Archive

Archive for June, 2011

Ananias & Saul

June 28, 2011 Leave a comment

In an earlier post by Mark, on The Clashgroup, he argued that people other than the apostles had the power to lay hands on people and give them the Holy Spirit.  His proof text was Acts 9:17,18:

And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized” (Act 9:17-18).

Now Mark didn’t use the emphasis on the bold text that I did, but I did that for a reason.  His purpose was to show that Ananias, who was not an apostle could lay hands on someone and give them the Holy Spirit.  He restricted his argument to Acts 9:17,18 while I shall go one and use Acts chapter 22.

1) I would like to point that Mark has deleted his post from the Clashgroup.  As a matter of fact he deleted several posts from the list.  If you check the archives you will find 4731 then it jumps to 4738.  Some where in between those two numbers was the post that I am commenting on.  One can only wonder why he would delete his own posts!  It could be because I have already dealt with this before and took both he and Tinroad to town on this issue and destroyed them and he didn’t want to face embarrassment again.  Is that possible?  It could be!

2) It wasn’t but just a few days ago that he chided Terry for quoting Peter on Joel’s prophecy about the handmaids and servants prophesying and he said that “this was recorded by Luke” as though that had some detrimental bearing on the matter.  But it does as far as Tin and Mark are concerned because neither of them believe that anything that was written by Luke or Mark (the writer of the gospel according to Mark) was inspired because they were not apostles.  Yet, everything in the book of Acts was recorded by Luke and if Luke can be brought into questioning on even one thing in his writings, then his whole writings can be brought into questioning.  So how does he know that Luke recorded it right when it said that Ananias said “and be filled with the Holy Spirit”?  According to him, he doesn’t and he can’t!  Is this a reason he deleted his post on the matter?  It could be!

3) Paul gave his account of his dealings with Ananias in Acts chapter 22:

And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there, Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him. And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord(Act 22:12-16).

So what was it that Ananias did?  Luke tells us that he laid hands on Saul so that he would receive his sight.  Paul said that Ananias said “receive thy sight” and he received it.  From this we infer that Ananias laid hands on Saul so that he would receive his sight and told him to receive his sight and he did.  He told Saul that he was sent to him that he would receive his sight, AND be filled with the Spirit.  Now did Ananias touching Paul in any way cause Paul to be filled with the Spirit?  Not according to scripture.  The scripture says that Saul arose and was baptized.  Paul said that Ananias told him “Why tarriest thou, Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord.”  Was this Holy Spirit Baptism?  If so, then why would Ananias tell Paul not to tarry?  I thought that the moment he laid hands on him that this would cause him to be baptized in the Holy Spirit?  But no, Ananias told Saul not to tarry, but to arise and be baptized and wash away his sins calling on the name of the Lord.

Now Tin and Mark make a lot out of “calling on the name of the Lord” and we are to do that, but simply calling out “Lord Jesus save me” isn’t enough.  In order to Biblically call on the name of the Lord one has to do the things that the Father said.  For it was Jesus who said:

 People can call out “Lord save me” but if they don’t do the will of the Father which is in heaven, it is of little consequence for them to call out.  To Biblically call on the name of the Lord is to do the will of the Father which is in heaven, and this is what Ananias told Saul to do; and this is what Paul said he told him to do.

So we can see why Mark deleted his own posts.  I don’t blame him, if I had made such a grevious error I would delete mine too (provided I was in his frame of mind and refused to change).  What Mark ought to have done was to have admitted that his position was wrong and changed, but instead he deleted it to make it look as though he never said anything about it.

That’s too bad, we will not allow that blunder to go unnoticed.

Back

Home

Advertisements
Categories: Uncategorized

PRESTON ON “THE GREAT CITY”

June 23, 2011 1 comment

Don Preston tells us that the Great City in Revelation 11:8 has to have reference to Jerusalem because Jerusalem is the only city that is spiritually called “Sodom.” However, this does not hold true as is seen in Therefore as I live, saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, Surely Moab shall be as Sodom, and the children of Ammon as Gomorrah, even the breeding of nettles, and saltpits, and a perpetual desolation: the residue of my people shall spoil them, and the remnant of my people shall possess them” (Zep 2:9). So this means that the word Sodom is a word to refer to wickedness, not to just refer to a certain city—Jerusalem.

The Great City has reference to Babylon which was in reference to the Roman Empire. Look below at all of the passages that use the words “great city” and you’ll have to agree with Johnson that it never refers to the city of Jerusalem:

Rev_11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom

and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

Rev_14:8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she

made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.

Rev_16:19 And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great

Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his

wrath.

Rev_17:18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

Rev_18:10 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that

mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.

Rev_18:16 And saying, Alas, alas, that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet,

and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls!

Rev_18:18 And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great

city!

Rev_18:19 And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great

city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she

made desolate.

Rev_18:21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus

with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.

Rev_21:10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great

city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

When one looks at this it can be seen that Don Preston is in error with his claim.

Back

Home

Categories: Uncategorized

PRESTON ON “QUICKLY”

June 23, 2011 Leave a comment

Don Preston teaches that the word “quickly” in the book of Revelation refers to “imminence rather than rapidity. The “imminence” definition is essential to his position on the book of Revelation on passages such as 3:11: “Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.” Don’s position here is like the Premillenial position that when Jesus said “behold I come quickly” he was saying that his coming was imminent. In that sense Don would have no problem with singing the song “Jesus Is Coming Soon.” However, the meaning of the word “tachos” does not demand “imminence” unless the Greek has “en” preceeding it.

G5034

ταχος

táchos; gen. táchous, neut. noun from tachús (G5036), prompt, swift.

Quickness, swiftness, speed. In the NT, only in a phrase with the prep. en

(G1722), in, used as an adv. meaning quickly, of short duration, speedily,

soon, shortly, equivalent to tachéos (G5030), suddenly, quickly

(Luk_18:8; Act_25:4; Rom_16:20; Rev_1:1; Rev_22:6, meaning

suddenly). Also with the idea of haste (Act_12:7; Act_22:18; Sept.:

Deu_11:17; Psa_2:12).

Syn.: spoude (G4710), speed, diligence.

Ant.: bradútes (G1022), tardiness, slackness, slow pace” (The Complete Word Study Dictionary, e-Sword).

Now if you notice the primary meaning is “prompt, swift, Quickness, swiftness, speed,” and only with the preposition “en” does it demand soon or shortly. Look at all the places where the word quickly is used in the New Testament:


Mat_5:25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary

deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.

Mat_28:7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you

into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.

Mat_28:8 And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples

word.

Mar_16:8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither

said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

Luk_14:21 So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said

to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed,

and the halt, and the blind.

Luk_16:6 And he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly,

and write fifty.

Joh_11:29 As soon as she heard that, she arose quickly, and came unto him.

Joh_13:27 And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.

Rev_2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come

unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

Rev_2:16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

Rev_3:11 Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

Rev_11:14 The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly.

Rev_22:7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.

Rev_22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall

be.

Rev_22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus

Now notice all the places where the word “quickly” has Strong’s Number of G5034 or G5035. The only time it means imminence is when it has the numbers G1722 G5034. That only happens twice and both are in Acts 12:7 and 22:18. The other places refer to “rapidity” rather than “imminence.” Notice the following verses with Strong’s Numbes:

Mat_5:25 AgreeG2468 G2132 with thineG4675 adversaryG476 quickly,G5035 whilesG2193 G3755 thou artG1488 inG1722 theG3588 wayG3598 withG3326 him;G846 lest at any

timeG3379 theG3588 adversaryG476 deliverG3860 theeG4571 to theG3588 judge,G2923 andG2532 theG3588 judgeG2923 deliverG3860 theeG4571 to theG3588 officer,G5257 andG2532

thou be castG906 intoG1519 prison.G5438

Mat_28:7 AndG2532 goG4198 quickly,G5035 and tellG2036 hisG846 disciplesG3101 thatG3754 he is risenG1453 fromG575 theG3588 dead;G3498 and,G2532 behold,G2400 he

goeth beforeG4254 youG5209 intoG1519 Galilee;G1056 thereG1563 shall ye seeG3700 him:G846 lo,G2400 I have toldG2036 you.G5213

Mat_28:8 AndG2532 they departedG1831 quicklyG5035 fromG575 theG3588 sepulchreG3419 withG3326 fearG5401 andG2532 greatG3173 joy;G5479 and did runG5143 to bring

his disciples word.G518 G846 G3101

Mar_16:8 AndG2532 they went outG1831 quickly,G5035 and fledG5343 fromG575 theG3588 sepulchre;G3419 forG1161 theyG846 trembledG5156 G2192 andG2532 were

amazed:G1611 neitherG2532 saidG2036 they any thingG3762 to anyG3762 man; forG1063 they were afraid.G5399

Luk_14:21 SoG2532 thatG1565 servantG1401 came,G3854 and shewedG518 hisG848 lordG2962 these things.G5023 ThenG5119 theG3588 master of the houseG3617 being

angryG3710 saidG2036 to hisG848 servant,G1401 Go outG1831 quicklyG5030 intoG1519 theG3588 streetsG4113 andG2532 lanesG4505 of theG3588 city,G4172 andG2532 bring inG1521

hitherG5602 theG3588 poor,G4434 andG2532 the maimed,G376 andG2532 the halt,G5560 andG2532 the blind.G5185

Luk_16:6 AndG1161 heG3588 said,G2036 An hundredG1540 measuresG943 of oil.G1637 AndG2532 he saidG2036 unto him,G846 TakeG1209 thyG4675 bill,G1121 andG2532 sit

downG2523 quickly,G5030 and writeG1125 fifty.G4004

Joh_11:29 As soon asG5613 sheG1565 heardG191 that, she aroseG1453 quickly,G5035 andG2532 cameG2064 untoG4314 him.G846

Joh_13:27 AndG2532 afterG3326 theG3588 sopG5596 SatanG4567 enteredG1525 intoG1519 him.G1565 ThenG3767 saidG3004 JesusG2424 unto him,G846 ThatG3739 thou

doest,G4160 doG4160 quickly.G5032

Act_12:7 And,G2532 behold,G2400 the angelG32 of the LordG2962 came uponG2186 him, andG2532 a lightG5457 shinedG2989 inG1722 theG3588 prison:G3612 andG1161 he

smoteG3960 PeterG4074 on theG3588 side,G4125 and raised him up,G1453 G846 saying,G3004 Arise upG450 quickly.G1722 G5034 AndG2532 hisG846 chainsG254 fell offG1601

fromG1537 his hands.G5495

Act_22:18 AndG2532 sawG1492 himG846 sayingG3004 unto me,G3427 Make haste,G4692 andG2532 getG1831 thee quicklyG1722 G5034 out ofG1537 Jerusalem:G2419 forG1360

they will notG3756 receiveG3858 thyG4675 testimonyG3141 concerningG4012 me.G1700

Rev_2:5 RememberG3421 thereforeG3767 from whenceG4159 thou art fallen,G1601 andG2532 repent,G3340 andG2532 doG4160 theG3588 firstG4413 works;G2041 or elseG1490

I will comeG2064 unto theeG4671 quickly,G5034 andG2532 will removeG2795 thyG4675 candlestickG3087 out ofG1537 hisG848 place,G5117 exceptG3362 thou repent.G3340

Rev_2:16 Repent;G3340 or elseG1490 I will comeG2064 unto theeG4671 quickly,G5035 andG2532 will fightG4170 againstG3326 themG846 withG1722 theG3588 swordG4501 of

myG3450 mouth.G4750

Rev_3:11 Behold,G2400 I comeG2064 quickly:G5035 hold that fastG2902 whichG3739 thou hast,G2192 thatG2443 no manG3367 takeG2983 thyG4675 crown.G4735

Rev_11:14 TheG3588 secondG1208 woe(G3759) is past;G565 and, behold,G2400 theG3588 thirdG5154 woe(G3759) comethG2064 quickly.G5035

Rev_22:7 Behold,G2400 I comeG2064 quickly:G5035 blessedG3107 is he that keepethG5083 theG3588 sayingsG3056 of theG3588 prophecyG4394 of thisG5127 book.G975

Rev_22:12 And,G2532 behold,G2400 I comeG2064 quickly;G5035 andG2532 myG3450 rewardG3408 is withG3326 me,G1700 to giveG591 every manG1538 according asG5613

hisG848 workG2041 shall be.G2071

Rev_22:20 He which testifiethG3140 these thingsG5023 saith,G3004 SurelyG3483 I comeG2064 quickly.G5035 Amen.G281 Even so,G3483 come,G2064 LordG2962

Jesus.G2424

Notice the meaning of the word “tachos”:

G5035

ταχύ

tachu

Thayer Definition:

1) quickly, speedily (without delay)

Part of Speech: adverb

A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: neuter singular of G5036 (as adverb)” (Thayer’s Lexicon, e-Sword).

Don’s position that there are seven instances of “en tachos” in the New Testament is false. There are only two instances. Sometimes the word is tachu (G5035) and sometimes it is “tachos” (G5034). Either time the primary meaning is rapidity. G5034 can mean either, but it is dependent upon the context. Don’s problem is that not one time, in Revelation, does the context demand “imminence.”

Back

Home

Categories: Uncategorized

McDonald’s Second Rebuttal

June 19, 2011 1 comment

McDonald’s Second Rebuttal

The invalidity of Don’s statement that I only responded to one of Don’s arguments is made clear by my following statements in the following article. If you look at the article that is provided by the aforementioned link you will find those thing that he said I did not respond to, responded to. So just what is it that I did not respond to? Now I will admit that I did not follow him off into his repetition, but I was under no obligation to do such. I answered his arguments as is clearly seen above, unless he can bring up arguments that I did not answer. If he can let him do so. There were two questions that I did not answer. I have no excuse other than I just did not see them, so I will answer them now.

Don answers my question about Christ being our “high Priest” on the following chart. I don’t know where he got the idea that “being changed” in Hebrews 7:12 was “present active indicative because it comes from the word μετάθεσις which is “metáthesis; gen. metathéseōs, fem. noun from metatíthēmi (G3346), to transfer. Transposition, a moving to another place” (The Complete Word Study Dictionary, e-Sword). There is nothing here about it being present active indicative. I checked The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised and nothing is said there about it being present active indicative, all that is said there is to check section 5, table e and part c. All it gives is the Singular, Plural and Dual endings of the 5 cases. None of this says anything about the word being present active indicative. Don’s only authority here is the English language, but since the New Testament was not originally written in English we cannot look to it for our authority. So down goes Don’s argument.

Also Christ was after the order of Melchizedec in as much as his priesthood was not like the Aaronic Priesthood. It had no genealogy! Yes Christ died to the Torah, and as such he took the Torah out of the way, nailing it to his cross. Those priests who still ministered according to the law were fallen from grace (Gal. 5:4) according to the Apostle Paul because no flesh could be justified by the works of the law (Gal. 2:16).

Don tells us that because he says that Hebrews 7:12 is “present active indicative” that Hebrews 8:13 means: “nigh unto passing.” In the McGuiggan-King Debate Jim McGuiggan handled this passage which can be seen on the following chart.

I’m sorry, but his definition does not stand. Jesus came as King of king and Lord of lords. He did not need to wait until A.D. 70 to become king over the kingdom, and the kingdom did not need to wait until A.D. 70 to have a king. Paul wrote “who hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear son” (Col. 1:13). The words “hath delivered” come from the word “ῥύομαι”rhúomai; fut. rhúsomai, aor. pass” (The Complete Word Study Dictionary, e-Sword). The aorist shows action in past time, and the passive shows that the action is being done to you. Thus Paul said that at the time that he wrote this that people were being translated into the kingdom of Christ. How could that be if Christ was not King of kings? Matthew 12:20 is the fulfillment of Isa. 42:3, and Matthew 12:20 shows that Christ is the Messiah and would be shown to the Gentiles.

Don says: “Jerry says that if Paul preached the hope of Israel,  they would have accepted his message.” Where did I say this? I don’t recall it, and I don’t find it in my article, so please point it out to me if you would.

Romans 11:7 has reference to the church not to fleshly Israel. While there were Jews in the church, the elect was also made up of Gentiles, and it is what Paul was talking about. Verses 25-27 show that the Gentiles were to be made one with the Jews (Eph. 2:16). They were not to be Old Covenant Israelites. They were to be the church (Spiritual Israel). Don does not seem to be able to understand that concept, but it is one that is essential to understanding the New Testament (Acts 8:23; Rom. 9:1-5).

Israel was promised the adoption and the resurrection. Israel was promised a lot of things, but everyone of Israel’s promises were based upon Israel’s obedience to God. When Israel continually disobeyed God she was cut off. A remnant was allowed to return, and faithful Jews became Christians and with Gentile Christians formed the church (the kingdom). However, fleshly Israel ended at the cross. Mosaic law ended at the cross. The Old Law ended at the cross.

He tells us that either I have badly misrepresented him because I have not read the literature or I purposely misrepresented him or he and his have not made themselves clear. Well, I have not misrepresented him at all. And he and his have made themselves very, very clear on the matter. What he doesn’t like is the implications of his doctrine. He wants to be able to teach what he wants to teach without having to deal with the consequences of what he is teaching.

To teach that the law of Moses had not been fulfilled at the cross would be to imply that Paul was wrong to urge Jews to not live under the Law. If the law was still in effect, as Don contends, then Paul was wrong to tell people that they should not live under it. By the fact that Paul told people that they had fallen from grace by trying to live under the law (Gal. 5:4; Rom. 7:1-4) we see that the law was no longer in effect. The consequence of Don’s position is that he teaches that Paul was in error.

He rightly states that the church and gospel was the fulfillment of Israel’s Old Testament promise, but he erred when he said that Israel’s salvation would come at the time of the resurrection. Israel’s salvation would come when Christ died on the cross(Heb 9:15). He tells us that Isa. 10:21 shows that God’s promises were always to the righteous remnant, and I agree to that in as much as these promises were made after Israel was told that they would be cut off as a nation. However, it never was God’s intention to keep Israel as a fleshly covenant nation. It was always his intention to use Israel to bring Christ into the world and have Christ bring the church (his kingdom) into existence.

Romans 11:1-7 shows that Israel was cut off and that the remnant was saved. The Gentiles were added to the remnant (those who were baptized at Pentecost—the faithful who had never bowed the knee to Baal) and they formed the church; the kingdom of Christ.

He brings up Romans 9:22-28 as though I mentioned nothing about it in my first rebuttal. I responded to it very explicitly. You can go to the following chart to see what I said on the matter, but I don’t have the space to go into it in this article. God was not going to remarry the remnant of Israel, the remnant of Israel was going to be saved by becoming Christians. The marriage between Christ and the church is not the same as the marriage between God and fleshly Israel. The remnant’s salvation would be a spiritual salvation and would only come when Christ died on the cross (Heb. 9:15).

Israel was not cast off at the cross. Israel was cast off when she went into captivity. The law of Moses was fulfilled at the cross. The law ended at the cross. As a religious law (as far as God was concerned) Judaism ended at the cross. Yes, Paul said he was an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham of the tribe of Benjamin, but one chapter before he wrote this he wrote “Brethren, my heart’s desire and hope for Israel is that they might be saved” (Rom. 10:1). If they were God’s chosen, why did Paul want them to be saved? If they were already in a covenant relationship with God why did he hope that they would be saved? As a nation Paul affirmed his ethnicity (an Israelite) just like I affirm that I am an American, but this does not mean that America is God’s nation.

If you look at the following chart you can see that verse 28 is a continuation of what Paul was quoting from Isaiah. Paul isn’t interjecting his own thoughts there, he is quoting Isaiah the prophet. Look at the following chart to see what Robert L. Whiteside wrote.

Israel’s salvation, again, depends upon their obedience to the gospel of Christ. They had to obey the gospel and could not live in unbelief, otherwise they would be lost. Don wants to take verses 27 and 28 out of their context and make them apply to the A.D. 70 doctrine, but you can’t justifiably do that. Leaving them in context you see that Paul is saying that all men, Jew and Gentile alike are saved through Jesus Christ.

Then he goes to Isaiah 59 and talks about ACCUSATION, ACKNOWLEDGMENT, and ACTION and then he says: “This is the coming of the Lord Paul anticipated in Romans 11. In other words, Paul’s eschatology was the OT hope of Israel. This is the salvation of the righteous remnant in Israel.” A question comes to mind, “What was the hope of Israel” according to Don? If he says that the hope of Israel was the salvation of man through Jesus Christ our Lord, then I agree with him, but if he says that the hope of Israel was anything else then I wholeheartedly disagree with him.

Don tells us that Romans 9:28 tells us that “the consummation of the salvation of the righteous remnant that was to be completed shortly- Romans 9:28.” As the former chart shows, Rom. 9:28 is a quotation of Isa. 10:22,23 . There is nothing in Isa. 10:22 or 10:23 that shows that this will be done shortly. Don sees the word short and he automatically thinks that this means that it will be done shortly. The word “short” in Romans 9:28 comes from συντέμνω and can be seen on the following chart.

The word does not mean shortly under any circumstance, and Don’s contending that it does just goes to show just how far he has gone off into this heresy. He cannot even properly interpret scripture anymore.

He tells us that the judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood was to be in the first century. The book of Isaiah was a message to the Israelites who were going to be carried off into Babylonian Captivity. They were to be punished for their sins, and the remnant would return from captivity and rebuild the city, the walls and the temple—which they did under Ezra, Nehemiah and Zerubbabel. Israel was not going to be punished in A.D. 70 for the sins committed in Isaiah’s day. The destruction of Jerusalem was for the purpose of destroying the temple, and any chance of the Jews being able to trace their lineage back beyond that time.

Paul and Barnabas were not preaching Old Testament Law in Acts 13. They were preaching the Gospel of Christ which was different from the Law. Don seems to think that if Paul quoted from Isaiah or one of the prophets that he was preaching the Law. I guess he thinks that I preach the Law when I quote from one of the Old Testament Prophets today. I have preached whole sermons from Proverbs, Jeremiah, Isaiah, etc., but this does not mean that I am preaching the Law. No, no, no! I preach the gospel of Christ. I may make use of the Old Testament, but only in the sense that I use the principles in it or quote the prophecies and show where they were fulfilled. This does not mean that I am preaching the Law any more than it meant that Paul was preaching the Law. This is the lamest argument that Don has made yet. In Acts 13 Paul uses the Old Testament to lead up to the story of Christ. In Romans 11:26,27 Paul is showing that the only way that any Israelite can be saved is to obey the gospel of Christ, just like anyone else. Paul was not wrong because he was not positing anything in his future. Look at what Paul says in Romans 11:26-28 and see if Don is right.

Paul isn’t saying that Israel shall be saved in his future, he is saying that when this was written that Israel’s salvation was several years in the future. Funny how the Gentiles had salvation at that point, but the Jews, God’s chosen people would have to wait until A.D. 70 to have salvation! (?) No, Paul was showing that the Gentiles had been grafted in, and the Jews could be grafted in again if they continued not in unbelief. However, they had to believe or they would not be grafted in. However, God has always reserved those who have never bowed the knee to Baal and those were grafted back in. This grafting in was taking place right then.

In Romans 9:1-5 Paul talked about his kinsmen according to the flesh, who were Israelites. The adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the Law, the service of God, and the promises pertained to those Israelites. Those Israelites were of the fathers (the ancestors) and of whom concerning the flesh Christ came. Paul continues on discussing that not all of the Israelites are going to be the children of God. Just because they are Israelites in the flesh does not mean that they will be the children of God. The promise made to Abraham was two-fold (Gen. 12:1-3): (1) There was the land promise (12:1), and the promise of salvation (12:2,3). It was the promise of salvation that not only applied to the Jews, but also to the Gentiles (Isa. 2:2-4). So while the promise was made to Israel, it was not just for Israel. It was for all of mankind.

The hope of the resurrection is not only the hope of Israel, but it is the hope of all men (Act 26:6) “The Salvation of Man Through Jesus Christ Our Lord. Was the promise of the resurrection made to the Jews? Yes it was! Was it made exclusively for the Jews? No, it wasn’t! Was it made as part of the Law? No, it wasn’t! It was a prophecy that was made during the time that the law was in effect. Don doesn’t seem to realize that a prophecy uttered during the Law of Moses doesn’t necessitate it being the Law of Moses. I have shown that Paul said that the law was nailed to the cross, and he counters that by saying that it was the guilt of the law. Paul didn’t say it was the guilt of the law, he said that it was the law and even uses the “new moons,” “feast days,” and “sabbath days” as proof that he was talking about the law itself. However, he never did respond to Paul’s statement in Galatians 5:4. There is no doubt that Paul was saying that if one tried to be justified by the law that he would be lost. Since this was written before A.D. 70 it can only be interpreted that Paul was saying that the law was no longer in effect.

All of his bantering around Isaiah 45, Hosea 2:1-2 and Jeremiah 3 do not show that the law of Moses was going to continue until the resurrection of the dead or that God would remarry Israel during the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. I did not change anything in Hosea 2:19. God was not going to remarry Israel as a whole. He said he would marry the remnant which he did when Christ died on the cross and the church was established on the day of Pentecost. Don wants to apply this marriage to all of Israel because of the word “all” in Romans 11:26. The word “all” does not mean every person, but every person that will believe.

Don thinks that Deuteronomy 26:8,17,19 shows that God married Israel at Sinai. But he didn’t deal with what Paul said in Galatians 3:17. I asked him, in my preliminary questions: “7.  Do you believe that the Bible is all sufficient, and that it needs nothing to explain it for it is its own best commentary?” His answer was: “Answer: The Bible is definitely its own best commentary.” The question was “do you believe that the Bible is all sufficient, that it needs nothing to explain it and that it is its own best commentary. He only said it was its own best commentary. This may be where his problem lies. When one fails to hold to the all sufficiency of the word, that the word needs something other than itself to explain it then they come up with all of these far out doctrines. However, he did say that the Bible is its own best commentary. So we will go from there. Since he agrees that the Bible is its own best commentary and since Paul stated that Israel was already in a covenant relationship with God already having the promise before Sinai there should be no problem with what I said. As a matter of fact I brought up Gal. 3:17 in my first rebuttal and Don didn’t even bother to deal with it. Here is a question that the reader might want to ask himself: “Was Israel in a covenant relationship with God before Sinai?” “Yes or No!” According to Paul, the answer would be “Yes.” Here is another question: “What took place at Sinai?” Answer: God gave the first written law!

The first time you see the name Israel is in Gen 32:28. Then you find the first time the 12 tribes are mentioned in Gen 49:28. All of this was many, many years before Sinai. The promise was made in Genesis 12 to Abraham and Abraham kept God’s statutes (Gen. 26:5). This idea that the marriage to Israel waited until Sinai is absurd and anti-scriptural.

Ezekiel 16:1-16 does not teach what Don wants it to teach. It teaches a successive picture of God’s dealing with Israel from the time of Abraham until they went away into captivity. They went into Egyptian bondage and God brought them out and decked them with shoes (badger skins) and jewelry and Israel went whoring after other gods. However, the promise (covenant) was made with Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3. That is a Biblical fact!

Did God make a new covenant with Israel? Yes, he did! But not with Israel as a nation! He made this new covenant with all people. It came through the children of Israel, but then again so did Christ so according to that thinking I guess Christ was the savior of Israel as a nation. Funny about that when they found out that he wasn’t going to save them as a nation they killed him.

He says that “God undeniably married Israel at Sinai.” No, God gave the written law at Sinai, but Israel was already God’s people which is why God had Moses tell Pharaoh Let my people go” (Ex. 5:1). Now if Israel was not already in a covenant relationship with God how could God say that Israel was HIS people? The Israel that God would make the new covenant with is Spiritual Israel—the church. Fleshly Israel, as a nation, ceased to be when she went into captivity. A remnant came out of captivity and rebuilt the wall, the city and the temple. However, when Christ died on the cross, the law and the temple worship ceased as far as God was concerned, which is shown by the veil in the temple being rent into two pieces.

There is nothing in Matthew 22 about the second coming of Christ. This was about Christ coming in the first place. Remember the Jews (those who were bidden to the wedding) rejected Christ and God had the the apostles turn to the Gentiles (those who were in the highways). The parable in Matthew 25 refers to the second coming of Christ, which is the only parable that can rightly refer to the wedding, and it refers to when the marriage is consummated. The betrothal took place on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 and it remains in that betrothed state until Christ returns from preparing a place (Jn. 14:1-3) for it and to take it with him. Is the church with Christ today? No! Therefore it is still waiting for the groom to appear to consummate the marriage.

In the first place I have shown from the context of each parable what each one is talking about. In the second place I have shown Matthew 22 is not discussing any prophecy of any marriage at all. It is one of two parables given by Christ and it uses the example of a marriage but it is not talking about a marriage. It is talking about the first coming of Christ. Matthew 13:47-51 is another parable given by Christ which does deal with the end of the world, but it does not use the marriage example, but rather a net that was cast into the sea. So according to Don’s logic the Second Coming is going to be a “Fishing Expedition.” Maybe they are going to eat fish at the marriage feast, who knows! But we don’t have to worry about that because according to Don that has already taken place. Too bad I was hoping for some catfish.

Does Don believe that this is talking about the judgment of the world? Does he believe that this happened in A.D. 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed? In Matthew 24:36-39 Jesus said that no one would know when he would return, that life would be going on as normal. In Matthew 25:13 Jesus said: “Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh” (Mat 25:13). Now the point is that Jesus gave signs for the destruction of Jerusalem in Matthew chapter 24, but when it came to his coming, he said it would be just like the days of Noah. People would be eating, and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage. No one would be expecting it. Peter said it would be “as a thief in the night” (2 Pet. 3:10). Yet they had plenty of warning about the temple’s destruction. They were told told what to look for. However, there are no signs to look for in regards to Christ’s return.

Don needs to go back to school and retake Logic 101 because he obviously didn’t get it the first time around. What gives him the idea that I think that the marriage doesn’t take place until the second coming? He has the idea that the betrothal is just an engagement, but it isn’t. It is a marriage, it just isn’t consummated by the physical act of sexual relations. When a couple was betrothed as Mary and Joseph were they were married, but they had to wait a specified amount of time before they could consummate that marriage. It was during that betrothal period that Mary was found with child and Joseph was minded to put her away privily (Mt. 1:19). However, to say that Mary and Joseph were not married was to say that Joseph could not put Mary away. The word for put away, here, is ἀπολύωand it means to divorce. So the church is betrothed to Christ, the consummation won’t take place until he returns to take it to heaven, but it is still his bride—his wife in every aspect. He says: “The betrothal was a legally binding matter but it was not consummated until the marriage feast, the coming of the groom.” Does he believe that Joseph was not present at the betrothal between Joseph and Mary? Such is absurd, and shows the lengths that Don and his will go to in order to hang on to their doctrine.

I asked him: “’What was the “new name” that was to be given by the mouth of the Lord in Isa. 62:2, and where is this new name found in the New Testament?’ Answer: Christian and Antioch.’” He admits that the new name was Christian, and that it was given in Antioch, but this was prior to A.D. 70. Yet he said, in his first affirmative: “The marriage (re-marriage) of God and Israel would be at the coming of the Lord, at the time of judgment and reward (Isaiah 62:2-11).” Yet Isaiah 62:2 prophecies about the new name that the mouth of the Lord would name. Now if the name Christian was this name and if this prophecy was showing that it would take place at the time of the judgment and reward then it should not have happened decades before. Yet that is exactly what happened. So it does destroy Don’s case.

Don says: “Jesus–citing Isaiah 62– said his coming in judgment would be in the first century (Matthew 16:27-28).” Please show me, where, in Matthew 16:27,28 Jesus was citing Isaiah 62: “For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom(Mat 16:27-28). Where in that does he cite any part of Isaiah chapter 62? This is like his “shortly come to pass” argument. He just makes stuff up.

The problem with Christ sanctifying the church is that he sanctified it that he might present it to himself a glorious church. Notice what Paul says in Eph. 5:26-32 and how he shows the husband wife relationship to Christ and the church. Now Don says that Christ sanctified (past tense) the church by the washing of water by the word, but then he says that the sanctification was not the wedding but the preparation for the wedding. But in the same passage where Paul talks about Christ sanctifying the church he talks about the man loving his wife and says that he is speaking about Christ and the church. The man in Paul’s statement is Christ and the wife is the Church showing that Christ is married to the church just like the man is married to the wife. Notice that Paul doesn’t use the phrase a man and his intended, he uses the phrase a man and his wife, and then says “this is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

I saw no point in dealing with his syllogisms as the texts he uses are highly interpretative. I pointed out that Revelation was written to the seven churches in Asia and then those seven churches were listed, and there is no evidence that those churches were ever persecuted by Nero but the evidence that Domitian persecuted them is beyond dispute. He ridicules me for using commentaries and then uses a few of his own.

He tells us that Sodom refers to Jerusalem according to Ezekiel chapter 23, but the word doesn’t even appear in Ezekiel 23. Notice the chart where the word appears in the book of Ezekiel.

Then he says Isaiah 1:10 refers to Jerusalem as Sodom, but this isn’t exactly the case either. While it does notice what verse 9 says with verse 10: “Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah. Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah(Isa 1:9-10). He says that they would have been as Sodom and as Gomorrah, then he says (rather sarcastically) hear ye rulers of Sodom…. Now Don says that Jerusalem is the only city that was ever called Sodom, but that isn’t true either. Let’s notice “Therefore as I live, saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, Surely Moab shall be as Sodom, and the children of Ammon as Gomorrah, even the breeding of nettles, and saltpits, and a perpetual desolation: the residue of my people shall spoil them, and the remnant of my people shall possess them” (Zep 2:9). You see that it says that Moab shall be as Sodom just as Isaiah says that Jerusalem would be as Sodom. Don says that this means that Jerusalem was spiritually called Sodom, so I guess this means that Moab was also spiritually called Sodom. I quoted from Johnson, and while he did deal with one quotation he failed to deal with the other, Johnson said:Of the great city. This term is used eight times in Revelation. It is never used of Jerusalem. It is in contrast with the Holy City. As the Holy City is a symbol of the church, a wicked City would symbolize a false religion, or apostate church” (People’s New Testament with Notes, e-Sword). Notice the article which shows the eight times that the words are used in the book of revelation. In every case, except the last one, unless Revelation 11:8 is the exception, the “great city” refers to Babylon. In Revelation 21:10 the “great city” explicitly refers to the heavenly Jerusalem; heaven itself.

I wish Don would quit saying that I said things when I didn’t say them. 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).

The song of Moses was to be sung to the Israelites by Moses to be a witness against them that they were foretold that they would rebel against God (Deut. 31:21). The word “latter end” in Deut. 32:29 comes from: אֲחִרית aḥariyṯ:meaning the end, last time, latter time” (The Complete Word Study Dictionary, e-Sword). What Moses is saying is that he wishes that Israel would look at their latter end, or the destruction that they would be headed for and avoid their destruction. The “latter end” does not have reference to A.D. 70. It does not fit the context. It is something that has been added by the A.D. 70 proponent to prop up his flimsy position.

Question #1 for Jerry, did God call the gentiles to be his people in Moses’ day? 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. Don doesn’t understand my position if he thinks that I have to wait until 476. My position is that the Roman Concilia persecuted the seven churches in Asia Minor during the reign of Domitian.

Don tells us of the scholars that give an early date of John being on the Isle of Patmos. There were several people who bore the name of Theophylact but the earliest one was born around 695 A.D.,. There was an Arethas who was a student of Photius and was born about 860 A.D. with Photius being born about 813 A.D.,. There was another Arethas which is likely the one Don is referencing, but he lived in the 6th century. The Syriac Version of Revelation is a 5th century document and the translation itself does not put John on the Isle of Patmos before A.D. 70. The translator included this in the title which is no more authoritative than the breakdown of chapter and verses are. The only thing of an early date that he has is Epiphanius in Heresies 51:12,33 is from 314 to 400 A.D.,. He tells us that Aune says that there is no solid evidence that anyone was ever exiled to Patmos, but he offered the Syriac version which clearly states that John was exiled to Patmos by Nero, so one of them is definitely wrong, and I believe both are. All of these are much later than the early evidence that I gave in my first rebuttal. I stand by the early evidence especially since Don’s evidence contradicts itself and mine does not. He can bring up all the scriptures he wants, but if Revelation was written after A.D. 70 all his interpretation of those scriptures are inaccurate. So his criticizing me for giving external evidence for the late date of revelation is absurd. Until the date of Revelation of settled it makes no difference how many scriptures he brings up. I can bring up all the scriptures he does and make application to the late date, but he wouldn’t accept my interpretation of those passages, as is clearly seen by the fact that I take Johnson’s interpretation on Revelation 11:8 and he ridiculed me for doing that by saying that all I offered was commentaries and external evidence. Well all Don has offered is external evidence and his own interpretation, interpretation that is inconsistent with the overall evidence. When did Jerusalem ever persecute the seven churches of Asia? When did Nero persecute the seven churches of Asia? Now when did Domitian persecute the seven churches of Asia? When he answers these three questions he will be able to see the truth to this matter.

 

It is Don’s assumption that the wedding takes place during the judgment of Babylon. Looking at the following chart we can see what Barnes said about this. This has reference to the relationship of Christ and the church. It is not the judgment of man, nor the resurrection of the dead. It is the marriage of Christ to the church, Christ establishing the church which was done on the day of Pentecost of Acts 2. Don’s view that I believe that Christ’s coming for the wedding would be at the fall of Rome is fallacious. I don’t believe that the church will go to heaven until Christ returns to judge the world and we do not know when that will happen. Don has no idea what I believe or what position I hold.

Now here is what I actually said about 2 Thess. 2:17-20: “This wrath is not the destruction of Jerusalem, or of the temple, but is eternal situation as is brought out in verses 17-20. Eternal damnation is what Paul spoke of for the Jews who persecuted them, and eternal life was for those who were faithful.” According to Don, the New Testament has no direct application beyond A.D. 70. He can just shake hands with the New Hermeneutic advocates. No wonder the King family went off into complete universalism. They were just following the logical end of the doctrine.

Don must be reading from a different Bible than I am reading because he said that Paul was citing Jesus. Please look at the chart and see if Don is correct. I am sorry, but I don’t see the words of Jesus in those verses, do you? Me thinks Don is reading from something other than the Bible. No, me is quite sure of it! As a matter of fact, I don’t see where Paul quoted or even cited Jesus in any part of that chapter, but maybe Don can point it out to us. Now be sure and do that for us Don. This ought to be good!

He assumes that I hold to the Continuous Historious Method in which the book extends to the Catholic church, but I don’t. While the Catholic church never killed the Christians the Roman Concilia did (the soldiers for the Roman Emperor who was demanding Emperor worship) kill Christians.

Don needs to prove that the prophets that were killed in Revelation 16 were OT prophets. Summers wrote: “Once the Empire had made the blood of the martyrs run like water; now all the Empire can find to drink is blood—and they deserve it. God’s judgments are righteous” (Worthy Is The Lamb, p. 187). Remember the book was written to the seven churches in Asia Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea. It was not written to Jewish churches who would be well aware of Jewish history. These churches were mainly made up of Gentiles in Asia Minor who had little or no knowledge of Jewish history or any concern of any destruction of Jerusalem. The temple was nothing to these people; they had been taught that the law had been taken out of the way and that anyone who tried to be faithful to the law was guilty of spiritual adultry (Rom. 7:1-4; Gal. 5:4). This is what Don refuses to deal with. He wants everyone to believe that the Gentiles were living under Mosaic Law until A.D. 70, but Paul told Rome that to try to do so would put them in a state of spiritual adultery. He told the churches of Galatia that those who tried to be justified by the law were fallen from grace (Gal. 5:4). Paul told Peter (at Antioch) that no flesh could be justified by the works of the Law (Gal. 2:16) and chastized him severely for drawing a wall of division at Antioch when brethren came from Jerusalem. Yet Don would have you dismiss all of this in favor of his Preterist doctrine. Sorry, we just can’t do that.

Jesus spoke of Jerusalem because he spoke to people who would be affected by its downfall. Stephen spoke of Jerusalem because he spoke to people who would be affected by its downfall. Both spoke to Jews. Paul, however, spoke to Gentiles, so he didn’t bother them with speaking about the downfall of Jerusalem. In his letter to the Hebrews he spoke of Jerusalem’s downfall, but only because they would be affected by it. However, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Romans, etc, do not reference the downfall of the temple. Those people would be unaffected. However, even in his letter to the Hebrews Paul wrote that the Old Law had been done away, and the New Law had come into affect. Don admits that Christ was our High Priest before A.D. 70, but the only way this could happen was for the Old Law to be changed (Heb. 7:12-14) because Christ was not of the tribe of Levi. You could not have two priesthoods co-existing. Therefore, for Christ to become our High Priest, the Law had to be changed, it had to be taken out of the way. Paul says that Christ’s blood went backward and cleansed the sins of those under the first covenant (Heb. 9:15). How could that have happened unless the first law was out of the way and the second was now effective. Paul wrote “For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator(Heb 9:16). Christ died, and when he died his testament became effective. When his new testament became effective the old testament became ineffective. Its that simple.

He tells us that Paul says that OT Israel will be punished for persecuting NT Christians according to 1 Thessalonians chapter 2, but verse 7-9 deal with Christ coming judgment upon those who know not God and obey not the gospel. That is anyone not just Jews. “And you who are troubled rest with us….” Yes, they are troubled, persecuted, but OT Israel is not persecuting them. OT Israel is persecuting Paul and the apostles, but where is the evidence that they went from church to church persecuting Christians. No, they went in trying to get Christians to be faithful to Judaism along with Christianity (Rom. 7:1-4).

Again I do not deny that Jesus promised that Jerusalem would be destroyed. However, this does not prove that the law of Moses was not nailed to the cross, nor does it prove that the book of Revelation was written before A.D. 70.

Don tells us that 2 Thessalonians 1:9 is a direct verbatim quote of Isaiah 2:19 in the LXX, but notice the following chart of both verses. Isaiah 2:19 is in the LXX (Septuagint-Greek) and 2 Thessalonians 1:9 is in the Koine Greek. Go to the chart and see if they are identical. See if 2 Thessalonians 1:9 is a verbatim quote of Isaiah 2:19. I think you will have to agree with me that it isn’t. Just look at the of the English versions and you will see that they don’t even say the same things. I think Don is imagining things again.

Question #2 for Jerry: Who was it that dwelt in the presence of God, but was to be cast out of His presence for persecuting the church? Answer: The Jews.

In dealing with Colossians 2:14 he argued that Colossians 2:17 says that the feast days “are a shadow of things to come.” See the chart to see the answer to Colossians 2:17. Also notice that the word “are” is “ἐστί estí; pres. act. indic. 3d person sing. of eimí (G1510), to be. He (she, it) is” (The Complete Word Study Dictionary, e-Sword)so it stands to reason that my response on the chart is accurate.

In dealing with what I said concerning the word “quickly” he simply said “False.” Then he said that “if the avenging of the martyrs in Revelation 6 is the avenging of the martyrs in Matthew 23 then the “Behold I come quickly is confined to Jesus’ generation.” If you look at the following article you will see all but two of the times that the word “quickly” is used in the New Testament, and each time it means with with rapidity, the exceptions are seen below. Looking at the word “tachos” you can see that while the word can mean shortly or soon in the phrase with the preposition “en”, used as an adverb, it is not normally used that way. The only two places where it is used that way as is seen on the following chart.

He says that there are seven occurrences of “en tachos” and that Revelation 22:12 is one of those cases, but he is wrong. All the verses are in an article I have written, which you can access by clicking on the former link.   Now notice that the “en tachos” will always have G1722 G5034 or G5035, while tachos will either be G5034 or G035. There are only two instances in the NT where the G1722 appears with G5034 or 35 and I have a chart on that, they are both in Acts. Revelation 22:12 is G5035. Don needs to check his sources a little closer.

Question #3 for Jerry: Did Jesus come, in the lifetime of the first century Thessalonian church, and give them relief from their then on-going persecution? No!

So, question # 4 for Jerry: Do you preach that Christ’s coming is so near that you say, “Let the wicked remain wicked”? Answer: No, I preach that we are to fight wickedness. Your interpretation assumes that Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70, something you have not proven, and it assumes the second coming took place at the destruction of Jerusalem, something else you have not proven. What do you preach about the second coming? O, that’s right, you are like Hymenaeus and Philetus who preached that the resurrection is past already (2 Tim. 2:17,18).

Don said that Paul wrote: “I believe all things written in the law and the prophets, that there is about to be a resurrection of the dead.” Where did Paul ever say such a thing? Notice the following chart about what Paul did say.

He makes an argument about the power of Israel and distorts the facts. This argument can be found on a chart. His problem is that when I said Israel’s power is the gospel, I was saying that the power of salvation was the gospel. That is something that even he believes in. What Daniel was dealing with fleshly Israel as they were going into Babylonian captivity. However, what I was talking about was the gospel of Christ. Don has a penchant for taking what a person says out of context and making it say whatever he wants it to say, so it doesn’t surprise me to see him do God’s word that same way.

Question #5 for Jerry: Do you affirm that the gospel / church will one day be “completely shattered?” If so, give us scriptural proof. Answer: No. The church will never be shattered. The church, once established, will stand for as long as this world stands. Once the world ends, the church will be in heaven in eternity.

He says that my position is a hopeless contradiction of scripture, but it isn’t. My position is in perfect harmony with scripture. My position is in contradiction with his interpretation of scripture, but his position contradicts not only scripture, but itself. Any position that contradicts itself is a position that is false, according to the law of contradiction.

His position on Daniel 12 is outlandish as can be seen by the following chart. Don denies a literal resurrection of the dead body, but there is something that he might want to think about, and that is the death of Lazarus. When Jesus came to Bethany, Martha came to him and told him that if he had been there Lazarus would not have died. He told her that Lazarus would live again. The conversation goes on like this:

Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. (Joh 11:23)

Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. (Joh 11:24)

What resurrection was she talking about? Was she talking about the destruction of Jerusalem? Was she talking about the kind of resurrection that Don Preston is preaching? No! She was talking about the resurrection that Daniel prophecied about, the resurrection that Paul preached about in 1 Corinthians chapter 15. The resurrection of the dead body, that will be turned into a spiritual body. For a discussion of the fulfillment of the law look at the following chart.

Don thought I surrendered my proposition, but he needs to look at my chart on 1 Corinthians 15 before he gloats too much.

Don says that I made a number of affirmative arguments in my first rebuttal that he was under no obligation to answer. No, I made no affirmative arguments. When I make affirmative arguments he will know it. Those arguments were in response to his article, and he was obligated to answer each and everyone of them. The following chart is a list of each argument that he failed to deal with.

To see the questions for this article look at the following chart

Notice the chart on the martyrs of Revelation chapter six.

Contradictions in Don’s Position.

I believe that I have answered all of Don’s arguments, but if I missed any, if he will point them out I will get to them in my next. I have almost used up my allotted space so I will quit for now. I now invite you to read Don’s third affirmative.

In Christ Jesus

Jerry D. McDonald

Preston’s Third Affirmative

Back  

Home

Categories: Debates

Preston’s Second Affirmative

June 19, 2011 2 comments

 Preston’s Second Affirmative

Jerry objected to my definition of the parousia as that which stands in contrast to his first coming. He noted that Jesus confessed to being king before Pilate, claiming this was the manifestation of his Kingship.  This misses my definition.

Jesus’ Incarnation is defined as his coming when “a smoking flax shall he not quench” (Isaiah 42).

In contrast, his parousia would be as conquering King of kings and Lord of lords”- “in power and great glory.”

My definition stands.

I presented 23 affirmative arguments in proper syllogistic form. Jerry mentioned only one of them, and admitted that both major and minor premises are true, but claimed that the conclusion is wrong. Disingenuous to be sure. Instead of following my arguments as he pledged to, Jerry offered several affirmative arguments, i.e. on 1 Corinthians 15, Acts 1, Acts 2, etc.. I am under no obligation to address his affirmative arguments. I invite him to make those arguments when he is in the affirmative. I promise to refute them.

THE REMNANT: AFFIRMATIVE ARGUMENT

Jerry says that if Paul preached the hope of Israel,  they would have accepted his message. Well, the remnant of Israel did accept it!

Romans 11:7– “Israel has not attained that for which he sought, but, the elect has obtained, and the rest were blinded.”

Israel sought for something. They (the majority) did not obtain it. But, the elect– the righteous remnant that Jerry admits was coming into Christ– was obtaining what Israel longed for.

Thus, Paul did preach the hope of Israel, and the righteous remnant was entering it through Christ. But remember, the consummation of Israel’s covenant history would arrive  when the “short work” of the last days salvation of the remnant was perfected at the coming of the Lord to fulfill His Covenant with Israel (Romans 11:26-27).

Jerry admits that the righteous remnant was receiving fulfillment of the OT promises. This affirms my proposition.

This remnant was undeniably the remnant of Old Covenant Israel.

So, let me develop an affirmative here.

Paul said the first century saints were eagerly anticipating the adoption, the redemption of the body (Romans 8:23).

But, the promise of the adoption was an OT promise made to Israel “after the flesh” (Romans 9:1-3).

Therefore, the promise of the adoption / resurrection belonged to Israel after the flesh.

This does not mean it would be a “fleshly” adoption or resurrection. It does prove that the promise of the resurrection was given to, and belonged to Israel after the flesh. It was the hope of the twelve tribes (Acts 26:7).

This is where Jerry has badly misrepresented me. Jerry is correct that Paul did not urge Jews to stay under Torah and that salvation was not through Torah. I  HAVE NOT SUGGESTED OTHERWISE. To claim that I have suggests that  Jerry has not read the literature to know what is truly being said, or, he does understand, but is purposely misrepresenting what is advocated, or, perhaps those of us who espouse the true preterist view have not been clear enough in our presentation

I am hopeful it is the latter. So, I will try to be more clear.

Paul preached that the church and gospel was the fulfillment of Israel’s OT promises- the church was an Old Covenant promises made to Old Covenant Israel.

Furthermore, Israel’s salvation would come at the end of her Covenant age, the time of the resurrection.

God’s OT promises were always to the righteous remnant. God never promised to save the majority of national Israel: “Though the number of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved” (Isaiah 10:21f).

God’s promise of the wedding– to remarry Israel– was to that righteous remnant.

Paul said that the remnant– which included him– of the tribe of Benjamin (Romans 11:1ff)– was being saved in the first century.

The salvation of the remnant taking place was in fulfillment of OT promises made to Old Covenant Israel (Romans 9:22-28)– Including the promises made to Hosea (Romans 9:26). Hosea was a promise made to the remnant of OT Israel. God was clearly not through with ethnic Israel- via the righteous remnant– at the cross.

Has God cast off his people whom He foreknew?” (Romans 11:1-3).  Jerry says, “Yes! Israel was cast off at the cross!”; Paul says, “God forbid. I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not cast away His people.” Paul affirms his Israelite ethnicity. In the remnant God was keeping His OT promises to Israel.

That work of saving the righteous remnant of OT Israel would not be an unending process: “For He will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness; because a short work will the Lord make on the earth” (Romans 9:28).

The completed work of the salvation of Israel would be the salvation of “all Israel” (the perfected remnant– Romans 11:25-27): “For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: ‘The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; For this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.”

The salvation of “all Israel,” to be finished shortly, would be at the coming of the Lord in fulfillment of Isaiah 27:10 and Isaiah 59:21– prophecies cited by Paul in Romans 11:26f.

For brevity, notice Isaiah 59:

Isaiah 59 breaks down into three headings:

ACCUSATION – God accused Israel, three times,  of shedding innocent blood (59:3-7).

ACKNOWLEDGMENT – Israel confessed her sin, but did not repent (v. 12f).

ACTION – God determined to send His Intercessor who would come in judgment and salvation:

He put on the garments of vengeance for clothing, And was clad with zeal as a cloak. According to their deeds, accordingly He will repay, Fury to His adversaries, Recompense to His enemies… So shall they fear The name of the LORD from the west, And His glory from the rising of the sun; When the enemy comes in like a flood, The Spirit of the LORD will lift up a standard against him. “The Redeemer will come to Zion, And to those who turn from transgression in Jacob,”… “As for Me,” says the LORD, “this is My covenant with them…”

This is the coming of the Lord Paul anticipated in Romans 11. In other words, Paul’s eschatology was the OT hope of Israel.

This is the salvation of the righteous remnant in Israel.

This takes place at the judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood.

So,

The salvation of “all Israel” (Romans 11:26-27– the consummation of the salvation of the righteous remnant that was to be completed shortly- Romans 9:28) would fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 59:20 (Romans 11:25-27).

The coming of the Lord of Isaiah 59:21 was to be the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood (Isaiah 59:3-11).

But, the judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood was to be in the first century in the AD 70 judgment of Jerusalem (Matthew 23).

Therefore, the coming of the Lord of Romans 11:25-27 (for the consummation of the salvation of the righteous remnant) was to be in the AD 70 judgment of Jerusalem.

Take special note: This coming of the Lord, for the salvation of the remnant would be in fulfillment of God’s covenant with Israel– “this is my covenant with them.” Thus…

The coming of the Lord for the consummation of the salvation of the remnant would be in fulfillment of God’s covenant promises made to Israel (Romans 11:26-27).

The coming of the Lord of Romans 11 would be the fulfillment of Isaiah 59– the prediction of the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood.

The coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood was in AD 70.

Therefore, the  AD 70 coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel was in fulfillment of God’s OT covenant promises to Israel.

This nullifies Jerry’s denial that Paul was threatening Israel with covenantal judgment in Acts 13. Paul warned his audience that if they did not accept Christ, that what happened in Habakkuk’s day– covenant judgment – would come on them. Since Paul tied the salvation of Israel and the judgment of Israel together– in fulfillment of God’s OT covenantal promises- this is prima facie demonstration that Acts 13 was about coming covenant wrath.

If, as Jerry says, God’s covenant with Israel was terminated at the cross, Paul was wrong to posit the fulfillment of Isaiah 59 in his future. Yet, he was undeniably anticipating the fulfillment of God’s COVENANT PROMISES to Israel, at the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood.

ISRAEL AND THE WEDDING

I asked Jerry, “When did, or will, God remarry Old Covenant Israel in fulfillment of His Old covenant promises to her. Jerry said: “He never did and never will.” He then said: “Don says that the eschatology of the New Testament writers was nothing more than Old Testament eschatology, and here, of course, I disagree with him. New Testament eschatology was prophesied in the Old Testament, but the Old Testament, itself, had no eschatology, it had no salvation, it had no standing after the cross.”

Nothing could illustrate the divide between myself and Jerry’s amillennial paradigm than this answer. I stand with Paul and the NT writers who all affirmed: They had one hope which was God’s OT promises made to Old Covenant Israel, “after the flesh” (Romans 9:1-3).

That singular hope was the resurrection: “For the hope of the promise of the resurrection am I on trial”, said Paul. The hope of the twelve tribes was the resurrection (Acts 26:6). Denial of this is futile.

Take note in regard to the marriage:

God was married to Israel: “Your maker is your husband” (Isaiah 54:5).

God divorced Israel (Hosea 2:1-2; Jeremiah 3).

God was going to remarry the same wife that He divorced: “I will betroth you to myself” (Hosea 2:19).

Jerry changes the “you” to “not you.” He is wrong.

Israel– the righteous remnant- surely had to be transformed into the body of Christ, under a New Covenant unlike the first. This does not negate the fact that it was Old Covenant Israel that He was to remarry!

Jerry actually admitted this critical point by saying that a righteous remnant did receive the promises. This is important!

Jerry denies that God married Israel at Sinai. Let’s see. 

Deuteronomy 26:8-17-19 – “Today you have proclaimed the LORD to be your God, and that you will walk in His ways and keep His statutes, His commandments, and His judgments, and …that you should keep all His commandments, and that He will set you high above all nations which He has made, in praise, in name, and in honor, and that you may be a holy people to the LORD your God, just as He has spoken.”  (See Ezekiel 16:8f as well).

Marriage is entering covenant. The Hebrew word for both marriage and formal covenant is berith. God gave Israel the covenant at Sinai and said that is when Israel pledged to Him and He to her, in name, honor and praise. Israel took God’s name at Sinai, and entered into covenant with him, yet, we are not supposed think God married Israel at Sinai. If God did not marry Israel at Sinai when He gave her His covenant and His name, when did YHVH enter that marriage covenant with Israel?

Jerry says God married Israel in Abraham’s day. False. Ezekiel 16 depicts Israel as a newborn in Abraham’s day. It was when she grew up that He took her under His wing and made her His (Ezekiel 16:1-16). He clothed her with badger skins, a direct referent to the tabernacle which was given when YHVH made His covenant with Israel (Exodus 25-40).

God said He would RE-MARRY ISRAEL BY GIVING THE NEW COVENANT (Hosea 2:18). If God was to remarry Israel by making the New Covenant with them, it is illogical to say He did not marry them when He gave them the first covenant.

God undeniably married Israel at Sinai.

If God never did, or will remarry Israel, then He lied to her, or His promises failed.

If He never did and never will remarry them, then the New Covenant, to be made, “WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH AND ISRAEL” has not been established, AND WE GENTILES HAVE NO HOPE! (caps for emphasis)

All blessings for the nations would flow out of the restoration of the tribes of Israel (Isaiah 49:6-7).  The “tabernacle of David” would be restored, “so that all men might seek Him” (Amos 9:11; Acts 15:14f).

Salvation was to be “to the Jew first, then to the nations.”

Jerry denies that God’s promises to Old Covenant Israel had to be fulfilled. He is wrong.

MATTHEW 22 AND THE WEDDING

Jerry’s desperation to avoid the ramifications of Matthew 22 has forced him to take unprecedented positions on the parable. It is absolutely essential for Jerry to be able to definitively prove that the wedding Matthew 22 is not the wedding of Matthew 25. If the wedding of Matthew 22 is the wedding of Matthew 25 Jerry’s eschatology falls. You would think he would devote time on this refutation. Instead, Jerry gave us not one verse to prove that Matthew 22 is not the same wedding as Matthew 25. He just says we should not press the details of parables. This is not convincing.

However…

The marriage is THE CENTRAL THEME in Matthew 22In the Greek, the number of times a subject is mentioned indicates its importance. The wedding is mentioned 8 times in Matthew 22, more than any other subject. Yet, Jerry says the wedding is an incidental element to be ignored. 

In Matthew 25 the groom / wedding is mentioned five times. Yet, Jerry insists that Matthew 25 is the coming of Christ for the wedding. This is clearly self contradictory in regard to Matthew 22.

Jerry suggests that because Matthew 22 begins “the kingdom of heaven is like” this nullifies emphasis on the wedding. Really? Apply that “logic” to Matthew 25 since the parable begins, “the kingdom of heaven shall be liked to.” See the problem?

The wedding is the central theme of Matthew 22 and Matthew 25. Jerry insists that Matthew 25 is Christ’s second coming. There is no textual basis for saying that Matthew 22 is not the same as Matthew 25. This demands that the wedding at Christ’s second coming, was in AD 70. If there is textual evidence to divorce the texts from one another– or from the OT prophecies– Jerry needs to produce it.

Jerry asked: (Question #4):  “What was the “new name” that was to be given by the mouth of the Lord in Isa. 62:2, and where is this new name found in the New Testament?” Answer: Christian and Antioch. Jerry thinks this helps his case. It does not.

Isaiah 62 said God would remarry Israel. Remember, Paul said he had betrothed the Corinthians, which included those of the righteous remnant of OT Israel.

The betrothal was a legally binding matter but it was not consummated until the marriage feast, the coming of the groom.

Isaiah said the marriage– the salvation of Israel– would be at the coming of the Lord in judgment and reward (62:10-12).

Jesus–citing Isaiah 62– said his coming in judgment would be in the first century (Matthew 16:27-28).

Remember, Jerry does not believe that the marriage takes place until the parousia, so where does that leave him with his “argument” on the name? 

Jerry’s question #3 to me was: “When did Christ sanctify the church, and how did he do it?

Christ had (past tense) sanctified the church, “with the washing of water by the word.”Sanctification was preparation for the wedding, not the wedding itself. The presentation (wedding) was still future in Ephesians 5:25-26.

JERRY ON REVELATION

Jerry ignored my numerous syllogisms based on the inspired text. He offered external evidence, claiming he had proven his negative. No, this debate demands Biblical evidence. His citation of uninspired commentators demonstrates that he cannot prove his case from scripture.

He cites Johnson who claims that Revelation never uses the term “the great city” of Jerusalem. This is based, not on the text, but on the a priori idea that Revelation was written in the 90s.

The “great city” is “where the Lord was slain” (11:8) THIS IS AN INTERPRETIVE STATEMENT. It was spiritually called “Sodom,” NOT SPIRITUALLY CALLED WHERE THE LORD WAS SLAIN (caps for emphasis). The only city in all the Bible that is ever spiritually designated as Sodom was OT Jerusalem (Isaiah 1:10; Ezekiel 23, etc.).

Furthermore, Deuteronomy 32 said that in Israel’s “end” her “latter end” (32:19; 29-32f) she would be like the vine of Sodom.

Jerry says Revelation has nothing to do with Deuteronomy 32, claiming it refers to Moses’ day. This is an important issue. If Revelation (and the NT writers) anticipated the fulfillment of the Song, Jerry’s eschatology is falsified.

Consider then the Song:

Chapter 31:29-30– the introduction to the Song:  Moses said, “I know that after my death, you will act corruptly to turn away from the way I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days.” Note that Israel would become “utterly corrupt,” i.e. she would fill the measure of her sin in the latter days. Jesus, who came in the last days, said that was to happen consummatively in his generation (Matthew 23:32).

Song 32:7 calls on Israel after “many generations” to look back on their history.

After those “many generations,” Israel would apostatize. Consequently, God would call the Gentiles to Him (v. 21). He would provoke Israel to jealousy by calling the Gentiles.

Paul applied that prophecy to his personal ministry to the gentiles (Romans 10:19; 11:11).

Question #1 for Jerry, did God call the gentiles to be his people in Moses’ day?

The Song predicted Israel’s last end. Jerry tried a bit of slight of hand, appealing only to the KJV of v. 19. However, most translations render v. 19 and 29f as “her end” or “her latter end.” Fact: Israel’s “end” or “latter end” did not come in Moses’ day. Jerry is simply desperate  to evade the force of the text. He knows my affirmative is established if the NT writers anticipated fulfillment of the Song at the parousia.

Hebrews 10:35-37 quotes directly from Song (32:35-36) to predict the coming of the Lord in, “a very, very little while.” Other NT texts apply the Song to the first century.

Revelation 19 declares the Song fulfilled in the vindication of the martyrs at the judgment of Babylon.

Thus, the NT writers indisputably applied the Song to their day and the coming soon parousia of Jesus to vindicate the martyrs. Jerry is simply wrong to deny the first century application of the Song.

The Song of Moses was about Israel’s last days. If Babylon was Rome as Jerry claims, then since John applied the Song (the law of Moses) to the fall of Rome, this demands that the law of Moses and Israel’s latter days, extended to the fall of Rome in 476 AD.

REVELATION AND DOMITIAN

Jerry claims: “We have no evidence John was on Patmos at any other time than under Domitian.”

Now, admittedly, if Revelation was written when Jerry says, my position is falsified.

However: Jerry gave no scriptural evidence that John was exiled by Domitian. Let’s take a look.

Gentry lists Photus, Epiphanius (Heresies 51:12, 33), Arethas (Revelation 7:1-8), The Syriac versions of Revelation, “The History of John, The Son of Zebedee,” and Theophylact (John) as all saying John was banished to Patmos by Nero (Kenneth Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell,(Fountain Inn, South Carolina, Victorious Hope Publishing, 201)54).

Briggs says: “Patmos was not known in antiquity as an island of exile but was, on the contrary, a very active and spirited place albeit a hotbed of paganism.” He cites Aune (Revelation 1-5, p. 78), who likewise says there is actually no solid record of anyone being exiled to Patmos (Robert Briggs, citing Saffrey, in Jewish Temple Imagery in the Book of Revelation, Studies in Biblical Literature, Vol. 10, (New York, Peter Lang, 1999)35, n. 96).

This answers #1 of Jerry’s questions to me.

Even late date advocates are now saying of Domitian’s reputation as the persecutor: “Evidence to justify this reputation is scanty.” (F. F. Bruce, Cited in Gentry, Before, 289).

The alleged evidence for a Domitianic persecution against Christians turns out on closer scrutiny to be highly nebulous at best and therefore ought to be dismissed as illusory.” (Briggs, Imagery, 38).

Niswonger says, “It cannot be proven without doubt that Domitian initiated a persecution against Christians. Roman records provide no clear evidence of even a small scale movement, let alone a concerted or large-scale persecution.” (Richard Niswonger, New Testament History, (Zondervan, Academic Books, 1988)271+). 

The source of the persecution was, “those who say they are Jews but are not”, the “synagogue of Satan” (Revelation 2:9f; 3:9f). It was, “the city where the Lord was slain”; the city that had killed the prophets.

The persecutor in Revelation was not Domitian. If so, we demand that Jerry give us scriptural proof.

REVELATION AND THE WEDDING

Per Jerry, Babylon in Revelation was Rome.

But, the Wedding of Christ takes place at his coming in judgment of Babylon (Revelation 19:6-7): “The time of the wedding has come!”

Therefore, per Jerry’s view, Christ’s coming for the wedding was at the AD 476 fall of Rome.

However, Jerry says Revelation 21 is Christ’s coming for the wedding at the end of the Christian age.

Jerry has two wedding comings of Christ, at two different times! Are there two brides?

Yet, Jerry, denies that these “weddings” have anything to do with the fulfillment of the OT promises that God made to Israel, in spite of the fact that Revelation 10:6-7 says Revelation was focused on the fulfillment of those OT promises.

VINDICATION OF THE MARTYRS

I made numerous arguments based on the text of Revelation about the fulfilling of the OT prophets (Revelation 10:6-7), and the vindication of the martyrs. Instead of addressing these textually based  arguments, he cited external sources. That is not sufficient.

Let me reiterate one of my arguments:

Jesus identified Old Covenant Jerusalem as the city that had killed the prophets (Matthew 23:29f). They were going to kill him and they were going to kill his apostles and prophets (Luke 11:49f). In killing his apostles and prophets, Jerusalem would fill the measure of her sin and be judged in Jesus’ generation (Matthew 23:33-36).

Paul, (circa AD 50s) said OT Jerusalem had killed the OT prophets, the Lord and they were killing Jesus’ apostles and prophets. In doing so, she was filling the measure of her sin. Judgment was about to fall (1 Thessalonians 2:15-16).

I was amazed at Jerry’s claim that 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 did not predict AD 70. He says v. 17-20 proves the judgment Paul refers to is the end of time. Those verses say no such thing.

Paul repeats Jesus’ words in Matthew 23. Jerry acknowledges that Jesus predicted the AD 70 judgment. Israel would fill her sin and be destroyed in that generation. Yet, without a single exegetical argument, Jerry claims that although Paul repeats Jesus, he ignores the impending judgment and speaks of another judgment thousands of years removed.. This is eisegetic.

Wanamaker, citing Marshall, says the Greek of the text indicates that the wrath Paul refers to was, “so near that it was inevitably about to manifest itself, when the measure of their sins was completely filled” (Charles Wanamaker, New International Greek Testament Commentary1 & 2 Thessalonians, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, Paternoster, 1990)117).

John said Babylon had killed “the prophets” (16:5f). But, Rome, the Catholic Church, etc. never killed an OT prophet). Babylon is, “where the Lord was slain (11:8). She was guilty of killing the apostles and prophets of Jesus (18:20, 24). Her cup of the blood of the martyrs was now full. Judgment was coming shortly: “Behold, I come quickly!”

If Babylon was not Old Covenant Jerusalem, Jerry must prove that Rome killed a single OT prophet. He admits she did not do so. He claims– with not a word of proof- that the referent to the prophets in Revelation 16 cannot be OT prophets.

When the New Testament uses the term “the prophets” (72 times) or the anatharous “prophets” without a qualifier, Old Testament prophets are in view. Only 12 times does the term refer to prophets of Jesus. In these instances, context demands that they are NT prophets (Acts 13:1f; 15:32; Ephesians 2:20; 3:8, etc.). Revelation 16 contains no such qualifier.

Jesus, Stephen (Acts 7) and Paul identified Jerusalem as the city that killed the prophets.  Jesus said of Jerusalem, “I send unto you apostles and prophets and wise men, and some of them you shall crucify…” (Luke 11:49). He said, “It is not possible that a prophet perish outside of Jerusalem” (Luke 13:33f).

Jerry demands– with no proof– that John is distancing himself from Jesus, Stephen and Paul.

John, like Jesus, Stephen and Paul, is concerned with the OT prophets. Revelation is about the fulfillment of their hope (Revelation 10:6-7), and their vindication at the parousia (Revelation 11:15-19). Yet, we are supposed to divorce these facts from Revelation 16, per Jerry.

Jerry must prove exegetically –  not with commentary citations– that John speaks of a city different from what Jesus, Stephen and Paul referred to, although every constituent element– including the time element– in Jesus, Stephen and Paul agrees with Revelation.

We will eagerly await Jerry’s textual arguments on this.

MORE AFFIRMATIVE ON MARTYR VINDICATION:

John saw the martyrs under the altar (Revelation 6:9-11). They cried out to be avenged. They were told they must rest, “for a little while, until their fellow brethren who should be slain as they were should be fulfilled” (v. 11. Per Jerry, they had to wait 400 years– or, perhaps they are still waiting!)

What is Jerry’s proof that these are not the martyrs of Matthew 23? He offered not a word of scripture. (See my book We Shall Meet Him In The Air, the Wedding of the King of kings, for a discussion of this).

The cry of the martyrs here is the cry of the martyrs in Luke 18, where Jesus promised, “he will avenge them (the martyrs) speedily (en tachei).”

Jesus said that all of the blood of all the righteous all the way back to creation, would be avenged in the AD 70 judgment (Matthew 23:35).

The “speedily” of Luke 18– and the “little while” of Revelation- is thus confined to Jesus’ generation and the judgment of Jerusalem.

Jesus said Jerusalem would fill the measure of sin in his generation. Paul said Israel was filling the measure of her sin via persecution (1 Thessalonians 2:15f).

Peter likewise, WRITING TO THE SAME CHURCHES AS JOHN– AND AFTER JOHN– speaks of their suffering, but promised that they would only have to suffer a little while (oligon) before the revelation of their salvation (1 Peter 1:6-7– caps for emphasis).

So, Jesus, Paul and Peter- all pre-AD 70- affirm that the filling of the measure of sin / suffering was to be fulfilled in a little while (1 Peter). Jesus said judgment was in his generation. Paul said it was about to fall. Peter said, “the end of all things has drawn near” (1 Peter 4:7, eggeken), and the “appointed time (kairos) for the judgment (to krino) has come” (1 Peter 4:17).

John writes to the same people as Peter, about the same persecution, at the hands of the same persecutors and promised vindication “in a little while” at the coming of the Lord against Babylon. Per Jerry, we are to ignore Jesus, Paul and Peter’s united testimony and apply Revelation to events hundreds- yea, thousands!– of years way. This is untenable. Let’s go now to 2 Thessalonians 1.

2 THESSALONIANS 1 AND THE MARTYRS

Note the following: (See my In Flaming Fire for a fuller exegesis of 2 Thessalonians 1).

Paul was writing to the church at Thessalonica.

They- not some distant church– were being persecuted (Acts 17:1-3; 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16).

Paul said, “It is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation (thlipsis) those who are troubling (thlipsis) you” (v. 6). The tables would be turned; the persecutors would become the persecuted.

Who was it that was, when Paul wrote: “those who are (present participle) troubling you”?

Answer: It was not Rome, or the Catholic church. It was one entity: OT Jerusalem. This is historically undeniable.

Those who are troubling you” would be, “punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and the glory of His power” (v. 9).

Question #2 for Jerry: Who was it that dwelt in the presence of God, but was to be cast out of His presence for persecuting the church?

The answer is in Galatians 4:22f: The Old Covenant seed “after the flesh” (who are the only ones who had ever dwelt in the presence of the Lord) was, when Paul wrote, persecuting the church, the seed of promise. As a consequence for that persecution, Paul said, “cast out the bondwoman and her son!” (4:30).

Paul said OT Israel was to be cast out for persecuting the church.

OT Israel did not persecute the church before the Cross / Pentecost.

Therefore, Old Covenant Israel was not cast out at the Cross.

Now watch: 2 Thessalonians 1:9 is a verbatim quotation of the LXX of Isaiah 2:19 which described the last days Day of the Lord, when men would flee to the mountains, (19-21). Christ’s coming in 2 Thessalonians 1 would fulfill Isaiah 2!Thus, Paul’s eschatology in Thessalonians was nothing but the hope of Israel found in the OT.

Isaiah 2-4 is a united prophecy of the last days ending in the day of the Lord. The repeated “in that Day” references tie the prophecy together. It is the time for the establishment of the kingdom (2:1-3). “In that day” would be a time of famine (3:1-3), God would arise to judge His people (3:13-24) the time of “the war” when the men of Israel would fall by the edge of the sword (cf. Luke 21:24). The “Branch of the Lord” would come and the remnant would be saved, “when the Lord shall purge the blood guilt from Jerusalem by the spirit of judgment and the spirit of fire” (4:4). YHVH would establish the Messianic Temple (v. 5-6).

So, in the last days the blood guilt of Jerusalem would be avenged at the Day of the Lord when men would run to the hills. (This hardly fits an “end of time, earth burning event)!

Jesus appeared in the predicted last days (before Pentecost!- Galatians 4:4; Hebrews 9:26). He said all the blood of all the righteous would be avenged in his coming against Jerusalem in his generation.

Furthermore, as he was being led to his Passion, the women who loved him wept over him. He told them to cry for themselves instead. The time was coming when men would run to the hills and cry to the rocks “fall on us!” This is a citation of Isaiah 2:19a (parallel Hosea 10:8- Isaiah’s contemporary).

Clearly, Jesus applied Isaiah 2:19 to AD 70. Virtually all scholars agree.

Paul, writing to the first century church being persecuted by the Jews, promised them “relief”(anesis– never “reward”) from that persecution, “when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven” (2:1:7f). That coming would fulfill Isaiah 2:19. So…

The coming of the Lord in 2 Thessalonians 1 is the coming of the Lord foretold in Isaiah 2:19.

The coming of the Lord in Isaiah 2:19 is the last days coming of the Lord to purge Jerusalem’s blood guilt by judgment, when the enemies of God would be cast out of His presence.

Therefore, the coming of the Lord of 2 Thessalonians 1  is the last days coming of the Lord to purge Jerusalem’s blood guilt by judgment, when the enemies of God (the persecutors) would be cast out of His presence.

Question #3 for Jerry: Did Jesus come, in the lifetime of the first century Thessalonian church, and give them relief from their then on-going persecution? 

Let’s look closer:

The coming of the Lord of 2 Thessalonians 1 is the same coming of the Lord as 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18- (Jerry agrees).

But, the coming of the Lord of 2 Thessalonians 1 would be at Christ’s coming in judgment of OT Israel for persecuting the saints– to cast them out of his presence (Isaiah 2-4; Matthew 23; Galatians 4; 2 Thessalonians 1:5-9)– in AD 70.

Therefore, the coming of the Lord of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 was at Christ’s coming in judgment of OT Israel for persecuting the saints– to cast them out of His presence.

Furthermore…

Revelation 6:12f, is the answer to the martyr’s prayer, the Day of the Lord. Catch the power of this: Revelation 6 – like 2 Thessalonians 1– anticipated the fulfillment of Isaiah 2:19-21- when men would flee from the presence of the Lord. So…

Isaiah predicted the last days Day of the Lord in vengeance on the persecutors of the saints- Jerusalem.

Jesus applied Isaiah 2:19a to the AD 70 judgment of Jerusalem for shedding his blood.

Paul applied Isaiah 2:19b to predict the impending judgment of “those who are troubling you” i.e. the Jews.

John applied Isaiah 2:19-21 to predict the in a “little while” vindication of the martyrs.

Jesus, Paul and John all cite the same verses in Isaiah. All had the same theme, gave the same promise and the identical temporal limitations.

I call on Jerry to give us his exegetical justification for divorcing Paul or Revelation from Jesus’ application of Isaiah.

Notice how this falsifies Jerry’s objections to the imminence of Revelation.

Jesus said, “Behold, I come quickly” (Revelation 22:12). Jerry says “quickly”means with rapidity not soon. False.

If the avenging of the martyrs in Revelation 6 is the avenging of the martyrs of Matthew 23, then “Behold, I come quickly” is confined to Jesus’ generation. The parallels above prove you cannot divorce Revelation from Matthew 23.

Taxu does not emphasize rapidity over imminence. While taxus can mean, “at a rapid pace” it does not exclude “in a short time, soon” (Arndt and Gingrich, 1979, 807). Jerry’s own source includes imminence! It is presuppositional to exclude imminence from taxus.

En taxei (Revelation 22:12) never, (seven occurrences) emphasizes rapidity over imminence. (see my Who Is This Babylon, 2011, 181f) for an in-depth analysis of en taxei).

The imminence of en taxei is emphasized by the following.

Revelation is indisputably the reiteration of Daniel’s prophecies. This confirms that NT eschatology is the reiteration of God’s OT promises made to Israel. John was anticipating the fulfillment of  Israel’s OT promises.

Daniel predicted the resurrection and the end of the age (Daniel 12:2-9). John predicted the resurrection at the end of the age.

Daniel said the resurrection would be, “when the power of the holy people is completely shattered.”

Jesus said “Behold I come quickly.”

If Jesus’ coming for the resurrection has not occurred, the power of the holy people– Torah– has not been shattered and Israel remains God’s “holy people.”

In v. 10 John was told not to seal the vision because the appointed time (kairos; Divinely appointed time) was at hand (engus). This was the kairos of Daniel 12:4. It was far off in Daniel’s day, but near in John’s. In v. 12 Jesus promised, “Behold I come quickly.” Watch carefully:

Sandwiched between those two statements of imminence is: “He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still…”

The coming of Christ was so near, so urgent, that the closing message of Revelation was, “let the wicked remain wicked!”

Jerry says Jesus has not come.

So, question # 4 for Jerry: Do you preach that Christ’s coming is so near that you say, “Let the wicked remain wicked”?

Clearly a “rapid, but not soon” coming at some indeterminate time, so far two millennia removed from John’s day will not work. The coming of the Lord in Revelation was so near that the Spirit said, “Let the wicked remain wicked!”

Jerry’s objection fails, badly. The coming of the Lord was so near that the message: “Let the wicked remain wicked” had validity.

This demands the objective, urgent nearness of the Lord’s coming.

THE RESURRECTION

The NT writers said explicitly that their one hope was nothing but the OT promises made to Old Covenant Israel.

Jerry denies this: “Paul (In Acts 24:14f, DKP) wasn’t stating that the hope was the reiteration of God’s Old Covenant promises made to Old Covenant Israel, he was showing that the hope was salvation which would come at the resurrection of the dead. This was all foretold to Israel in Moses and the prophets. However, it isn’t a reiteration of anything, it is the fulfillment of that which was prophesied so many years ago.”

This is clearly double-speak. Moses predicted the resurrection. Paul said he was preaching what Moses predicted. Thus, Paul was reiterating Moses. This is irrefutable.

Paul said, “I believe all things written in the law and the prophets, that there is about to be a resurrection of the dead” (Acts 24:14). Paul said the resurrection was in “the law.”

Jerry says that although the OT predicted the second coming and resurrection, that it has nothing to do with the Law of Moses.

This is an amazing claim and Jerry is wrong.

Affirmative argument:

Paul said the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 would be when Isaiah 25:8 was fulfilled (1 Corinthians 15:55-56)– “then shall be brought to pass the saying, ‘death is swallowed up.’”

But, Paul called Isaiah “the law” (1 Corinthians 14:20-21).

Therefore, the prophecy of the resurrection of Isaiah 25 was “the law.”

Follow up:

The prophecy of the resurrection of Isaiah 25 was “the law.”

Not one iota of the law could pass until it was all fulfilled (Jesus).

Therefore, not one iota of the law could pass until the resurrection was fulfilled.

The resurrection was indisputably a foundational part of “the law of Moses.” This establishes my affirmative, no matter what Jerry says.

I asked Jerry:

Scripture said that the New Moons, Feast Days and Sabbaths of Israel’s festal calendar were “shadows of good things to come” (Colossians 2:14-17; Hebrews 9:6f; 10:1-3). What did the following feast days foreshadow and typify:

Feast of Trumpets

Day of Atonement

Feast of Harvest / Booths (Succot)

What did the seventh day Sabbath and the other festal Sabbaths foreshadow, and has that which the Sabbath (Sabbaths) foreshadowed been completely fulfilled?

Although Jerry promised to answer my questions, he said not one word in response to these questions. He needs to answer.

TYPOLOGY OF THE SABBATH AND FEAST DAYS

Jerry claims Colossians 2:14-16 proves Torah itself was nailed to the cross. Wrong. Dunn (New International Greek Testament Commentary, Colossians, in loc) shows that it was not Torah itself, but the debt incurred through violation of Torah that was removed in Christ.

Paul said the Colossians had died to Torah, by entering the death of Christ (Colossians 2:11-13). In Jewish thought, when a person died, they died to Torah. The Colossians, as the Romans, had entered Christ’s death through baptism. This falsifies Jerry’s Romans charts because it demonstrates that they had died to Torah– “you have become dead to the Law through the body of Christ” (Romans 7:4). Torah did not die.

This answers Jerry’s question #2 to me. Paul told the Colossians, who had died to the Law by entering Christ, not to be subject to the feast days.

However, Paul said the new moons, feast days and Sabbaths, “are a shadow of good things about to come.” He uses the present indicative along with mello in the infinitive. TheBlass-DeBrunner Greek Grammar (University of Chicago Press, 1961, 181) says, “mellein with the infinitive indicates imminence.” The present indicative coupled with mellofalsifies any claim that Torah itself was dead. The Law itself was still, “a shadow of good things about to come” but was, “nigh unto passing” (Hebrews 8:13; cf. Hebrews 10:1-2–See the Preston-Simmons Debate, The Passing of Torah, At the Cross or AD 70, for a fuller discussion).

Israel’s last three feast days (all Sabbaths) foreshadowed the eschatological consummation.

Rosh Ha Shanah (Trumpets) foreshadowed the Day of Judgment.

Day of Atonement the day of Salvation  (Hebrews 9:24-28).

Feast of Harvest symbolized the resurrection.

(cf. Paul Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship of the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids, Baker, 1980).

Edersheim says Sabbath (all of them) symbolized the rest of final salvation– “the eternal Sabbath of completed redemption” (The Temple: Its Ministry and Services, (Updated Edition, Peabody, Mass., 2004)134+).

Consider then the following:

The feast days and Sabbaths were the law of Moses.

The feast days and Sabbaths foreshadowed the day of judgment, final salvation and the resurrection.

Not one iota of the law of Moses would pass until it was all fulfilled.

Therefore, not one iota of the law of Moses– including the feast days and Sabbaths– would pass until all that the law of Moses foreshadowed, the day of judgment, final salvation and the resurrection, was fulfilled.

Jerry does not believe that what the feast days foreshadowed has been fulfilled. Therefore, the Law of Moses has not passed. If the Law of Moses has passed, but the eschaton has not occurred, then God’s covenantal promises to Israel failed. But God said His promises to Israel would not fail– they would be fulfilled at the coming of the Lord out of Zion (Romans 11:26-27).

Now watch:

The feast days were undeniably “the law of Moses.”

The feast days were irrefutably covenantal.

The feast days were indisputably prophetic.

Now note:

Paul said the resurrection was in “the Law.”

The Decalogue commanded the Sabbath.

Sabbath foreshadowed final salvation i.e. resurrection.

Thus, resurrection was in the Decalogue.

The Decalogue was the Law of Moses, was it not? The Decalogue was God’s covenant with Israel, was it not?

So…

Not one iota of the law of Moses would pass until it was all fulfilled (Jesus).

The Decalogue, i.e. the law of Moses, foreshadowed the resurrection via Sabbath.

Therefore, not one iota of the Decalogue i.e. law of Moses– including the Sabbath– would pass until the resurrection.

If the resurrection has not occurred, God’s covenant with Israel (Torah) remains binding.

If the resurrection has not occurred, Sabbath remains unfulfilled and binding.

These facts are indisputable. So, until what the eschatological feast days and Sabbaths typified was fulfilled God’s covenant with Israel would remain valid.

Daniel said the resurrection would be, “when the power of the holy people is completely shattered” (Daniel 12:2, 7). Israel’s only power was Torah, her covenant relationship with God.

Jerry responded that Israel’s only power is the gospel of Christ. Let’s test that:

The resurrection of the dead is when Israel’s power would be completely shattered (Daniel 12:2, 7).

But, Israel’s power is the gospel of Christ (Jerry).

Therefore, the resurrection of the dead is when the gospel is completely shattered.

However, scripture affirms, unequivocally, that neither the gospel or the  kingdom will ever be “shattered.”

Daniel 2:44; 7:13-14– The kingdom shall never be destroyed.

1 Peter 1:25- The gospel abides forever, in contrast to things that fade away.

Question #5 for Jerry: Do you affirm that the gospel / church will one day be “completely shattered?” If so, give us scriptural proof.

Jerry’s position is an irreconcilable contradiction of scripture. Israel’s only power was her covenant relationship with YHVH. This agrees with the fact that the resurrection would be at the end of the Mosaic Covenant. Look closer at Daniel and 1 Corinthians 15.

Daniel 12 foretold the following:

v. 1- The Great Tribulation.

v. 2- The resurrection of the just and unjust.

v. 3- The righteous shining forth in the kingdom.

v. 4- The appointed time (kairos) of the end of the age.

v. 9- The Abomination of desolation.

Jerry believes– I assume– that the Great Tribulation and the Abomination of Desolation were connected to the AD 70 parousia. Yet, Daniel connected the resurrection with that Tribulation. Jerry’s position demands a so far 2000 year gap these two events and the resurrection. This is clearly not justified.

Pay close attention here:

I asked Jerry: Please define “the law” that Paul called “the strength of sin” and give scriptural support for your answer. Jerry responded: “The Law of Moses (1 Corinthians 15:56).”

All I can say is Amen! But this is fatal to Jerry’s eschatology.

Notice:

The resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 would be when the law that was the strength of sin was removed (1 Corinthians 15:55-56).

The law that was the strength of sin was the law of Moses (Jerry McDonald).

Therefore, the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 was when the law of Moses was removed.

This is irrefutable. Jerry has surrendered to my affirmative and destroyed his own eschatology, before he has even begun to affirm his position.

Notice the correlation between Daniel and 1 Corinthians 15:

The resurrection to eternal life (v. 2). —> Paul predicted the resurrection to eternal life (v. 54f)

The end of the age (v. 4)—> Paul predicted the time of the end (v. 24).

Daniel was told it was far off. He would die before fulfillment (v. 4)– Paul said: “We shall not all sleep” (v. 51).

Daniel was told fulfillment would be when the power of the holy people was shattered—> Paul said the resurrection would be when “the law” (the Law of Moses, Jerry agrees) was removed (v. 55-56)!

This proves that Torah did not pass at the cross. Where ever you posit the resurrection, it is there that Torah  is removed. It proves that the resurrection was in AD 70.

Jerry’s question #5 to me: Was Christ the High Priest before A.D. 70?

Answer: Yes.

Jerry thinks this engages me in great difficulty. Not so.

Christ was of the order of Melchizedec, the greater priesthood.

Christ died to Torah on the cross. He was no longer subject to Torah.

Christ ministered over the heavenly sanctuary– not the earthly temple (Hebrews 8:1; 9:24f).

If he were on earth, he could not serve because Torah was still in effect: “there are priests who minister according to the Law” (Hebrews 8:4-5).

Torah was “being changed” (Hebrews 7:12– present active indicative)–  because it was, “nigh unto passing” (Hebrews 8:13).

Summary:

I have fully sustained my affirmative with clear Biblical statements, proper hermeneutic and sound logic.

I have addressed Jerry’s key negative arguments, and demonstrated them to be false.

I have given Biblical evidence. Jerry has offered uninspired commentaries.

I call on Jerry to do what he pledged to do, follow each of my arguments. For HIs Truth, and In His Grace,

Don K. Preston

McDonald’s Second Rebuttal

Categories: Debates

McDonald’s First Rebuttal

June 19, 2011 Leave a comment

McDonald’s First Rebuttal

Brother Preston, and interested readers.

Let me say, with Don, that I am happy to be part of this debate. Since my forced retirement because of my health, from local work, debating and writing is about all that I am able to do. I am looking forward to this study and hope to learn a lot from it.

Don has given his definition of his proposition, and while he holds these definitions, I don’t. I realize that this is his proposition, and he is free to define it as to how he uses the terms, but there are some things that I want to point out that I believe that he is in error over.

I do not believe that the Bible teaches that the “Second Coming of Christ” is “the revelation of Christ that stands in contrast to his incarnate human form, and is the revelation of his Deity as King of Kings, and Lord of lords.” I question this on two basis’: (1) The Deity of Jesus Christ has already been revealed and established. The Apostle John wrote about this in his account of the Gospel (Jno. 1:1-3,14; 3:16). Thus Jesus Christ’s deity was already revealed and an established fact. However, the Apostle Paul wrote that he was deity (Col. 1:15,16; 2:9). All these verses show us that Christ’s deity was revealed and established long before the fall of Jerusalem. (2) Christ was, before 70 A.D., already “King of Kings, and Lord of lords” which is what Paul wrote:

Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses. I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession; That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords” (1Ti 6:12-15).

What confession did Jesus witness before Pontius Pilate? That he was a King! He witnessed that his kingdom was not of this world (Joh. 18:36). Thus showing that it was a higher kingdom, which would make him a higher king, and a higher Lord. He would already be King of kings, and Lord of lords before A.D. 70. However, Don undoubtedly thinks that this would only be done when Jesus Christ returned because of Paul’s statement “until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The phrase “in his times” means “in his own time.” It is a time that no one can know, but he shall appear whenever the Father decides it is time for him to appear (Mt. 24:36). When he returns, everyone will confess that he is the only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords. However, he was already “King of kings, and Lord of lords.” He was already “the only Potentate since all authority resides in his hands (Mt. 28:18-20), and he was made to be head over all things to the church which is his body (Eph. 1:22,23). To say that he would have to wait until his return to be King of kings, and Lord of lords, is absurd and contrary to scripture. When he returns there will be no question in anyone’s mind about who he is for “For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God” (Rom 14:11). All of this was written before A.D. 70.

Don’s doctrine implies that Christ’s deity, sovereignty, Kingship, and Lordship was not established until Jerusalem fell in A.D. 70. but the scriptures teach the opposite. Christ also stated that all authority resided in him before he ascended into heaven (Mt. 28:18).

By the resurrection of the dead, I mean the restoration of the life lost in Adam.

By the judgment, I mean the time when Christ would ‘reward every man according to his works’” (Preston’s First Affirmative).

It is truly amazing how much of the Bible Don has misapplied to get his doctrine. The resurrection of the dead is the restoration of the life lost in Adam? Paul corrected the church in Corinth for teaching that there was no bodily resurrection from the dead, in chapter 15 of his first epistle to the church in Corinth.

These people were teaching the doctrine that there was no bodily, physical resurrection of the dead, and Paul tells them that this is a false doctrine. It is false because if there is no bodily resurrection of the dead, then Christ was not bodily raised from the dead. Now those are Paul’s words, not mine. See the chart where Don says that the resurrection of the dead is not a bodily resurrection, but a restoration of the life that was lost in Adam; in other words, we would be raise from our sins unto salvation. Wait a minute! I thought that was what baptism was all about. Baptism is the death, the burial and the resurrection of the old man of sin (Rom. 6:1-8) to a new man. But that isn’t the resurrection of the dead that Paul writes about in his first epistle to Corinth. Now Don has already stated that the Bible is our sole guide in making all our religious decisions (see my preliminary questions to him), and with that being true then he is forced to accept the fact that Paul wrote that if there is no bodily resurrection, then Christ was not raised. We know that he was talking about a bodily resurrection because of what he wrote as can be seen from the following chart. Look at the chart and you will see why Don’s position is in direct opposition to Paul’s.

Notice also what Paul wrote concerning the corruptible and incorruptible bodies in 1 Corinthians chapter 15:42-56. Paul says that in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, we shall all be changed (we being all those on earth when Christ returns). A question comes to mind: When Christ came in judgment upon Jerusalem, did they all change from corruptible bodies to incorruptible bodies? When Christ came in judgment upon Jerusalem did mortality put on immortality? Why do we still have mortal people walking around? John died a natural death in the 90’s A.D., so why didn’t he have an incorruptible body so that he wouldn’t die? Why didn’t he have an immortal body? Look, again, at the following chart to see clearly what Don is teaching.

So the “one hope” is a reiteration of God’s Old Covenant promises made to Old Covenant Israel is it? And the 1st century Christians preached nothing but the hope of Israel? Acts 24 simply states: “But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust” (Act 24:14-15). Paul wasn’t stating that the hope was the reiteration of God’s Old Covenant promises made to Old Covenant Israel, he was showing that the hope was salvation which would come at the resurrection of the dead. This was all foretold to Israel in Moses and the prophets. However, it isn’t a reiteration of anything, it is the fulfillment of that which was prophesied so many years ago.

The hope that the 12 tribes had was the hope of salvation in Christ Jesus (Heb. 1:1-3; 9:15). The promise made to Abraham (Gen. 11:1-3) had two elements (1) the land promise which the Israelites were given, and the (2) promise of salvation from sin, which became a reality when Christ died on the cross. Under Mosaic law there was no salvation (Heb. 10:4) because it was not possible that the blood of animals should take away sin.

All of what Paul, Peter and John preached was foretold in the Old Testament. The Old Testament, however, had no salvation attached to it. The only way anyone could have salvation from sin was to obey New Testament law (the gospel of Jesus Christ), not the law of Moses. Don says that the Old Law was not completely done away until A.D. 70, but Paul said “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4) before A.D. 70. Everything Paul taught, after becoming a Christian, pointed to the fact that the Old Law was nailed to the cross, and the New Law came into existence at that point. While everything he preached was prophesied in the Old Law, nothing in the Old Law, other than those things that were prophesied, were binding upon those in Paul’s day, and they were not binding as Old Testament law, but as promises that would be fulfilled in the New Testament. Paul understood this, Peter understood this, and John understood this, so why can’t Don understand this?

Don says that the eschatology of the New Testament writers was nothing more than Old Testament eschatology, and here, of course, I disagree with him. New Testament eschatology was prophesied in the Old Testament, but the Old Testament, itself, had no eschatology, it had no salvation, it had no standing after the cross. The only hope they had, under the OT, was found in that it was a school master to bring them to the New Testament (Christ).

Don has the hope of the NT writers all backwards. He has it to where what is important is Old Testament Israel. Yes, the promise was made to them, but the Old Testament was not valid under the New Testament. Notice the following chart showing that no one could live under the law of Moses and the law of Christ at the same time, and as such the law of Moses was done away with because Paul said that they had become dead to it. The New was prophesied in the Old, but the Old was done away with at the cross (Col. 2:14-16).

He goes to Matthew 5:18 where Jesus said Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Mat 5:17-18). Don offers the following argument:

Not one jot or one tittle of Torah would pass until it was all fulfilled.

 

But, Torah predicted the second coming of Christ, the judgment and the resurrection.

 

Therefore, not one jot or one tittle would pass from Torah until the second coming of Christ, the judgment and the resurrection were fulfilled.

Because the Torah predicted the second coming of Christ, the judgment and the resurrection does not make the second coming, the judgment or the resurrection part of Old Testament law. The Old Testament prophets prophesied about the people of God being named a new name which the Lord would give (Isa. 62:2), but this does not necessitate this new name being part of the Old Testament law, thus having to be fulfilled before the Old Law could be taken out of the way. The establishment of the church (Isa. 2:2-4) was not part of Old Testament law even though it was prophesied by an Old Testament prophet and written in the Old Testament. Don seems to think that if something was written in the Old Testament then it had to be part of the Old Testament law and it had to come to pass before the Old Testament could be fulfilled. He tells us “The major premise is undeniable. The minor is irrefutable. The conclusion is inescapable,” but though the major premise is undeniable and the minor premise is irrefutable, the conclusion does not follow because the two premises do not force it. Just because something was predicted in the Old Testament does not make that part of Old Testament Law.

Another thing is that Paul wrote, before A.D. 70 “we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feelings of our infirmities, but was in all points tempted as ye are yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15), (notice the chart). So Christ is the High Priest today, and according to Peter, who also wrote before A.D. 70, we are a royal priesthood (1 Pet. 2:9). Now the thing is that under the Old Law, only someone from the tribe of Levi could serve as high priest, and Christ did not come from the tribe of Levi. He came from the tribe of Judah, “which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood” (Heb. 7:14). So how was this possible? There had to be a change in the law (Heb. 7:12). The Old Law had to be fulfilled and taken out of the way before Christ could be our High Priest. When did this change take place? Don’s position implies that Christ wasn’t our High Priest until Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70 because he says that the Law of Moses was in effect until Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70. Yet the writer to the Hebrew Christians undeniably affirmed that he was, before Jerusalem fell in A.D. 70. So how does Don reconcile this?

Then he goes into a long and drawn out dissertation of God’s marriage to Israel and Judah, something that no one denies, but there are parts of his drawn out list that need some response.

Jeremiah 3:8-11 simply shows how each fell away from God, and that at that time Judah had not completely walked away from God. Revelation 11:8 is part of the vision John had about what was taking place during the persecution of the Seven Churches in Asia Minor. It says nothing about God divorcing Judah. Don is placing a lot of literal interpretation on the book of Revelation. He says that this book was written before 70 A.D., but it is funny that John was exiled on the Isle of Patmos when he wrote this book, and that didn’t happen until the mid-90’s. Foy E. Wallace Jr. took the position that Revelation was written before A.D. 70, but he was never able to answer the question about John’s being on the Isle of Patmos other than to say that there may have been a time that was not recorded where John was at Patmos. When else was John ever at Patmos? See the following chart for Eusebius’ position on the date of Revelation.Also Clement took the same position on the next chart. Ignatius took the same position as seen on the following chart. Finally, Irenaeus took the same position as can be seen on the following chart.Now Domitian’s reign ended in 96 A.D.:

Titus Flavius Vespasianus (“Vespasian”) survived the civil wars of 68-69 AD as undisputed ruler of the Roman world. He had two sons: The elder (with the same name) is known to history as “Titus” succeeded his father and ruled for two years before his death in 81 AD. The younger brother, Titus Flavius Domitianus, then

became emperor ruling until 96 AD” (http://dougsmith.ancients.info/feac49dom.html).

So with this information in mind, all of Don’s calculations are without merit. While none of these men were God and none of their works were inspired they are a better source than someone who lived 2000 years after the fact.

He quotes Isaiah 62:1-12 as proof of his position that the remarriage would come in A.D. 70. However, Isaiah 62:2 prophesies about the children of God being called by a new name, and Acts 11:26 tells us that the “disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.” The disciples were called Christians before A.D. 70 destroying the idea that the new name was to be given at the destruction of Jerusalem. So how is this possible unless “Christian” was not the new name that the mouth of the Lord would name. If it isn’t what was that name that God would give his people?

God did not marry Israel by giving the Torah. He gave the law to Israel as his people. Jeremiah wrote:

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD” (Jer 31:31-32).

He made a covenant with his people when he brought them out of Egyptian bondage, but this covenant was not the giving of the Law. The covenant was made to Abraham some 430 years before he gave the written law at Sinai. The covenant was confirmed (ratified) by God in Christ, and the law that was given 430 years later cannot disannaul what God promised (Gal. 3:17).

If the new covenant was going to be with (fleshly) Israel and Judah, then what chance do we have? The church is known as Israel And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God” (Gal 6:16), and spiritual Zion (Heb. 12:22,23). However, fleshly Israel is not under consideration. The only people of Israel and Judah was the remnant that was to be saved: “Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved” (Rom 9:27). So fleshly Israel and fleshly Judah are not the ones that were to be saved, but rather a remnant of those nations. They would be given the New Covenant, a covenant that would include both Jew and Gentile (Eph. 2:12-16). This marriage would be with the church, not fleshly Israel or fleshly Judah.

He gives Hosea 1:10,11 as proof that at the remarriage all Israel would be saved, but notice what Hosea says:

Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God. Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel” (Hos 1:10-11)

So what is Hosea talking about? Notice two statements by Peter and Paul:

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy” (1Pe 2:9-10)

Who is Peter talking about? Peter is talking to Christians, who had become part of a priesthood (something that could not possibly exist under the Law of Moses), a chosen generation—New Testament Christians.

Now looking at Paul’s statement:

Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God” (Rom 9:24-26).

Paul says that not only were the Jews called out, but also the Gentiles, who Hosea prophesied that they, who were at one time not God’s people, that it it would come to pass that where it was said to them that they were not God’s people (because they were not Jews) they would be called the children of the living God. This is not talking about fleshly Israel or Judah. The Jews would be given the gospel, but the Gentiles would also receive it.

So when did the Messiah come, fulling his Messianic promises? Don says that his messianic promises were fulfilled during the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. So when did Joel’s prophecy become fulfilled? Don says “in A.D. 70.” So what happened on the day of Pentecost? Peter said that what they were seeing was a fulfillment of the prophecy that Joel made concerning the Messiah’s church. He said “this is that.” He didn’t say this is the beginning of a fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy, but only in its infancy. No, he said “this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel.” Now Don can argue with Peter all he wants, but the church was established on the day of Pentecost of Acts 2.

The angel told the 11 who watched Jesus literally ascend to heaven “Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven” (Act 1:11). So if all prophecies concerning Christ were fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem, then Jesus must have returned on a cloud just as literal as the apostles watched him depart on. But did that happen? We are told that when Christ reappears, John said every eye shall see him, and Paul said every tongue shall confess. Did every eye see Christ in A.D. 70? Did every tongue confess in A.D. 70? Why do we have so many people who are not confessing Christ? Is it because Christ no more appeared to judge the world than he did on Saturday May 21, 2011 like Harold Camping said he would? (who after his failure now says Christ did return on May 21, 2011, but it was a spiritual judgment, much like Don does with the A.D. 70 doctrine-me thinks that both Don and Harold ought to quit wresting the scriptures and let them speak for themselves). When Paul said “every tongue shall confess” he was quoting Isaiah 45:23 which Don says would necessarily be part of the Old Testament law. So did every tongue confess? Did every knee bow to Christ in A.D. 70? NO! That prophecy has yet to be fulfilled. So it seems that not all of Christ’s messianic prophecies were fulfilled when Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D.70. Now while this is only one, all it takes is one to bring Don’s house of cards down around his feet, and this one has done it. Unless he can show that every knee bowed, and every tongue confessed to Christ in A.D. 70, then he cannot hold to his argument.

Jesus invented marriage long before the Old Covenant came into existence. Marriage was invented in the Garden of Eden when God brought Eve to Adam and gave her to him for his wife (Mt. 19:3-6), unless Don is willing to take the position that Eve was not really Adam’s wife because no such relationship existed before the covenant with Israel and Judah!

The church is not the bride of Christ? Judah and Israel is the bride of Christ? Don has God divorcing Judah and Israel and then Judah marrying Christ! Paul wrote: “For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah” (Heb 8:8). Does he mean that he is going to make a new covenant with the literal country of Judah? No! There was to be a remnant that would be saved, from all 12 tribes, but they would not be in a relationship as Jews and Israelites, they would be in a relationship as Christians—New Testament, not Old.

According to Don, God is not married to the church. According to Don, the church is not the bride of Christ. According to Don, God remarried Israel and Judah.

Don tries to make a literal connection of the destruction of Jerusalem to the parable in Matthew chapter 22. A question comes to mind: “If Jesus’ intent was to come and marry Israel & Judah, why did the Israelites want him dead?” It seems to me that, according to Don, he came to do the very thing that they wanted him to do in the first place. They wanted to be God’s chosen people; they wanted to have a special place in God’s heart. So why did they want him dead? The parable is about Christ coming and being rejected. The Jews were supposed to accept Christ, but they refused, so God punished them. It has nothing to do with the fall of Jerusalem; don’t make too many literal points in the parables of Christ. Christ came to set up a spiritual kingdom, and when they realized that he wasn’t going to be ruler over Israel, they rejected him.

Paul wrote “Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel, is that they might be saved” (Rom. 10:1). What did he mean that he prayed that Israel would be saved? According to Don God was going to marry Israel at the destruction of Jerusalem. With this being the case there would be no question. But Paul apparently didn’t understand that because he said that he prayed that Israel might be saved. He loved his country, his people, and he wanted them to be saved. This implies that they were in a lost condition, and would be unless they obeyed the New Testament Gospel of Christ (Rom. 1:16). Don talks about Israel’s power being the Torah! No! Israel’s power is the same power that any of us have: The Gospel of Jesus Christ (Rom. 1:16).

Don writes: “Who ‘had been invited’ to the wedding? Old Covenant Israel. This was her promise.” No, Old Covenant Israel was not promised to be invited to the wedding. The remnant of the Jews received the gospel, but Old Covenant Israel was no longer the children of God, and had not been since they were carried into captivity.

Why was it divinely necessary for the gospel to start with the Jews? Because the Jews were more receptive (for one), also the Christ had come through the Jews, and the Law of Moses was given to the Jews to be a school master to bring them to Christ (Gal. 3:24). He wants to know when God remarried Israel according to prophecies. God never remarried fleshly Israel, he married the church who is spiritual Israel. This is that to which the prophecies refer, not fleshly Israel; their time was over.

He says: “Note that a remnant of Israel in almost every city did accept the gospel,” and with this I agree. The remnant of Israel and of Judah did receive the gospel, but not as Israel or Judah, but those who obeyed became Christians. He says: “Now, it is axiomatic that if a law or covenant has been abrogated, stricken from the books, that none of its provisions– whether positive or negative– are applicable and binding from the point of its abrogation / annulment” which is why Paul told the church in Rome and the churches of Galatia that they could not live under the Old Covenant Law. If that law was still in effect, then Paul had no business telling those people that they were sinning by trying to live under it.

Questions for Jerry:

Is the wedding of Matthew 22 the same as the wedding of Christ at his second coming in Matthew 25. Answer: No! The wedding of Matthew 22 is a parable teaching a lesson on the kingdom of God. You cannot make every point in the parable mean something. Matthew 22:2 says: “The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son” (Mat 22:2).

Was the wedding of the son in Matthew 22 postponed until some yet future time?No! But again you cannot make every point in the parable refer to the lesson. If you did you would have those invited there for the purpose of witnessing the wedding. In the kingdom of God people are married to Christ, but these people were not married to the Son. So you cannot make everything in a parable applicable. It was a story to teach a lesson.

When did God remarry (or will he remarry) Old Covenant Israel, in fulfilling of her Old Covenant promises? He didn’t and he won’t. The prophecies were about a spiritual kingdom that would include both Jew and Gentile.

No, God did not remarry fleshly Israel at Pentecost or any other time. Fleshly Israel was no longer valid. Joel’s prophecy was for “all flesh,” both Jew and Gentile, and Peter said that what they saw at Pentecost was a fulfillment of what Joel said in Joel 2:28-32. He says: “This means that Hosea 2:19– a promise made to Old Covenant Israel– was being fulfilled on Pentecost, after the promises of Torah had supposedly been annulled),” but he tries to make a vast difference between the betrothal and the marriage. The betrothal was not an engagement. The only thing that they could not do in the betrothal was to live together. This is why Joseph thought that Mary had committed adultery against him when he found that she was pregnant with Jesus.

He says: “So, Paul was telling his post cross, Jewish audience that if they spurned the invitation to the promised wedding, that Mosaic Covenant wrath would be poured out on them, just as it was in 586 BC!” Was Paul quoting Mosaical Law by quoting Hab. 1:5? No, he was quoting a prophecy made by an Old Testament Prophet. Don implies that anything that was written in the Old Testament was Old Testament Law. Something was written in the Old Testament that doesn’t make it Old Testament Law.

Paul didn’t threaten his hearers with Mosaic Covenant wrath in Acts 13:39-41. Notice what Paul said to them: (1) They were told that no man could be justified by the law of Moses. (2) Beware so that the wrath that was spoken of by the prophets would not come upon them. What had Habakkuk spoken? Habakkuk had warned the Jews about the Chaldeans who were going to destroy the temple because they were not faithful to God. Paul makes application to this and shows that as God brought judgment upon the Jews, he will bring judgment upon them for not obeying the gospel of Christ. He told them not to obey the Law of Moses because the law of Moses could not justify them. Don needs to quote all of what Paul said rather than just part.

Paul preached nothing but the hope of Israel found in Torah (The Law of Moses–Acts 24:14-15; 26:5f; 26:21f; 28:18f).

Paul wasn’t preaching the Law of Moses. He specifically told people that the Law of Moses would not justify them (Acts 13:39; Rom. 7:1-4; Gal. 5:4). Why would he preach something he said would not justify sins? He wouldn’t and he didn’t!

Paul had betrothed the Corinthians to Christ (This included a righteous remnant of Old Covenant Israel that had accepted their Messiah).

This betrothal was not an engagement, it was a marriage. Notice the meaning of the word “espoused” on the following chart. The church will be joined with Christ in heaven when Christ returns; that is the time that is set aside by God. The church, today, is still betrothed to Christ and the relationship will not be consummated until Christ returns. Don says that this has already happened, but the scriptures don’t teach this. Don has to wrest the scriptures to make his point, but the Bible doesn’t teach his position.

In Revelation 21:1-4 we see the New Heaven and New Earth (Heaven after the judgment), for the first were passed away. John saw the new Jerusalem coming out of heaven, as a bride adorned for her husband. God said “The tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.” Then John said that voice said that “God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes, and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any ore pain: for the former things are passed away.” Has God wiped away all tears from our eyes? Has he removed all pain? Has he removed death? No! We still cry, we still feel pain, and we still die. Therefore, Christ has not returned to take the church to heaven.

He goes into some strange interpretation of Ephesians 5:25-27. He says that Christ sanctified the church and that sanctification was part of the Jewish wedding ceremony. This sanctification was baptism, not something else, and Paul wrote Ephesians before A.D. 70. It says “that he might sanctify and cleans it by the washing of water by the word” not by destroying the city of Jerusalem. Paul was teaching that Christ gave his life for the church, that he might sanctify and cleanse it. He didn’t wait until A.D.70 to sanctify and cleanse it. Don’s position implies that the church was not sanctified or cleansed until A.D. 70, therefore it was not sanctified, therefore not set aside and not cleansed before that time.

Hosea said this would be in the day in which God would take away the  “feasts, new moons and Sabbaths” (2:11)).

So when did God take away the feasts, new moons and Sabbaths?

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days” (Col 2:14-16).

According to Paul, the feasts, new moons and Sabbaths were nailed to the cross, and that they were not to allow anyone to judge them in these things. If those things were not to happen until A.D. 70 why did Paul say they had been nailed to the cross? I take Paul’s word for it, not Don’s.

I asked Jerry to tell me if Revelation 11:15-19 was fulfilled or not. He responded: “Revelation 11:15-19 is a vision John had regarding the seven churches in Asia (Rev. 1:4,11) and the persecution that they were enduring. All of the things you listed above are to be kept in the context of the apocalyptic vision, not applied when and where you please.”

Well, if Revelation 11:15-19 was written to the seven churches about their specific situation and you cannot apply these promises to “when and where you please” (and of course you can’t), then it is entirely inappropriate to rip verse 15-19 away from the seven churches and say those promises are still unfulfilled 2000 years later! But let’s look closer.

I don’t rip them out to say that they apply 2000 years later. Everything that was mentioned in Revelation was fulfilled during the persecution of the seven churches in Asia with the exception of the final judgment of man spoken of in the last two chapters of Revelation. The judgment spoken about in the 11th chapter was the judgment upon the Roman Empire who had persecuted those seven churches so heavily.

The seven churches of Asia underwent their persecution when Domitian was Emperor, and Revelation was written to give them (the seven churches of Asia). Since Domitian was the Emperor at the time (in the 90’s A.D.), Revelation was written long after 70 A.D.,. Therefore Don’s twist on Revelation chapter 11 is in error. The bodies in the street (v:8), in the city where the Lord was crucified does not have reference to Jerusalem as Don posits.

Johnson wrote: “Of the great city. This term is used eight times in Revelation. It is never used of Jerusalem. It is in contrast with the Holy City. As the Holy City is a symbol of the church, a wicked City would symbolize a false religion, or apostate church” (People’s New Testament With Notes, e-Sword).

Don says “The resurrection of Daniel 12 is the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15– the end of the age resurrection the time of the kingdom, the resurrection to everlasting life” but the resurrection of 1 Cor. 15 is the bodily resurrection of the dead. This is exactly what Paul says.

The Song of Moses sang by Israel and the Song of Moses sang by Spiritual Israel (the church) were sang at two different times in history. Spiritual Israel sang the song and it became the song of the Lamb (Rev. 15:3). However, this song, sang by Moses(Deut 32) was sang at the beginning of Israel’s existence as a nation. The Hoshea here was not the prophet Hosea, (who was the son of Beeri) but was Joshua the son of Nun.

I don’t know what version Don is using, but I am using the KJV and here is what it says: “And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith” (Deu 32:20). 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.

As we have seen the avenging the blood was the blood that the Canaanites drew of the Israelites. God would avenge this blood, not some deaths several thousand years later. An example of this would be the Amalekites smiting the old and feeble (Deut. 25:17,18). This would give the Israelites something to rejoice over, not something several thousand years later.

I have already proven that Revelation was written about A.D. 96, not A.D. 69. I have shown that Domitian was in power when Revelation was written. I have proven that Deuteronomy 32 refers to the deaths that were caused by the Canaanites. Thus according to Don his argument does not stand.

Revelation 16:5 says nothing about Old Testament prophets being killed, it says: And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus. For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy” (Rev 16:5-6). They shed the blood of saints, and prophets. Don says that Roman Catholic Church never killed the Old Testament prophets, and with this I agree, but the Roman Empire, under Domitian, did kill New Testament saints and prophets.

1 Thess. 2:15-16 say nothing about Jerusalem about to be judged. Paul told the Thessalonians that they had suffered things from their own countrymen as the Jewish Christians had suffered from theirs. The Jews killed their prophets, and also the Lord—something that Stephen brought out in his sermon—which by the way got him killed (Acts chapter 7). They persecuted the apostles and did not please God, and were contrary to all men. They forbade the apostles to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins because the wrath of God is come upon them. This wrath is not the destruction of Jerusalem, or of the temple, but is eternal situation as is brought out in verses 17-20. Eternal damnation is what Paul spoke of for the Jews who persecuted them, and eternal life was for those who were faithful. Notice what Paul said later on in this epistle (4:13-18) which has reference to the final judgment of mankind, as does 2 Thess. 1:7-9. Did all this happen at the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70? Does Don not quote 2 Thess. 1:7-9 in warning of the coming judgment? Certainly not, holding to the position that he holds. He can’t even quote 1 Thess. 4:13-18 at funerals because those things don’t apply, as far as his position is concerned. The Roman Empire did all the things that the book of Revelation discusses, and did it to those Christians of Asia Minor.

I have shown, from several of the early historians, that Revelation was written later than 70 A.D.,. What Don needs to do is to show that John was exiled on Patmos before the A.D. 90’s, this is something he cannot do, something that even Foy E. Wallace could not do.

He goes into a list of things that he says I must do to negate his proposition, and my response is as follows:

(A) New Testament eschatology promises were promised in the Old Testament, but those promises were not “The law of Moses” or the “Torah” any more than Isaiah 7:14 was the Law of Moses or the Torah. The OT prophets prophesied of a new covenant, better than the first covenant. (B) I have destroyed his argument on the remarriage. © I have shown that the parable in Matthew 22 is not the judgment of Matthew 25. (D) I have shown that Revelation is not talking about the same thing as Deuteronomy 32 is. (E) God did not apply the Old Testament law or Torah after the cross. Paul said that the law had been nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14-16). Then regarding Revelation and the great city I offer the following chart.

While Schaff holds to the early date, he shows that the early scholars (people who were closest to the writing, and would have better knowledge) held to the 95 or 96 A.D. writing date. What this means is that the Great City does not refer to the City of Jerusalem, but to Rome. The crucifixion of the Lord refers to a spiritual crucifixion because the church in Rome had begun their apostasy at this point. Again, I point to Johnson on the following chart.

Now while it is true that Johnson is not inspired, he seems to have a better handle on this than Don does. Three visions were seen by John, each having its own lessons for the 1st century Christians of Asia Minor. We know for a fact that the book was written to the seven churches in Asia, that much is stated clearly. We know that when John wrote this he was on the Isle of Patmos. That much is stated. Unless Don knows of another time that John was on the Isle of Patmos, we must go with history, which has him exiled at Patmos in the mid-90’s, twenty something years too late for it to be about the destruction of Jerusalem.

Don answered the question: “1.  Do you agree with the premise that one should draw, only, such conclusions as are warranted by the evidence?” His Answer: “I agree.” We have evidence that John was exiled on Patmos in the 90’s. We have no evidence that he was there prior to A.D. 70. So if Don is true to his word, then he can only draw conclusions such as are warranted by the evidence, and the evidence says that John was there in the 90’s. Therefore the only conclusion that can be drawn is that Revelation was written in the 90’s, more than 20 years too late for the destruction of Jerusalem.

I not only can, but I have proven what I need to prove to destroy Don’s position. Whatever he says about the book of Revelation, he cannot get around the date of the writing, because as it says I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ” (Rev 1:9). He then offers up Revelation 22:12 as a final argument: “Behold, I come quickly and my reward is with me” (Revelation 22:12).

The word “quickly” in Revelation 22:12 means as follows:

ταχύ tachú; neut. sing. of tachús (G5036), prompt, swift, used as an adv. Quickly, speedily, with haste (Mat_5:25; Mat_28:7-8; Mar_16:8 [TR]; Joh_11:29; Sept.: 2Sa_17:16); suddenly (Rev_2:5 [TR], Rev_2:16; Rev_3:11; Rev_11:14; Rev_22:7, Rev_22:12, Rev_22:20; Sept.: Psa_102:3). By implication, carelessly, lightly (Mar_9:39)” (The Complete Word Study Dictionary, e-Sword).

The word means “prompt, swift, speedily with haste….suddenly (Rev. 2212). So this does not mean that this meant that his coming would be imminent, but that when he came it would happen very quickly.

Questions:

  1. When was John on the Isle of Patmos for the Gospel before the mid 90’s A.D.?

  2. When Paul said that the handwriting of ordinances was nailed to the cross, did he or did he not tell the Colossian Christians not to let anyone judge them regarding new moons, feast days or the Sabbath days? Yes or No.

  3. When did Christ sanctify the church, and how did he do it?

  4. What was the “new name” that was to be given by the mouth of the Lord in Isa. 62:2, and where is this new name found in the New Testament?

  5. Was Christ the High Priest before A.D. 70?

Don failed to show that his proposition is true, so he needs to go back to the drawing board and try again. I have gone over my word limit so I’ll have to quit for now.

In Christ Jesus, still waiting for the second coming of our Lord,

Jerry D. McDonald

 Preston’s Second Affirmative

Categories: Debates

Preston’s First Affirmative

June 19, 2011 Leave a comment

McDonald- Preston Formal Written Debate

Disputants:

Jerry McDonald

Don K. Preston

Preston’s First Affirmative

 

 

Resolved: The Bible teaches that the Second Coming of Christ, the resurrection and Judgment occurred at the time of the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.

 

Affirm: Don K. Preston

 

Deny: Jerry D. McDonald

 

I am pleased to engage in this discussion with brother McDonald. I pledge to the reader to conduct myself honorably, with Christian decorum so that the reader can focus on the issues.

 

It is my responsibility to define my terms:

 

The Bible”: By the Bible is meant the 66 books of the canonized scripture. While other works contribute to our understanding ancient times, they are not determinative of truth.

 

Teaches”: By teaches, I means communicates and conveys truths.

 

That the Second Coming of Christ, the resurrection and Judgment:– The constituent elements that Biblically are posited at the end of the age.

By “Second Coming” I mean the revelation of Christ that stands in contrast to his incarnate human form, and is the revelation of his Deity as the King of kings, and Lord of lords.

By the resurrection of the dead, I mean the restoration of the life lost in Adam.

By the judgment, I mean the time when Christ would “reward every man according to his works.”

 

Occurred: I mean “Took place,” “came to pass,” “was accomplished.”

 

At the time of the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70: By “at the time of” I mean just that. I do not mean that the fall of Jerusalem was the second coming. I mean that those things occurred at that time.

 

Let me present my first affirmative arguments. First, some groundwork.

 

Fact: Paul (and all of the NT writers) had one hope (Ephesians 4:4).

 

Fact: That one hope, their one eschatological hope was nothing but the reiteration of God’s Old Covenant promises made to Old Covenant Israel, i.e. they preached nothing but the hope of Israel.

1.) Paul said his gospel of the resurrection of the just and unjust was found in Moses, the law and the prophets (Acts 24:14-15).

2.) Paul said his hope of the resurrection was the hope of the twelve tribes, “the promise made to the fathers, to which hope, our twelve tribes, earnestly serving God night and day, hope to attain”  (Acts 26:6-7).

3.) Paul said he preached nothing that was not found in Moses and the prophets (Acts 26:21-23).

4.) Peter’s eschatology was likewise that which was given in the OT prophets (1 Peter 1:10f; 2 Peter 3:1-2, 13).

5.) John’s eschatology, found in Revelation, would be the fulfillment of the prophetic hope (Revelation 10:7; 22:6).

 

It is therefore prima facie established that the eschatology of the NT writers was nothing different from the OT promises made to Old Covenant Israel. There is, in fact, no “New Testament eschatology.” There is no Biblical eschatology different from Israel’s promises. All Biblical eschatology is the reaffirmation of God’s Old Covenant promises made to Old Covenant Israel. This is indisputably true and has profound implications.

 

If the one eschatological hope of the NT writers was nothing but the hope of Old Covenant Israel, found in the OT scriptures, this means that all NT prophecies of the coming of the  Lord, the resurrection and judgment must be viewed through the prism of God’s promises to Israel.

 

This will be, as I will demonstrate repeatedly, problematic for brother McDonald. The traditional view of the churches of Christ– the view of Jerry McDonald–  is that God was through with Israel and the Law of Moses– all of it– at the cross.

 

However, Jesus said “Not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the law until it is all fulfilled” (Matthew 5:18). So, let me offer an argument:

 

Not one jot or one tittle of Torah would pass until it was all fulfilled.

 

But, Torah predicted the second coming of Christ, the judgment and the resurrection.

 

Therefore, not one jot or one tittle would pass from Torah until the second coming of Christ, the judgment and the resurrection were fulfilled.

 

The major premise is undeniable. The minor is irrefutable. The conclusion is inescapable.

 

With these preliminaries in mind, I will present an affirmative based on the second coming of Christ for the wedding. To aid the understanding let me give some background.

 

In Hebraic thought, nothing epitomized covenant more than marriage.

                                                                       

Fact: God was married to Israel: Your maker is your husband” (Isaiah 54:5). He married her by giving her Torah at Sinai (Jeremiah 31:32). The language of Sinai is couched in marital terms. (I will use the terms “Torah” or simply “the law” to designate the entirety of the Law of Moses, just as Jesus  did).

 

Fact: Due to her spiritual “adultery” God divorced the ten northern tribes: “Bring charges against your mother, bring charges for she is not my wife, nor am I her husband” (Hosea 2:2; cf. Jeremiah 3:1-8).

 

Fact: Until the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies God could not divorce Judah although she became worse than the ten tribes (Jeremiah 3:8-11).

In the last days and the fulfillment of the Messianic promises, God would divorce Judah in the judgment of  “the city where the Lord was slain” (Revelation 11:8). When Jerusalem / Judah / Babylon fell (divorced and slain) the wedding of the Lord would take place:

“Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready.” And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints. Then he said to me, “Write: ‘Blessed are those who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb!’” (Revelation 19:7-8).

 

Fact: In spite of the fact that He had divorced the ten northern tribes, abandoning them and “killing them” (Hosea 6:5) God promised that in the last days, “”I will betroth you to me forever. Yes I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice, and in loving kindness and mercy. I will betroth you to me in faithfulness and you shall know the Lord” (Hosea 2:19-20).

 

Fact: The time of the marriage (remarriage) of God and Israel would be at the coming of the Lord at the time of judgment:

The Gentiles shall see your righteousness, and all kings your glory. You shall be called by a new name, Which the mouth of the LORD will name. You shall also be a crown of glory In the hand of the LORD, And a royal diadem In the hand of your God. You shall no longer be termed Forsaken, Nor shall your land any more be termed Desolate; But you shall be called Hephzibah, and your land Beulah; For the LORD delights in you, And your land shall be married. For as a young man marries a virgin, So shall your sons marry you; And as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, So shall your God rejoice over you…. Go through, Go through the gates! Prepare the way for the people; Build up, Build up the highway! Take out the stones, Lift up a banner for the peoples! 11  Indeed the LORD has proclaimed To the end of the world: “Say to the daughter of Zion, ‘Surely your salvation is coming; Behold, His reward is with Him, And His work before Him.’” 12  And they shall call them The Holy People, The Redeemed of the LORD; And you shall be called Sought Out, A City Not Forsaken.”

 

Fact: Just as God married Israel by giving her Torah, the time of the remarriage of Israel would be when God made the New Covenant with them:

“And it shall be, in that day,” Says the LORD, “That you will call Me ‘My Husband,’ And no longer call Me ‘My Master,’ For I will take from her mouth the names of the Baals, And they shall be remembered by their name no more. In that day I will make a covenant for them With the beasts of the field, With the birds of the air, And with the creeping things of the ground. Bow and sword of battle I will shatter from the earth, To make them lie down safely. “I will betroth you to Me forever; Yes, I will betroth you to Me In righteousness and justice, In lovingkindness and mercy; I will betroth you to Me in faithfulness” (Hosea 2:16-20).

 

Fact: The making of the New Covenant would be with the house of Israel and the house of Judah (Jeremiah 31:31). The New Covenant was a promise to Old Covenant Israel, for Old Covenant Israel. It was to be a change of covenants. The promise of the New Covenant was not made to the church disconnected from “the house of Israel and the house of Judah.”

 

Fact: The time of the remarriage would be when “all Israel”would be saved, under Messiah  (I will get to Romans 11:25f later): 

“Yet the number of the children of Israel Shall be as the sand of the sea, Which cannot be measured or numbered. And it shall come to pass In the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not My people,’ There it shall be said to them, ‘You are sons of the living God.’ Then the children of Judah and the children of Israel Shall be gathered together,And appoint for themselves one head; And they shall come up out of the land, For great will be the day of Jezreel! (Hosea 1:10-11). Notice that this is the restoration of all twelve tribes, under Messiah. It is not the return from Babylon.

 

Fact: This restoration of Israel under Messiah would be “in the last days”:

For the children of Israel shall abide many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred pillar, without ephod or teraphim. 5  Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the LORD their God and David their king. They shall fear the LORD and His goodness in the latter days” (Hosea 3:4-5).

           

Summary: God was married to Israel. The ten tribes apostatized and God divorced them. He could not divorce Judah until Messiah came, fulfilling His Messianic promises. When God divorced Israel, He departed. In the last days, God would return and remarry Israel– all twelve tribes– under Messiah, at the time of His coming in judgment. (This would be the time of the divorcing of Judah, so that all twelve tribes could enter the New Covenant, transformed into the body of Christ).

 

Now, let’s look at Jesus.

 

One of Jesus’ favorite themes was that of the Wedding. Where did Jesus get the marriage concept? Did he invent it as part of the “New Covenant” having nothing to do with Old Covenant Israel’s promises? Patently not.

 

Jesus came to confirm the OT promises made to Old Covenant Israel: “Jesus Christ has become the servant of the circumcision to confirm the promises made to the fathers” (Romans 15:8).

 

Jesus did not come to destroy Torah– he came to fulfill (Matthew 5:17). This means he came to fulfill God’s Old Covenant promises, to Old Covenant Israel.

 

Jesus said he came to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 15:24); He came to gather together the children of God scattered abroad (John 11:52).

 

Now, if God was through with Israel at the cross, when did He marry her, in fulfillment of those OT promises? If God had no covenant relationship with Judah after the cross, as Jerry McDonald believes (and as I once did)  then God’s promise to make the New Covenant with her and with Israel was invalidated!

 

Remember, the promise of the marriage was to Judah and Israel! And, he could not marry Judah until He first killed / divorced her as he had done to the ten tribes. Until the divorcement of Judah, she was not free to marry her Messiah. (Until that “divorcement” the transformation of “all Israel” into the body of Christ could not be complete).

 

The divorcement of Judah was critical. As YHVH had to have “just cause” to divorce Israel, there had to be “just cause” to divorce Judah, so that the remarriage of  “all Israel” could take place. What was that “just cause?”

 

Matthew 22:1f explains:

A king prepared a wedding banquet for his son.

He sent his servants to tell those “who had been invited” to tell them, “All things are ready, come to the wedding.”

Those who had been invited spurned the invitation and killed the servants.

The king was angry, sent out his armies to destroy those wicked men and burn their city.

The wedding took place.

 

Who “had been invited” to the wedding? Old Covenant Israel. This was her promise.

When was the declaration and invitation “All things are ready” made? See below.

Who were the servants sent with the invitation? It was Jesus’ apostles and servants.

 

What is the period of the “invitation”? This is crucial– While the period from John the Immerser was included (i.e. “The kingdom has drawn near” Matthew 3:2), the period from John to Pentecost did not exhaust that period of invitation. What a short period of “invitation” that would have been.

That time of invitation included the time from Pentecost, when the gospel of the kingdom was preached – of necessity– to the Jew first (Romans 1:16; Acts 13:46). (Ask yourself the question: If God was through with Israel at the cross, why was it {Divinely} necessary to preach the gospel to them first? If God was truly through with them He owed them no priority privileges!)

As the gospel was preached to “the Jew first” they spurned the invitation– eliciting the warning: “Seeing then that you count yourselves unworthy of eternal life, henceforth, we turn to the Gentiles” (Acts 13:46– Note that a remnant of Israel in almost every city did accept the gospel).

 

Paul warned the Jews that rejection of the offer of the “wedding” would bring covenant wrath– Mosaic Covenant wrath– on them: “Take heed therefore, so that the thing spoken of in the prophets may not come on you: ‘Behold, you despisers, marvel, and perish; For I am accomplishing a work in your days, a work which you will never believe, though someone should describe it to you” (Acts 13:41).

 

Paul is quoting from Habakkuk 1:5 and the prediction of the Babylonian destruction of Judah. That destruction came as a direct result of her violation of Torah. God brought covenant wrath on Judah then, as promised in Leviticus 26/Deuteronomy 28-30– the Law of Blessings and Cursings. So, Paul was telling his post cross, Jewish audience that if they spurned the invitation to the promised wedding, that Mosaic Covenant wrath would be poured out on them, just as it was in 586 BC!

 

For the reader: How could Paul threaten his Jewish audience with Mosaic Covenant wrath, if the Mosaic Covenant had been annulled decades before? How could he appeal to the provisions for covenant wrath found in Deuteronomy 28-30 if Torah was abrogated at the cross? Paul was appealing to his audiences’ knowledge and awareness of covenant thought, language and history, and he was drawing directly from Torah. Very clearly, for Paul, the provisions of Torah were still binding and about to be imposed on the rebellious Jews.

 

Now, it is axiomatic that if a law or covenant has been abrogated, stricken from the books, that none of its provisions– whether positive or negative– are applicable and binding from the point of its abrogation / annulment.

 

The point is that the preaching of the gospel to the Jew first, from Pentecost onward is the time contemplated in the parable of Matthew 22. The Jewish rejection of that wedding invitation gave God just cause to divorce her, and invite others to the wedding. That invitation had to be preached “into all the world, (which included the diaspora of Israel–1 Peter 1:1; James 1:1-2)– as a witness to the nations” before the end, “the divorcement” of Judah, could happen. God could not divorce Judah until just cause was given– as depicted in the parable. That “just cause” was rejection of the invitation and persecution of the servants.

 

Now, while much more could be, and perhaps will be, said in this regard, I will now present some arguments based on these indisputable facts.

 

Argument:

 

The promise of the marriage was an Old Covenant promise given to Old Covenant Israel.

Not one jot or one tittle of Torah could pass until all of Torah– inclusive of the marriage– was fulfilled.

The time of the marriage, as promised in Torah, would be at the second coming of Christ (Isaiah 62:10-12; Matthew 25:1-13).

Therefore, not one jot or one tittle could pass from Torah until the marriage, at the second coming of Christ, was fulfilled.

 

Argument:

 

The marriage (re-marriage) of God and Israel would be at the coming of the Lord, at the time of judgment and reward (Isaiah 62:2-11).

Jesus’ second coming– for his marriage– at the time of judgment and reward was to be in the lifetime of the first century generation (Matthew 16:27-28– Jesus’ promise in Matthew 16:27 is a direct allusion to Isaiah 62:11).

Therefore, the marriage (re-marriage) of God and Israel occurred at the second coming of Christ at the time of judgment and reward in the lifetime of the first century generation.

 

This argument alone falsifies any claim that God was through with Israel at the cross. God was not, through with Israel at the cross (Romans 11:1-3). His covenant promise to remarry her was not completed until Christ’s second coming.

 

Argument:

The promise of the remarriage of Israel is the promise of the coming of the Lord– Isaiah 62.

But, the promise of the marriage at the coming of the Lord is the promise of the second coming of Christ at the time of the resurrection.

Therefore, the promise of the remarriage of Israel– the Old Covenant promise  made to Old Covenant Israel– would be fulfilled at the second coming of Christ at the time of the resurrection.

If therefore, the second coming of the Lord, at the time of the resurrection has not occurred, then God’s covenant promises made to Old Covenant Israel remains valid. If God’s Old Covenant promise made to Old Covenant Israel remains valid, then Old Covenant Israel patently remains as God’s covenant people!

 

Let me flesh this out a bit more and ask Jerry to give particular attention to this:

 

Argument:

The coming of Christ for his wedding– in fulfillment of the OT promises made to Old Covenant Israel– would be at his second coming (Matthew 25:1-13).

But, the time of the wedding of the Son would be at the time of the destruction of the city of those who had been invited, but rejected the invitation and killed the servants of the king (Matthew 22:1-10).

Therefore, the second coming of Christ– for his wedding– would be at the time of the destruction of the city of those who had been invited, but rejected the invitation and killed the servants of the king.

 

Argument:

The second coming of Christ– for his wedding– would be at the time of the destruction of the city of those who had been invited, but rejected the invitation and killed the servants of the king.

But, the city that had been invited to the wedding, and that killed the servants sent to invite her to the wedding was Old Covenant Jerusalem.

Therefore, second coming of Christ– for his wedding– was at the destruction of Old Covenant Jerusalem.

 

Questions for Jerry:

Is the wedding of the son in Matthew 22 the same as the wedding of Christ at his second coming in Matthew 25? Yes or No? If your answer is No, provide scriptural proof.

 

Was the wedding of the son in Matthew 22 postponed until some yet still future time?

 

Since you, Jerry McDonald, say that God was through with Israel / Judah at the cross, and that after the cross there are no Old Covenant promises to Old Covenant Israel that remain valid, please tell me, clearly, without evasion or obfuscation: When did God remarry (or will He remarry) Old Covenant Israel, in fulfillment of her Old Covenant promises?

 

Now, it is abundantly clear that God did not remarry Israel on Pentecost. What He did do was betroth her. (This means that Hosea 2:19– a promise made to Old Covenant Israel– was being fulfilled on Pentecost, after the promises of Torah had supposedly been annulled). Notice some facts:

Remember that Paul said he preached nothing but the hope of Israel found in the Old Testament prophets.

Paul wrote to the Corinthians (comprised of the righteous remnant of Old Covenant Israel that had now accepted their Messiah), and said “I am jealous over you with a Godly jealousy, for I have espoused (betrothed) you as a chaste virgin unto Christ.” The wedding clearly had not yet taken place.

Let me express some thoughts here:

Paul preached nothing but the hope of Israel found in Torah (The Law of Moses–Acts 24:14-15; 26:5f; 26:21f; 28:18f).

Paul had betrothed the Corinthians to Christ (This included a righteous remnant of Old Covenant Israel that had accepted their Messiah).

Therefore, the betrothal of the Corinthians (which included a righteous remnant of Old Covenant Israel that had now accepted their Messiah) was in fulfillment of God’s  Old Covenant promises of Moses and the prophets.

Israel’s promises were being fulfilled! God was not through with her at the cross, He was fulfilling those OT promises.

But the wedding–the wedding of “all Israel”– had not taken place, and would not take place until Christ’s second coming! Notice Ephesians 5:25-27:

 

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her,  that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.”

 

Paul says Christ had sanctified the church– “Sanctification” was a part of the Jewish wedding process.

He had washed her and cleansed her– part of the sanctification process.

That he might (first aorist subjunctive) present it to himself.

This is the promise of the parousia (the second coming of Christ of Matthew 25– the wedding of Matthew 22). I have consulted over 50 commentaries and they all agree that the “presentation” Paul refers to is the parousia, the second coming.

 

So, the wedding had not taken place. This means that the New Covenant was not finalized. Torah said the New Covenant would be in the day in which Israel called YHVH “My husband.” (2:16-19; Isaiah 62:4-5.  (A thought here that I will return to. Hosea said this would be in the day in which God would take away the  “feasts, new moons and Sabbaths” (2:11)).

 

The marriage covenant was initiated at the betrothal, and finalized at the wedding.

The righteous remnant of Israel was betrothed at Pentecost.

The wedding of Israel would be at the second coming.

Therefore, the New Covenant was not finalized until the parousia of Christ.

 

If therefore, Christ has not come “the second time” the New Covenant is not yet finalized. God’s Old Covenant promise, made to Old Covenant Israel, remains unfulfilled. Old Covenant Israel still awaits her marriage. And remember, the promise of the wedding was a promise that God made to both houses of Israel, for her last days– not for the end of the Christian age.

 

Revelation and the Wedding

 

Fact: Revelation is concerned with the fulfillment of the Old Covenant prophecies. The sounding of the seventh trumpet would be the fulfillment of the mystery of God as foretold by the prophets (Revelation 10:7). So, just like Jesus came to fulfill Israel’s promises, and just like Paul preached nothing but the hope of Israel, John’s eschatology (his one hope) was the fulfillment of God’s Old Covenant promises found in the prophets.

 

Fact: Revelation 7 and 14 depicts the righteous remnant of Old Covenant Israel– the 144,000– out of the twelve tribes of Israel. In addition to the righteous remnant from the twelve tribes, there was a numberless multitude. The focus however, is clearly on the righteous remnant of the twelve tribes. The righteous remnant constitutes “all Israel.”

 

Fact: The righteous remnant are promised to be led to the living waters, entrance into the New Creation and the time of the wedding when their suffering would be avenged. These were Old Covenant promises made to Old Covenant Israel. The promise of the living waters and the New Creation are from Torah (Isaiah 49:8-12; Isaiah 65-66). Thus, the righteous remnant (the 144,000, as well as the numberless multitude) were anticipating the fulfillment of God’s Old Covenant promises, made to Old Covenant Israel.

 

Let’s look at a few things– all related to the wedding.

 

The sounding of the seventh trumpet is the time of the fulfillment of the Old Covenant prophets (Revelation 10:7).

There was to be “no more delay” in the fulfillment of those prophecies (Revelation 10:6).

But, the time of the sounding of the seventh trumpet would be when, “the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our God and of His Christ”; the time of the outpouring of the Wrath of God, the time for the judgment of the dead, and the rewarding of the prophets (Revelation 11:15-19)

Therefore, there was to be “no more delay” in the fulfillment of the prophecies of “the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our God and of His Christ”; the time of the outpouring of the Wrath of God, the time for the judgment of the dead, and the rewarding of the prophets.

Of course, this is precisely what God Himself said, “These things must shortly come to pass…the time is at hand”; and it was Jesus’ promise, “Behold, I come quickly and my reward is with me” which is a direct reiteration of Matthew 16:27 and thus, Isaiah 62:11!

This demands that all of the constituent elements of Revelation 11:15-19 were imminent, near, and to be fulfilled quickly with no more delay.

 

I asked Jerry to tell me if Revelation 11:15-19 was fulfilled or not. He responded: “Revelation 11:15-19 is a vision John had regarding the seven churches in Asia (Rev. 1:4,11) and the persecution that they were enduring. All of the things you listed above are to be kept in the context of the apocalyptic vision, not applied when and where you please.”

Well, if Revelation 11:15-19 was written to the seven churches about their specific situation and you cannot apply these promises to “when and where you please” (and of course you can’t), then it is entirely inappropriate to rip verse 15-19 away from the seven churches and say those promises are still unfulfilled 2000 years later! But let’s look closer.

 

Argument:

The time of the sounding of the seventh trumpet is the time of the resurrection, the time of the judgment of the dead.

But, the sounding of the seventh trumpet is directly connected to the time of the judgment of the city “where the Lord was slain” Old Covenant Jerusalem (Revelation 11:8).

Therefore, the time of the resurrection, the time of the judgment of the dead, is directly connect to the time of the judgment of the city “where the Lord was slain,” Old Covenant Jerusalem.

 

Let me confirm this:

 

Daniel 12 foretold the following:

The Great Tribulation (Daniel 12:1)– which of course, Jesus cites in Matthew 24 and applies it to his generation (Matthew 24:21-34).

The resurrection of the just and unjust” (v. 2).

The time when the righteous would shine in the kingdom (v. 3).

The end of the age (v. 4).

The Abomination of Desolation (v. 9f) – which Jesus applied to the events leading up to the destruction of the power of the holy people (Matthew 24:15f).

The prophets would receive their reward (12:13).

 

In Daniel 12:6 an angel asked, “When shall these things be, and when shall all of these things be fulfilled?”

Another angel answered: “It shall be for a time, times and half time, and when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all of these things shall be fulfilled.”

 

The question was when ALL, not some, not most, but ALL of those things would be fulfilled.

The answer was that ALL, not some or most, but ALL of those things, would be fulfilled when the power of the holy people was completely shattered.

 

Fact: Israel’s only “power” was her covenant relationship with God– i.e. Torah.

According to Jerry McDonald, Torah– Israel’s power– was removed (shattered) at the cross.

If so,

The Great Tribulation occurred before the cross.

The resurrection of the just and unjust occurred at the cross.

The kingdom was established at the cross.

The end of the age occurred at the cross.

The prophets received their reward at the cross.

 

All of these are patently false, since Jesus posited the Great Tribulation in the days leading up to the AD 70 judgment of Jerusalem.

It is false because Paul posited the resurrection of “the just and unjust” – in fulfillment of the Law and prophets– in his future– well after the cross (Acts 24:14f).

It is false because Jesus posited the harvest at the end of the age at his parousia, and he said this would be when Daniel 12:3 would be fulfilled (Matthew 13:39-43– Matthew 13:43 is a direct citation of Daniel 12:3).

It is false because the prophets would receive their reward future to John– but imminently– in Revelation 11.

It is false because  Israel’s power was not completely shattered at the cross.

 

So, let me offer this argument:

Revelation 11:15-19 predicted the time of the resurrection and the rewarding of the dead, in fulfillment of the mystery of God foretold in the prophets (Revelation 10:6-7).

The promise of the resurrection and the rewarding of the dead was an Old Covenant promise, made to Old Covenant Israel (Daniel 12:2-13).

Not one jot or one tittle would pass from the Old Covenant until it was all fulfilled (Matthew 5:17-18–(not some or most, but ALL).

Therefore, not one jot or one tittle would pass from the Old Covenant until the fulfillment of Revelation 11:15-19.

 

Argument:

The resurrection of Daniel 12 is the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15– the end of the age resurrection the time of the kingdom, the resurrection to everlasting life.

The resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 would be at the second coming of Christ for his wedding– of Matthew 25.

But, the wedding of Matthew 25 is the wedding of Matthew 22 which would occur at the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 (Matthew 22:1-10).

Therefore, the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15, the end of the age resurrection and the kingdom, the resurrection to everlasting life, would occur at the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.

 

Let’s continue with the wedding concept.

 

The resurrection of the just and unjust is the time of the second coming of Christ.

The second coming of Christ is his coming for the wedding (Matthew 25:1-13; Ephesians 5:25f).

The time of the resurrection of the just and unjust would be at the end of the age when the power of the holy people was completely shattered (Daniel 12:3-7).

The power of the holy people was completely shattered in the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem.

Therefore, the second coming of Christ for the wedding, at the resurrection of the just and unjust, was when the power of the holy people was completely shattered in the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem.

 

Argument:

The time of the wedding is the time of the second coming of Christ in judgment of Babylon– (Revelation 19:1-16).

Babylon was the city “where the Lord was slain” i.e. Old Covenant, first century Jerusalem.

Therefore,  the wedding of Christ at his second coming occurred at the time of the judgment of Old Covenant, first century Jerusalem.

 

Let me confirm this:   

The time of the wedding of the Son would be when Jerusalem was destroyed (Mt. 22).

But the time of the wedding would be when “Babylon” of Revelation was destroyed (19:1-7).

Therefore, Babylon of Revelation was Jerusalem.

 

Now, unless Christ was to get married twice, to two different brides, at two different times, in fulfillment of Old Covenant promises made to Old Covenant Israel, then it stands as prima facie demonstrated that the second coming of Christ, at the time of the resurrection of the just and unjust, occurred in AD 70. Let me make a few additional points.

 

Revelation 19:1-2 directly cites Deuteronomy 32:43 as fulfilled in the judgment of Babylon: “He has avenged the blood of His servants on her!” Watch closely:

 

Deuteronomy 32– The Song of Moses– is undeniably part of the Law of Moses– Torah.

Deuteronomy 32 is concerned with the fate of Israel– it is not about the church or the church age.

It is concerned with Israel’s last days:

32:20: “I will hide my face from them, I will see what their latter end shall be, for they are a perverse generation.” (Note that this “latter end” of Israel would include the calling of the Gentiles, v. 21f– fulfilled in Paul’s ministry).

32:29: “O, that they were wise, O that they would consider their latter end.”

 

In Israel’s last days, Israel would  turn from YHVH and be like Sodom (v. 32, cf. Revelation 11:8). In her last days, God would judge His people (v. 36) and, “I will render vengeance to My adversaries I will repay those who hate me…For He will avenge the blood of His saints and render vengeance to His adversaries” (v. 41, 43).

 

So,

In Israel’s last days, God would avenge the blood of the saints.

Revelation 19 says that in the last days judgment of Babylon, Deuteronomy 32:43 would be fulfilled.

Therefore, the judgment of Babylon belongs to Israel’s last days– in fulfillment of Deuteronomy 32.

 

The judgment of Babylon– the avenging of the blood of the saints– belongs to Israel’s last days in fulfillment of Deuteronomy 32.

But, Deuteronomy 32 was part of Torah, God’s Covenant with Israel.

Therefore, Deuteronomy 32, part of Torah, God’s Covenant with Israel would remain valid until the judgment of Babylon.

 

Since Torah would remain valid until the avenging of the blood of the martyrs in fulfillment of Deuteronomy 32– and other OT prophecies– this means that the Mosaic Covenant was not abrogate at the cross. It would remain valid until the judgment of Babylon. If therefore, one makes Babylon to be Rome, or the Roman Catholic church, then Torah remains valid and binding until the destruction of Rome or the RCC. The avenging of the martyrs blood belongs to Israel’s last days, and fulfillment of the Law of Moses.

 

Note the following:

In Israel’s last days God would avenge the blood of the martyrs (Deuteronomy 32:43).

Jesus said that all of the blood of the all of the martyrs– all the way back to creation– would be avenged in the AD 70 judgment of Jerusalem (Matthew 23:34-37).

Therefore, Israel’s last days extended to the time of the avenging of the blood of the martyrs in the AD 70 judgment of Jerusalem.

 

This proves definitively that the Old Covenant age did not end at the cross. Deuteronomy 32 was an Old Covenant promise, made to and about Old Covenant Israel, and was not fulfilled until AD 70. Thus, Torah was not removed at the cross. The Law of Moses was not fulfilled until the avenging of the blood of the martyrs in AD 70.

 

Unless Jerry McDonald can prove that Revelation 19 has nothing to do with Deuteronomy 32 my argument stands.

Unless he can prove that Revelation 19 has nothing to do with fulfilling the mystery of God found in the Old Covenant as Revelation 10:6-7 affirms, then my argument stands.

Unless he can prove that Deuteronomy 32 foretold a different avenging of the martyrs from that foretold by Jesus and John, my argument stands.

 

There is more here in regard to the avenging of the blood of the martyrs– and the wedding.

Jesus identified Old Covenant Jerusalem as the city that had killed the prophets (Matthew 23:29f). They were going to kill him and they were going to kill the apostles and prophets that he sent to them (Luke 11:49f). In killing his apostles and prophets, Jerusalem would fill the measure of her sin, and be judged in Jesus’ generation (Matthew 23:33-36).

 

Paul, writing in the early AD 50s said Old Covenant Jerusalem had killed the Old Covenant prophets. They had killed the Lord and they were killing Jesus’ apostles and prophets In doing so, she was filling the measure of her sin, and judgment was about to fall (1 Thessalonians 2:15-16).

 

John said Babylon had killed “the prophets” (16:5f– Rome, the Catholic Church, etc. never killed an OT prophet). It is “where the Lord was slain (11:8). She was guilty of killing the apostles and prophets of Jesus (18:20, 24). Her cup of sin and the blood of the martyrs was now full, and judgment was coming shortly: “Behold, I come quickly!”

 

If Babylon of Revelation was not Old Covenant Jerusalem, Jerry McDonald must prove that whoever he identifies as Babylon was guilty of doing the things described here.

 

Babylon was clearly Old Covenant Jerusalem. Now watch.

 

Consider Revelation 6 and Revelation 16 as they relate to the vindication of the martyrs. In chapter 6:9-11, the martyrs cried out for vindication. They were told to rest for only a little while. Vindication was coming soon. Revelation 16 is the fulfillment of that prayer.

 

In Revelation 16:7 the angel praises God for judging those who, “shed the blood of the saints and prophets.” This is the answer of the martyr’s prayer in chapter 6. That promised vindication was coming soon.

 

The time of the avenging of the martyrs is the time of the judgment of Babylon (Revelation 19:1-2).

The time of the judgment of Babylon is the time of the wedding (Revelation 19:7f).

The time of the wedding of Christ is the second coming and the resurrection.

But, the time of the avenging of all of the martyrs was to be in the judgment of Old Covenant Jerusalem in AD 70 (Matthew 23:33-37).

Therefore, the wedding of Christ at the second coming and resurrection was to be (was) in the judgment of Old Covenant Jerusalem in AD 70.

 

Notice the perfect correlation with Matthew 22.

The promise of the wedding belonged to Old Covenant Israel.

The first century is the time for the fulfillment of the promises: “All things are ready, come to the feast” (Matthew 22:1-3).

Those invited killed the servants sent to them.

God destroyed their city, avenging the blood of his servants– this was in AD 70.

The wedding took place as scheduled!

 

In Revelation John anticipated the fulfillment of the OT promises.

He said fulfillment was near.

Babylon had killed the prophets, Jesus and Jesus’ apostles and prophets– and was guilty of all the blood shed on the earth.

In the judgment of Babylon, all of the blood shed on the earth, of the apostles and prophets, was avenged.

The wedding– the time of the resurrection and parousia of Christ– took place.

 

Notice also:

 

The sounding of the seventh trump is the time of the resurrection (11:15-19).

The sounding of the seventh trump is the time of the fulfillment of all things written in the prophets (Revelation 10:6-7).

The sounding of the seventh trump is the time of the avenging of the martyrs: “the time of the dead that they should be judged and the prophets rewarded (16:6, 17).

The martyrs would be avenged in the judgment of Babylon (16:6-17; 19:1-2).

The martyrs would be avenged in fulfillment of Torah– Deuteronomy 32:43; Revelation 19).

The time of the avenging of the martyrs is the time of the wedding of Christ at his coming (19:1-7).

The avenging of the martyrs was in AD 70 in the judgment of Jerusalem (Matthew 23:29-38).

 

The martyrs would be avenged in fulfillment of God’s Old Covenant promises concerning Israel’s last days (Deuteronomy 32:19, 29-43).

The martyrs would be avenged in the first century judgment  of Old Covenant Jerusalem (Matthew 23:33-37).

The time of the destruction of Jerusalem is the time of the resurrection (Daniel 12:2-7).

The time of the destruction of Jerusalem would be, “when all things that are written must be fulfilled” (Luke 21:22).

The time of the destruction of Jerusalem would be the time of the wedding of the Son (Matthew 22:1-7).

 

The correlations here are precise. It will not do for Jerry McDonald to simply claim that Revelation is something different because it was written after AD 70. That is presuppositional, and has to be proven, not claimed.

To negate my affirmative, Jerry McDonald must prove the following:

 

That NT eschatological promises are not the reiteration of the hope of Israel.

He must prove that the promise of the remarriage promises in Torah are not the same wedding promise iterated by Jesus.

He must prove that the wedding of Matthew 25 – which is the second coming of Christ at the time of the resurrection– is not the wedding of the Son in Matthew 22.

He must prove that the avenging of the martyrs in Revelation is not the avenging of the martyrs foretold in Deuteronomy 32 (other OT prophecies or Matthew 23) – for Israel’s last days– even though John is clearly citing Deuteronomy 32.

He must prove that although Deuteronomy 32 foretold the application of Mosaic Covenant wrath, in Israel’s last days, that Torah was actually removed at the cross, and yet, God was applying those provisions for Covenant wrath almost forty years after the covenant was supposedly annulled.

He must prove that although Jesus and Paul identified Jerusalem as the city guilty of killing the OT prophets, of Jesus and Jesus’ apostles and prophets, that John in Revelation has another, different city in mind, a different judgment, unrelated to Israel’s promises, divorced from Israel’s last days in mind.

He can’t prove any of these things.

 

Final Argument:

The indisputable fact is that the parousia of Christ was near when John wrote: “Behold, I come quickly and my reward is with me” (Revelation 22:12).

The coming of Christ to reward every man is the time of the resurrection.

Therefore, the time of the resurrection was coming quickly when John wrote.

 

No eschatology that delays that judgment coming by 2000 years can be true.

 

Summary

We have proven the following beyond successful disputation:

All eschatological promises found in the NT are the expression of the hope of Israel found in Torah.

We have proven that not one iota of Torah– none of it– could pass until all that it foretold was fulfilled.

We have proven that the promise of the “remarriage” of Israel is one of those promises.

We have proven that the marriage was the promise of the New Covenant, that would not be finalized until the marriage – not just the betrothal– occurred.

We have proven that the marriage of Israel would take place at the coming of the Lord in judgment– the time of the resurrection.

We have proven that God’s covenant with Old Covenant Israel would therefore stand fast until He had finalized that New Covenant.

We have proven that the avenging of the martyrs would occur at the first century judgment of Jerusalem– in AD 70.

We have proven that the marriage would take place at the time of the avenging of the martyrs in the first century judgment of Jerusalem.

We have proven that the OT positively posits the resurrection– and thus the second coming of Christ– at the time when Israel’s power– Torah– would be shattered– that was in AD 70.

We have proven that the sounding of the seventh trump is the time of the resurrection and second coming, when all things foretold by the prophets would be fulfilled.

We have proven that Jesus said “all things that are written must be fulfilled” in the AD 70 judgment of Old Covenant Jerusalem– which is precisely what Revelation 10:6-7; 11:15-19 teaches.

 

In this first affirmative, I have fully established my proposition. I have not gone one step beyond the evidence of scripture.

I have in fact taken the evidence of scripture, and with careful exegesis, proper logic and hermeneutic, fully proven my affirmative case.                                       

 

Additional questions (making a total of five questions for Jerry):

Please answer plainly without evasion or obfuscation and give scriptural proof for your answers:

1.) Scripture said that the New Moons, Feast Days and Sabbaths of Israel’s festal calendar were “shadows of good things to come” (Colossians 2:14-17; Hebrews 9:6f; 10:1-3). What did the following feast days foreshadow and typify:

Feast of Trumpets (Rosh Ha Shanah)

Day of Atonement

Feast of Harvest / Booths (Succot)

 

  1. What did the seventh day Sabbath and the other festal Sabbaths foreshadow, and has that which the Sabbath (Sabbaths) foreshadowed been completely fulfilled?

McDonald’s First Rebuttal

Categories: Debates