrection. This is both insulting and proof positive that Jerry is willing to purposefully distort what I say.
I AFFIRM THAT CHRIST WAS RAISED IN THE SELF SAME PHYSICAL BODY THAT WENT INTO THE TOMB.
Does Jerry? We will see. This fact is going to haunt Jerry.
I affirm that Christ’s physical resurrection was a sign of the greater, spiritual resurrection (Matthew 16; John 20:20-21).
I accept the Biblical testimony that the resurrection was to occur at the end of the Mosaic Age.
I accept the Biblical testimony that the resurrection was to overcome the death of Adam– which was not biological death.
I accept the Biblical testimony that the resurrection was near in the first century.
Jerry denies all of this. That is the difference between us.
Jerry is wrong.
DID THE CORINTHIANS DENY THE RESURRECTION?
Jerry claims that the Corinthians denied the reality of resurrection. This is patently false.
Paul uses a series of modus podens (if-then) arguments, employing Second Class Conditional clauses. The Second Class Conditional clauses means that the speaker or writer assumes as false a statement that he makes. His audience assumes it to be true, so the speaker utilizes that statement for his argument. In Corinthians Paul says “If Christ be not risen” which he assumes to be false, but which his adversaries believe to be true.
However, Paul then turns that on them by showing if what they believe to be true is true, then it nullifies other things that they believe to be true.
If the dead are not risen (Paul takes what they assume to be true, but which he rejects) then Christ is not risen. THEY DO NOT REJECT THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. Thus, they are not denying the resurrection.
If the dead are not raised, you are yet in your sins. THEY DO NOT BELIEVE THEY ARE STILL IN THEIR SINS. (Why didn’t Paul say, “If the dead are not raised, you will not come out of the ground? Why does he simply deal with sin?)
If the dead are not raised, then those fallen asleep in Christ have perished. THEY DO NOT BELIEVE THAT DEAD CHRISTIANS HAD PERISHED.
Clearly, those in Corinth were NOT denying the resurrection. They accepted Jesus’ resurrection, their own and that of Christians. WHAT THEY DENIED WAS THE RESURRECTION OF A CERTAIN GROUP, however, those of whom Christ was the first fruit. More on that later.
RESURRECTION: IN THE LAW BUT NOT OF THE LAW
Jerry tells us that even though the resurrection promise was “in the law” that it was not “of the law.” He also said: “The promises were not fulfilled until the OT was nailed to the Cross (Colossians 2:14-16). When that happened then the New Covenant could come in and the promises made under the Old Covenant could be fulfilled.”
Note that last claim– SOME OF TORAH PASSED BUT SOME OF TORAH REMAINS. But wait! Didn’t Jesus say, “NONE will pass until ALL is fulfilled”? Jerry is in flagrant violation of Jesus’ words.
Nothing exemplifies Jerry’s desperation more than these claims. To call this disingenuous is a huge understatement. Of course, he gave no scripture; no proof. Jerry is totally out of step with his c of C brethren and history. This is unprecedented! Chart.
Look at these facts:
1.) Jesus said “the law prophesied” (Matthew 11:12)– thus, PROPHECY WAS “THE LAW.” If “the law prophesied” then prophecy was “the law.” This is indisputable.
2.) Jesus said he came to fulfill the law and the prophets. He did not come to fulfill the law divorced from the prophets.
3.) Jesus said not one iota would pass from the law and the prophets until it was all fully accomplished (genetai).
Now, Jerry changes course again and tells us that all Jesus meant in Matthew 5:17f was that the “Old System would be fulfilled when it had served its purpose.”
WELL, AMEN, JERRY!
But, the purpose of the law was to bring man to the New Creation, to resurrection.
That is what Paul affirmed in 1 Corinthians 15.
Thus, the law would stand until it’s mission was accomplished– at the resurrection. The law would have served its purpose when all that if foretold was fully accomplished.
Thank you, Jerry, for ONCE AGAIN confirming my proposition.
Paul called the Psalms, Jeremiah and Isaiah “the law” (Romans 3; 1 Corinthians 14:20-21).
I guess Paul (i.e. The Spirit!!) was confused, because Jerry has decreed that prophecy was not “the law.”
The contrast could not be clearer: Inspiration calls prophecy “the law.” Jerry denies this.
Jerry is wrong, again.
With this in mind, consider this:
Jesus– not one iota of “the law” would pass until it was all fully accomplished (genetai).
Isaiah was “the law.”
Isaiah (the law) foretold the resurrection.
Paul said that Isaiah (the law) would be fully accomplished (genetai) at the resurrection.
Therefore, the law, would not pass until the resurrection.
Remember: Jerry admitted that “the law of Moses” was the strength of sin. Thus, Jerry has the law of Moses and the promises of the law continuing until the “end of time”. So, per Jerry– VIRTUALLY NOTHING OF “THE LAW” HAS BEEN REMOVED! The law and prophecy continue until the “end of time.” Jerry has entrapped himself… again.
The Sabbaths and Feast days of “the law” foreshadowed the resurrection– JMcD agreeing.
Paul said that the typological temple cultus (i.e. the feast days) would remain valid until the time of reformation. The time of reformation is the full accomplishment of what that cultus foreshadowed– entrance into the MHP.
HEBREWS AND THE MOST HOLY PLACE
I devoted almost 1000 words to Hebrews 9 (with six syllogisms) and the entrance into the MHP. Jerry’s response? Almost total silence.
This material is so critical, and so devastating to Jerry that I am reiterating it here. THIS ALONE FALSIFIES JERRY’S THEOLOGY. It is little wonder that Jerry totally ignored this material.
The High Priest’s actions on the Day of Atonement were typological of Christ’s Priestly actions. (Chart– Jesus and Judah)
The OT cultus could not bring man into the MHP, God’s presence, because it could not provide forgiveness (v. 8-9).
As long as that cultus stood valid there could be no access to the MHP.
The cultus would remain valid “until the time of reformation”– when man could enter the MHP.
Christ, in fulfillment of the typology, had appeared to put away sin (the barrier to the MHP)- v. 26).
He had entered the MHP to prepare it (v. 24).
He would come again to bring man into the MHP– this is the time of reformation.
Christ was to come again, “FOR, the law, having (present active indicative) a shadow of good things about to come (10:1– mello with the infinitive).
Jerry claims: “The day of Atonement was taken out of the way at the cross (Heb. 10:1-4).” False!
Christ had to come again to fulfill the High Priest, Day of Atonement shadows of the law. He had to come “FOR” (Hebrews 10:1– Greek, gar, giving the reason why Christ had to come again) the Law was still a shadow of good things about to come. Jerry destroys the typology of Hebrews 9.
I asked Jerry what happens to the child of God when they die. His answer: “Abraham’s bosom…the hadean realm Luke 16:22.” Let’s see:
The covenantal setting of Abraham’s bosom was “they have Moses and the prophets.” Under Torah there was no forgiveness, thus, no entrance into the MHP, per Hebrews 9.
Well, if Torah, which barred man from the MHP, was removed at the cross: WHY DOES THE CHILD OF GOD GO TO HADES LIKE THEY DID UNDER TORAH?
JERRY VERSUS HEBREWS
Hebrews– Man could not enter the MHP AS LONG AS TORAH WAS VALID.
Jerry– Man cannot enter the MHP until THE END OF THE GOSPEL AGE.
Jerry has the gospel as the barrier between man and the MHP!
If Torah ended at the cross– MAN SHOULD NOW HAVE DIRECT ENTRANCE INTO THE MHP. But, Jerry says there is still no entrance into the MHP UNTIL THE END OF THE CHRISTIAN AGE.
This violates Hebrews. Here is the contrast:
Hebrews–> Entrance into the MHP AT THE END OF TORAH. This agrees with 1 Corinthians 15 that resurrection / salvation would be when, “the law that is the strength of sin” (THE LAW OF MOSES PER JERRY.) was removed.
Jerry –> Entrance into the MHP AT THE END OF THE CHRISTIAN AGE.
BUT WAIT! Jerry now says of the promise of Isaiah 25 / Hosea 13: “We now have victory through Christ our Lord.” So, there it is folks! We don’t have to wait for Christ’s coming for the fulfillment of Isaiah / Hosea! But, this demands that the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 is fulfilled, Jerry. That is the victory over death.
JERRY, IF, AS YOU ARE NOW CLAIMING, WE HAVE WHAT ISAIAH 25 / HOSEA FORETOLD, WHY DOES MAN NOT ENTER THE MHP WHEN HE DIES?
Notice the harmony between Hebrews 9 and Revelation.
Hebrews 9– No entrance into the MHP while Torah remained valid– entrance into MHP at Christ’s parousia.
Revelation 11:15: 15:8– No entrance into the MHP until the wrath of God would be finished IN THE DESTRUCTION OF BABYLON.
Hebrews– No entrance into the MHP as long as Torah remained valid.
Revelation– No entrance into the MHP until the wrath of God was consummated in the judgment of Babylon (Revelation 15:8 – 16:17).
Therefore, Torah would remain valid until the judgment of Babylon.
But, Babylon was Rome– per Jerry!
Thus, the destruction of Rome brought man into the MHP.
According to Paul, Torah– not Rome– prevented man from entering the MHP. Jerry denies Paul and says that Rome, a pagan city having nothing to do with God’s covenant or forgiveness stood as the barrier between man and the MHP.<current document>http://www.eschatology.org/all-articles-articles-211/96-salvation/939-entrance-into-the-mhp-and-the-end-of-tohttp://www.eschatology.org/all-articles-articles-211/96-salvation/939-entrance-into-the-mhp-and-the-end-of-torahhttp://www.eschatology.org/all-articles-articles-211/96-salvation/939-entrance-into-the-mhp-and-the-end-of-torahhttp://www.eschatology.org
No entrance into the MHP while Torah was valid.
The Festal Sabbaths foreshadowed the time when man could enter the MHP- “the time of reformation.”(Jerry).
Thus, until what the Festal Sabbaths anticipated is ACCOMPLISHED man cannot enter the MHP– the time of reformation will not have arrived. Jerry says we still cannot enter the MHP. Thus, the time of reformation has not arrived– Torah remains valid.
Jerry’s claim denies what Paul said: That cultus- with its Festal Sabbaths, would remain “IMPOSED UNTIL THE TIME OF REFORMATION” – when man could enter the MHP.
Israel’s salvation– and our’s– would come when all that Israel’s Festal Sabbaths foreshadowed was accomplished AT THE TIME OF REFORMATION.
But, TORAH WOULD REMAIN IMPOSED UNTIL THE TIME OF THE REFORMATION.
Therefore, if, per Jerry, all that the Festal Sabbaths typified has not been ACCOMPLISHED, then without any controversy– Torah remains valid.
Jerry argues that since Job preceded Torah, and Job foretold resurrection that this proves that resurrection was not integral to the Law. This is untenable.
JERRY, ANIMAL SACRIFICES PRECEDED “THE LAW.” DOES THAT MEAN THEY WERE NOT FUNDAMENTALLY “OF THE LAW”?
The resurrection was promised in the Garden.
The resurrection was foreshadowed under Abraham. Jerry, was resurrection promised to Abraham, but not PART OF the Abrahamic Covenant?
The resurrection was in Job.
Here is the point: GOD INCORPORATED THE GARDEN PROMISE INTO TORAH AND MADE IT INTEGRAL TO IT. He placed fulfillment of the Garden promise (1 Corinthians 15:22) at the time of the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel (Isaiah 25; Hosea 14).
Fulfillment was when “the law, that is the strength of sin” – the law of Moses per Jerry himself– would be removed.
Paul did not place resurrection at the end of the (ENDLESS!!) Christian age– in fulfillment of “Christian” promises– divorced from Israel.
GOD HIMSELF JOINED THE LAW AND RESURRECTION. What God has joined, let no man put asunder.
Jerry’s dichotomization of the law is unknown in scripture.
Jerry, I challenge you:
Now, Sabbath was indisputably “the law” (Exodus 20), right, Jerry?
SABBATH WAS A COVENANT BETWEEN GOD AND ISRAEL (Deuteronomy 5; Exodus 31:16). Right, Jerry?
The Sabbath Law foreshadowed the resurrection. (JMcD)
Until ALL of “the law” (God’s covenant with Israel) was fully accomplished Torah would not pass.
Israel would continue to be God’s covenant people until God’s covenant promises to her were fully accomplished (Romans 11:25-27- “This is my covenant with her”).
Therefore, until the resurrection– was / is fully accomplished– “the law” and God’s covenant with Israel would (will) remain valid.
Jerry now denies saying that what the Sabbaths and Feast Days foreshadowed were still “shadows of good things about to come” when Paul wrote. Pure desperation.
He admitted that the Sabbaths were typological of the resurrection and are still unfulfilled.
Jerry has the Sabbaths annulled without the accomplishment of what they foreshadowed.
But, let’s see, what was that Jesus said? Oh, yea:
Jerry has all sorts of jots and tittles passing without the accomplishment of what they foreshadowed. Jerry denies Jesus’ words. He is wrong.
ISAIAH 27 / 59– ROMANS 11:25-27
Paul anticipated the salvation of Israel at the coming of the Lord,
Jerry says, NO, ROMANS 11:25F IS NOT ABOUT THE FULFILLMENT OF ISAIAH AT ALL! Isaiah was fulfilled exclusively in the Babylonian invasion. He assures us (with no proof) that if Isaiah referred to Paul’s day, it could have no application to Babylon’s invasion.
So, JERRY SAYS PAUL MISUSED ISAIAH because Isaiah said nothing about the salvation of Israel in Paul’s day. Remember: Jerry’s eschatology accuses Paul of being a false prophet. Remember my argument on 2 Thessalonians 1. Chart Relief. This likewise impugns Jesus who cited Isaiah 27:13 – Matthew 24:31.
Jerry, why would Paul quote Isaiah if it had nothing to do with his topic? He was not discussing Babylon, but events in his day.
Per Jerry, Paul (and Jesus) quotes from prophecies that had nothing to do with his discussion of the salvation of Israel. Problem: Jerry gave us no proof for his wild claim.
Jerry is sooo confused on Isaiah 27 / Romans 11.
He said Romans 11 (Thus, Isaiah) applied to the cross.
Then he says it (Isaiah–>Romans 11) was not even Messianic. Isaiah referred exclusively to Babylon.
CATCH THIS: If Isaiah 27 was not Messianic, then Romans 11 isn’t, because Paul cited Isaiah as the source of what he was saying in Romans 11.
Then Jerry says that Isaiah did, after all, typify the eschaton.
Jerry, you can’t have it both ways. If Isaiah 27 was not Messianic, you can’t apply it to “the end of the world.”
Speaking of Isaiah 27. Jerry adamantly denies that Paul cited Isaiah 27 in chapter 16:20. Because Paul did not say “to fulfill Isaiah” Jerry concludes that he could not have had Isaiah in mind.
In 11:26-27 Paul quotes Isaiah 27 –which predicted the destruction of Leviathan / Satan at the coming of the Lord (26:21–27:1-2) to speak of the salvation of Israel at the parousia. He says the Day of salvation “has drawn near” (13:12), and then says, “The God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly” (en tachei– Note: every commentator Jerry cited said the promised salvation was IMMINENT).
But, according to Jerry, we are supposed to ignore all of this– because he says so! What was Jerry’s proof? NOTHING, but his pontifications.
JERRY– DANIEL 12– THE POWER OF THE HOLY PEOPLE
I asked Jerry: TELL US, WITH SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT: WHAT IS THE POWER OF OLD COVENANT ISRAEL, THAT SHE WILL CONTINUE TO POSSESS UNTIL THE TIME OF THE RESURRECTION, WHEN THAT POWER WILL BE SHATTERED?
Jerry’s church of Christ brethren are probably shuddering at his “answer”. Jerry, citing Barnes again (no scripture) claims that ISRAEL’S power was her ARMY.
REALLY, JERRY? Amazing.
The resurrection is when Israel’s power is shattered.
Israel’s power is her army (JMcD).
Therefore, Israel’s army is shattered at the time of the resurrection.
JERRY, WAS ISRAEL’S ARMY COMPLETELY SHATTERED IN AD 70? Yes, or No?
Jerry is now arguing that Israel will be “the holy people” until the end of the (ENDLESS) Christian age, when her army will be shattered!
When God gave Israel Torah He said, “If you will indeed keep my covenant then you will be a special treasure to me above all the people; for all the earth is mine, and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Exodus 19:5-6).
YHVH’s covenant relationship with Israel– not her military prowess– is what gave Israel’s army the ability to overcome superior forces (Deuteronomy 7:6-8).
Jerry, would Israel’s army have triumphed as they did, without her covenant relationship with God?
This issue is critical. The definition of the power of the holy people definitively posits the time of the resurrection.
Jerry has admitted that the power of the holy people was not the gospel; it will never be shattered.
Now, he says it was her army.
Israel had but one power. That power was Torah. Did it have power to save? I never said it did. But, it nonetheless set Israel apart from the nations in a distinctive way that cannot be denied. And the resurrection would be when that power was shattered.
TO DENY THAT ISRAEL’S POWER WAS HER COVENANT WITH GOD IS PATENTLY FALSE.
Jerry has not given a single verse to support his denial of this truth. He quotes uninspired men who likewise give no scriptural support.
Notice an argument (I-B-J) I made in regard to Daniel 12 and the Tribulation. McD-Trib
MATTHEW 23 AND THE JUDGMENT
Jesus said all the blood of the martyrs, all the way back to creation was to be judged in his generation. This includes the prophecy of Isaiah 2-4. To avoid this, Jerry cites Ezekiel that the children do not bear the sins of the fathers. Jerry distorts Jesus’ words.
Jesus did not say the Jews of his day would bear the guilt of their fathers. But, the guilt of their fathers, AND THEIR GUILT, TOGETHER, would collectively fill the measure of sin, and judgment would fall. Jesus’ words cannot be denied: “Upon you will come all of the blood of all of the righteous, shed on the earth, from righteous Abel to Zecharias… Verily I say unto you, all of these things shall come on this generation.”
And this means that Isaiah 2-4– the purging of the blood guilt of Jerusalem at the consummation of the last days– was not the Assyrian invasion. Chart- Is2-4
Jerry, how comprehensive was that AD 70 judgment? IT WENT ALL THE WAY BACK TO CREATION!! Jerry is wrong.
THE OLIVET DISCOURSE
Jerry’s fundamental assumption about Matthew 24 is that the disciples asked about two events, and mistakenly linked them together in their mind. Were the disciples mistaken or confused to link the destruction of Israel with the end of the age? No. Chart Mt24
Signs- No Signs– Jerry hangs his hat on a false contrast between signs of the fall of Jerusalem and no signs of the coming of the Lord. Chart Signs
A SHORT WORK WILL HE MAKE ON THE EARTH
You must catch the power of this argument. This is not just semantics. The salvation of “all Israel” promised in Romans 11:25-27 would consummate the work of saving the righteous remnant at the coming of the Lord. Paul said, “A short work will the Lord make upon the earth.”
Jerry is hung up on the word shortly. Okay, Jerry, I will give you “shortly” (Not that I surrender the point). Here is what I will take.
A.) The overwhelming translational evidence. The majority of translations render the text to indicate an imminent consummation. That being true, Jerry’s eschatology is falsified.
Jerry’s answer? He impugns all of the translations! I have asked for his credentials or substantive evidence for rejecting such testimony. He gave us nothing.
B.) I accept Thayer and the lexicons who say: “on suntemnon translated as “short” (p. 606)– “To cut short, briefly, execute or finish quickly…to bring a prophecy or decree speedily to accomplishment, Romans 9:28.” Not one lexicon even hints at the idea of rapidity versus imminence for suntemnos. They all express imminence. .
C.) I WILL NOW ACCEPT JERRY’S OWN DEFINITION OF SUNTEMNON!: “Paul says that Isaiah said that God would finish the work and CUT IT SHORT (AS OPPOSED TO LETTING IT CONTINUE) AND PERFORM A SHORT (BRIEF) WORK ON THE EARTH.” (My emphasis).
AMEN, JERRY, THAT IS PRECISELY MY ARGUMENT!
The work of the salvation of the remnant was to be a “brief work on the earth.” (JMcD).
The work of the salvation of the remnant had begun and was in process when Paul wrote.
Therefore, the completion of the work of the salvation of the remnant would be a brief work, “rather than let this continue it will be cut short” (JmcD).
The completion of the work of the salvation of the remnant would be a brief work, “rather than let this continue it will be cut short” (JmcD).
But, the consummation (completion) of the salvation of the remnant would be at the coming of the Lord (Romans 11:25-27– in fulfillment of Isaiah 27 / 59).
Therefore, the coming of the Lord for the completion of the salvation of the remnant was to be in a brief (short) time!
Jerry, since the salvation of the remnant had already begun and was to be a brief (not long) work, but you deny that Romans 11 is that consummation, then,
Jerry tells us God finished His work with Israel at the cross. Thus, Romans 9:28 must have been fulfilled at the cross.
But, that can’t be the cross, because Romans 9:28 anticipated that consummation.
It can’t be Jerry’s anticipated parousia, because Jerry now admits that Romans 9 was not to be a long work.
If God has finished His work with Israel this demands that Isaiah 25:8-9 is fulfilled, and thus, 1 Corinthians 15.
Jerry cannot say that God has finished His work with Israel without affirming the fulfillment of her resurrection promises.
On Hebrews 10:37: Jerry says: “He then tells them that the day of the Lord will come. He doesn’t say when, but that it will come.”
What desperation! Listen to Paul: “And now, in a very, very little while (hosan, hosan micron) the one who is coming will come, and will not tarry.” Jerry says these are not time statements. Jerry is wrong.
In fact, Paul says that the Song of Moses was about to be fulfilled. He quotes the Song twice to encourage his suffering audience to perseverance until the parousia.
“Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” (Deuteronomy 32:35) says the Lord.” And again, “The LORD will judge His people.” (Deuteronomy 32:36) “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. … For you have need of endurance, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise: ‘For yet a little while, And He who is coming will come and will not tarry.”
So, Paul, who preached nothing but the hope of Israel, encourages the suffering saints to hold on, by citing the Song, twice. The Song promised that in Israel’s last days the martyrs would be vindicated when the Lord judged the people. He told them to be patient, “FOR in a very, very little while, the one who is coming will come, and will not tarry.”
That “for” is the ground of their faithfulness under that duress, but, that “for”predicts the coming of the Lord in a “very, very little while”, WITHOUT DELAY!
Jerry claims that God does not communicate time as man sees it. Jerry, when God caused John and Jesus to say “the kingdom of heaven has drawn near” did He mean that in a temporal sense? (Matthew 3:2 / 4:17)? Were those time statements of true imminence? Yes or No?
Jerry, you know, I know, and every reader of this debate knows that you are playing games with the time statements of scripture.
PRESTON AN ATHEIST– POISONING THE WELL
Once again, Jerry’s desperation and lack of logic is on full display.
He appeals to a man (who calls himself Rivers of Eden) a radical preterist. “Eden” rejects the clear cut testimony of scripture that God intended to bring all men of every nation to him, and insists that only the blood line Abraham is or was ever intended to be saved.
I CATEGORICALLY REJECT THIS. If Gentiles are unknown and unloved, we have “No God.” This is practical atheism.
Jerry attempts to poison the mind of the readers and make a “guilt by association” argument. Rivers is a preterist. Rivers is an “atheist.” Preston is a preterist. Therefore, Preston is an atheist. See how that distorted logic works? It is like saying Mormons believe in Jesus. Jerry believes in Jesus. Therefore, Jerry is a Mormon! See how that works, Jerry?
Look at his “argument”:
“He says that the second song was not sang by spiritual Israel, but by the 144 thousand, those who were saved from Israel. If the 144 thousand has reference only to the literal remnant of Israel, what hope does his position have for anyone now living since no Jew can trace his genealogy beyond A.D. 70? His position implies that only those (the 144 thousand) who lived before A.D. 70 have any hope. This is the position that RoE takes and Don calls his position atheism. This is Don’s position, he just won’t admit to it, so I guess by his own admission, he teaches atheism.”
This is extremely poor logic and a distortion of my position.
1.) The 144K was the righteous remnant of Israel. They are of the twelve tribes.
2.) Jerry claimed: “His position implies that only those (the 144 thousand) who lived before A.D. 70 have any hope.”
FOLKS, JERRY KNOWS THIS IS NOT MY VIEW. His “implication” is false, BECAUSE IT IGNORES MY POSITION BASED ON THE TEXT.
In addition to the 144K there was an innumerable multitude out of every nation, tongue and tribe. THESE ARE NOT OF THE TWELVE TRIBES, but they enjoy the salvation that came through Israel. This falsifies Jerry’s “argument.”
Jerry, why did you purposely distort my position?
THE 144K ENDURED THE GREAT TRIBULATION (7:14)
The 144K were the first generation of Jewish Christians– the first fruit of those redeemed to God from man (14:2f).
BUT, THE GREAT TRIBULATION OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE FALL OF JERUSALEM IN AD 70– JMcD AGREES!
Therefore, the suffering / martyrdom of the 144K occurred prior to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70
(IT DID NOT OCCUR UNDER DOMITIAN!)
(See my book Who Is This Babylon for more on this).
This is from the inspired, internal text. This falsifies Jerry’s claims about Domitianic persecution, his appeal to Pliny, his arguments against the imminence of Revelation– it falsifies everything he has said.
JERRY AND REVELATION
Jerry falsely claims that I said that Revelation was written only to the Jews. False. Jerry refuses to accurately present what I believe.
Revelation is, however, about the fulfillment of the OT promises made to Israel.
Unless and until Israel’s promises were fulfilled the Gentiles could not receive salvation. Jerry has not touched this.
Peter wrote to the identical churches in Asia, (Chart– Pet-Rev) and said that the salvation they were anticipating was foretold by the prophets. It was revealed to those prophets that the salvation would not be revealed in their day, but, it was “ready to be revealed” when Peter wrote. Christ was, “ready to judge the living and the dead,”; “the end of all things has drawn near,” and “the appointed time for the judgment had arrived.” Note: Jerry totally ignored my argument on the anaphoric article that demands that the time for the resurrection had arrived. Chart-
Jerry not only ignores the temporal contrast in Peter, he ignores the identical contrast in Revelation 22:10. The end time prophecies in Daniel were not imminent to Daniel (Daniel 12:4). Daniel was told to seal his book because fulfillment was not near. John, reiterating Daniel’s prophecies, was told “do not seal the book, for the time is at hand.”
Jerry has ignored this temporal contrast, because it is fatal to him. It negates all his charts claiming that tachu means rapidly, not soon, his charts against mello, his arguments on Domitianic persecution. It falsifies his appeal to uninspired men who, like him, simply denied the temporal urgency of, “Let the wicked remain wicked.” (Chart McD-wicked)
JERRY’S DOUBLE-TALK ON THE ALL SUFFICIENCY OF SCRIPTURE
Jerry accuses me of not believing in the all-sufficiency of scripture. He says: “Maybe he doesn’t believe that it is. If it isn’t all sufficient, then it isn’t inspired.”
Jerry misconstrued my answer, so let me state this: The Bible is its own best commentary, and is the final authority.
But let’s take a look at Jerry’s duplicity.
Jerry CLAIMS to believe in the all-sufficiency and authority of scripture; that the Bible “is its own best commentary,” Right?
Hmmm, well, consider this:
When it comes to trying to establish the dating of Revelation, Jerry gives no scriptural testimony. No attempt to allow scripture to interpret scripture.
In fact, after appealing to Summers, Johnson, Barnes, et. al., HE SAID THAT SCRIPTURE DOES NOT MATTER IN DETERMINING THE DATING OF REVELATION! Here is his quote: “Until the date of Revelation of settled it makes no difference how many scriptures he brings up” (JmcD– Second Negative).
So, Jerry himself says scripture is not all sufficient or authoritative. We have to have Pliny, Iranaeus, Barnes, Summers, etc. BEFORE WE CAN EVEN GO TO THE INSPIRED TEXT!
Here is the contrast:
I have used scripture to interpret scripture to determine the date and meaning of Revelation.
Jerry has given us Johnson, Barnes, Pliny, etc..
So, just who is it that truly believes in the all-sufficiency / authority of scripture? It is not Jerry. He cannot come to his late date conclusions based solely on the “all sufficient” text. He is totally reliant on the external, uninspired testimony of men who lived long after the Revelation was given.
A FINAL AFFIRMATIVE ARGUMENT.
Malachi 3:1-5: Notice the elements:
1.) The coming of “the Messenger” (v. 1).
1.) The Messenger would prepare the people for the coming of the Lord– the Great And Terrible Day of the Lord (:3:1-2; 4:5-6).
2.) The Lord would come “suddenly” to his temple– in judgment: “who shall stand at the Day of his coming”; “I will come near to you in judgment” (v. 2, 5).
3.) The Lord would come in judgment of the sorcerer, adulterer, liars, those who mistreated the widows, orphans, and turned away the foreigner (Gentiles)– V. 5.
4.) Verse 5 is a direct citation of Exodus 22:21-23; Leviticus 19-20 and Deuteronomy 27:19.
5.) This coming would be in application of the Law of Blessings and Cursings (Deuteronomy 28-30) at the Day of the Lord.
6.) This punishment would be national punishment: “I will punish you with the edge of the sword” (Exodus 22)– and national destruction (Deuteronomy 28:43f).
It is indisputable therefore that Law of Blessings and Cursings (the law) would still be in effect at the Great Day of the Lord of Malachi 3:5-4:5-6. Now…
John the Baptizer was undeniably the Messenger (Elijah) foretold by Malachi (Matthew 11:10).
John foretold the coming of judgment: “Who warned you to flee from the wrath about to come?”; “the axe is already at the root”; “his winnowing fork is already in his hand” (Matthew 3:7-12).
John, as the messenger / Elijah, was therefore preparing for the coming of the Lord in application of the Law of Blessings and Cursings.
Jerry claims that the Law of Blessings and Cursings died at the cross.
Inspiration demands that Malachi 3:5-4:5-6 be fulfilled at the coming of the Lord in judgment, in application of Mosaic Covenant wrath.
That was not the Cross / Pentecost.
You can’t apply the provisions of a dead covenant.
John (The Messenger / Elijah) foretold “the wrath to come” –judgment on Israel– and said it was near.
Paul foretold “the wrath to come” (1 Thessalonians 1:10)– and said judgment on Israel was about to fall, because (along with blood guilt) THEY WERE DENYING THE GENTILES THEIR PLACE IN THE KINGDOM (1 Thessalonians 2:14-16).
When Paul wrote, John’s “wrath to come” had not yet fallen, but was near.
If the coming of the Lord of Malachi 3:1-5; 4:5-6 did not occur soon, inspiration fails.
If Jerry’s view of the death of Torah is correct, the coming of Malachi 3-4 had to take place between John and the cross.– BUT NO SUCH COMING OCCURRED AT THAT TIME!
Jesus did come in AD 70.
Thus, Torah was still valid and applicable in AD 70.
Jerry claims that the Day of the Lord of Joel 2 / Acts 2 is the end of time. But see this chart– JOEL 2 / ACTS 2. If he is right,
JERRY, WHEN DID THE LORD COME IN JUDGMENT OF ISRAEL– PUNISHING THEM WITH THE EDGE OF THE SWORD– AFTER JOHN’S MINISTRY, BUT BEFORE THE CROSS– IN FULFILLMENT OF MALACHI 3:1-5?
Now, don’t miss the fact that in Revelation 6:12f John anticipated the Day of God’s wrath– the Great Day of Malachi (Joel 2; Isaiah 2-4). THIS IS THE DAY FORETOLD BY JOHN. But, this means that Revelation 6 would be the application of Mosaic Covenant Wrath.
This argument alone establishes my affirmative, and falsifies everything Jerry has said.
Now to Jerry’s charts.