Archive for April, 2012

McDonald’s Second Affirmative

April 25, 2012 Leave a comment

Being in the affirmative obligates me to make affirmative arguments in favor of my proposition, and then to deal with what my opponent has said in the previous rebuttal.  At this point I will continue to advance my affirmative after which I will respond to Don’s first rebuttal.

Further argument on Element Number Four

5. The testament of Christ was brought into existence after his death shows that in order for the New Testament to be in force, the testator (Christ) had to die, and when this happened the Old was taken away.

A. Testaments are only of force after the death of the testator “For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth” (Heb 9:16-17).

B. Now either Christ’s testament became of force after his death, or it did not, you can’t have it both ways.  If his testament came in force after his death, then the Old Testament was done away at that point because you cannot have two testaments in force at the same time (Rom. 7:1-4).  If the Old Testament was done away at the cross, then it didn’t wait until A.D. 70 to be done away with.

C. Notice the following argument:

Major Premise:  If the Old Testament was taken away with the death of Christ, then it could not have existed in A.D. 70.

Minor Premise:  The Old Testament was taken away with the death of Christ (1 Cor. 3:14).

Conclusion:  Therefore it could not have existed in A.D. 70.

D. Don might argue that Paul’s words “But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ” (2Co 3:14) do not mean that being done away in Christ does not mean that it was done away with at his death.  Notice the following argument:

Major Premise:  If the New Testament is Christ’s Covenant (will) with man, then it had to become enforceable after he died (Heb. 9:16,17).

Minor Premise:  The New Testament is Christ’s Covenant (will) with man.

Conclusion:  Therefore it had to become enforceable after he died (Heb. 9:16,17).

Major Premise:  If the New Testament became enforceable after the death of Christ, then the Old Testament had to be taken away when the New became enforceable.

Minor Premise:  The New Testament became enforceable after the death of Christ.

Conclusion:  Therefore, the Old Testament had to be taken away when the new became enforceable.

This shows that when the new came into effect the old had to be taken away.  Romans 7:1-4 shows that the  two covenants could not co-exist.  Paul told the churches of Galatia that those who tried to be justified by the Old had fallen from grace (Gal. 5:4).


Chapter Fifteen Of Paul’s Letter To Corinth Discusses A Literal Resurrection.

When one reads chapter fifteen of 1 Corinthians there is no doubt that it speaks of a literal resurrection, and this is based on three observations in 1 Corinthians chapter fifteen.

  1. Paul showed that baptism is a symbol of dying and being raised (1 Cor. 15:29-34).
    1. If the dead do not literally rise, why are people baptized for the dead “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?” (1Co 15:29).
      1. Baptism for the dead is not, as the Mormons have it, people who are alive being baptized for those who are dead, but rather people being baptized in preparation of death.

Major Premise:  If everyone has to answer for his own life, then people now living cannot be baptized for someone who is dead.

Minor Premise:  Everyone has to answer for his own life (2 Corinthians 5:10).

Conclusion:  Therefore, people now living cannot be baptized for someone who is dead.

  1. The only logical alternative here is that this baptism was done as a symbol of dying, being buried and raised again as Christ died, was buried and rose again (Rom. 6:3-5).
  2. If the dead do not literally rise when why did the apostles stand in jeopardy of death by preaching the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, if the dead will not rise?
    1. Paul determined not to preach anything other than Jesus Christ and him crucified (1 Cor. 2:2).
    2. Part of preaching the crucifixion was also preaching the resurrection, just as part of preaching Jesus was preaching baptism (Acts 8:34-36).
    3. If the dead do not rise then all is lost so eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.
      1. If there is no resurrection from the dead, then there is no reason for one to live a spiritually good life because when one dies he will stay dead.
      2. If one is going to stay dead, then he won’t know what goes on after he dies, and all that he is will die with him.
      3. If this is all the hope one has then he might as well eat, drink and be merry because death can come to anyone at any time.

Now we will go through Don’s first rebuttal and answer it and then see how he has done in answering my first affirmative.  Don starts off by telling us that my proposition is in direct contradiction to scriptures because it says that when Christ returns the Christian age will end.  He then pulls Dan. 2:44 out of context to argue his point, but notice that Dan. 2:44 says that the kingdom will never be destroyed.  How is that possible?  Paul gave a simple answer:  “Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power” (1Co 15:24).  Both Paul and Daniel were speaking of the church.  Daniel says it will never be destroyed, and Paul shows why it will never end, because it will be delivered up to God when Christ returns.

Now Don has only two alternatives, holding his view:  (1) He can argue that the church has been delivered back to the Father, in which case Christ is no longer the head of the church, and the church no longer exists on earth, or (2) Paul’s statement is some sort of figurative statement and the church will never, actually, be delivered back to the Father.  Either way, his position is false, and as we have seen anytime a position involves a false position that position, in and of itself, is false.

Daniel 7:13,14 is dealing with a vision of Christ and the coming church.  The reason that the church will never be destroyed is because the church will be in heaven as we have seen in 1 Cor. 15:24.  However, just because a covenant is said to be forever does not mean that will never end.  Notice Numbers 18:19 and how it uses the words “statue for ever” and “covenant of salt for ever.”

Now the question is demanded:  “Does God mean that this statue will never pass away, or does he mean “always as long as the age lasts”?

Mt. 24:35 has Jesus telling about the destruction of Jerusalem:  “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Mat 24:34-35) and he says that “this generation” shall not pass until all the things he previously mentioned would happen.  Then as a matter of fact, he said that heaven and earth would pass away, but his words would never pass away.  In other words, his word is greater than anything pertaining to this world.

Then Luke 1:31-33 simply shows that Christ would be born, his name would be Jesus and he shall rule over the church which would never pass away.  Why? Because as Paul mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:24, the church shall be delivered unto God in the judgment.  Really Don, are you so desperate to make your point that you overlook the context of this passage?

Eph. 3:21 talks about the glory of Christ in the church, and this glory will never end because as we have seen in the other passages he has brought up, the church will be in existence for ever as it will be handed back to the Father (1 Cor. 15:24).

Don says that I refused to answer his syllogisms because they were highly interpretative.  Don knows better than this.  He knows full well that the syllogisms that I was talking about were his syllogisms trying to prove that the book of Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70.  Notice what I said.

Why a man will make a false claim when it so easy to check and refute is beyond me, but when all you have is conjecture and desire to prove your position anything will do.  Notice what Don said in his second affirmative.

Now even Don admits that if Revelation was written after A.D. 70 his interpretation of each of the verses he used in Revelation is false.  I gave evidence that Revelation was written during the Domitian reign, but Don ridiculed me for presenting commentaries and the early church fathers, but then he presented commentaries and quotations from a few of the early church fathers.

Don accuses my syllogisms of begging the question (peitiio principii), but they do no such thing.  His syllogisms on Revelation begged the question because they asked the reader to assume that Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70, and he didn’t give proof of such.

He admits that the major premise of my main argument is valid and sound, but he takes issue with the minor premise.  Well, I would expect him to take issue with that premise, but that premise does not beg the question.  That premise states the antecedent of the major premise and the conclusion states the consequent.

However, I didn’t just leave the argument hanging, I gave four constituent elements in favor of my argument.  Before he can say that the minor premise begs the question he must disprove all the elements that I produced, but as we will see, he did no such thing.

I want you to take notice of how Don’s position mimics the Premillenial position, how he uses the same language, but he just comes to a different conclusion.  He talks about the “church age.”  I don’t read about a “church age” in the Bible, I read of only three ages here on earth:  (1) Patriarical; (2) Mosaical; and (3) Christian.  The Patriarical and Mosaic are in the past.  The Christian age is here now.  The Christian age will end when Christ returns to judge the world, but the church will be handed back to the Father, it will be in heaven, so it will never end.  There is NO church age even hinted to in the Bible.

Going to Malachi 3 and 4 we find that those chapters are prophetic of Jesus and the church as well as the final judgment of man.  I pointed out in my negative articles that Jesus said “I have finished the work that thou gavest me to do” (Jn. 17:4), and showed that Jesus had not literally finished everything by this time, but everything was put into motion that would fulfill all of his work.  Don simply ridiculed that idea, but he never was able to refute it.  When the law of Moses ended at the cross, all parts of the law was fulfilled.  Some of it was fulfilled in the sense that it had literally been fulfilled, but some of it (such as the establishment of the church) had to wait for a while, and still more would have to wait (the second coming and final judgment) until the date that God has chosen for Christ’s return.  When you understand the principle set forth in John 17:4 you understand my position and see that it is the truth.  My argument has not falsified my position, Don is just dreaming again.

His assumption is that Malachi 3 and 4 was to be fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.  There is nothing in Malachi 3 or 4 that demands that this be fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem.  This assumption is without warrant.

He goes back to his argument on the power of the holy people as though that falsifies my position on Acts 1, but he is mistaken.  Daniel does not say that the Torah was going to be broken into pieces he said that the power of the holy people would be shattered.  Notice that Jesus said “think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets, I came not to destroy but to fulfill” (Mt. 5:17).  The word for destroy is defined on the following chart.

So Jesus was not going to destroy, disintergrate or dissolve the law or the prophets.  He came to fulfill it.  The word fulfill is defined on the following chart.

Daniel says that the power of the holy people would be scattered, or shattered.  The word scattered (shattered) is defined on the following chart.

So from the meaning of the words above, we can see that Jesus did not come to shatter, scatter, the law or to break  it into pieces, or even cause it to be discharged, dispersed.  He did not come to dissolve it,  or disintegrate or dissolve it.  He came to fill it up, to finish it, to bring it to an end by fulfilling it, not by discharging it.  The problem that Don has is that he teaches that Daniel is saying that the law of Moses would be shattered, or disintegrated, while Jesus teaches that he came to finish it, or fill it up and bring it to an end.

Commentators are not agreed over what the power of the Holy people was.  Some think it was Israel’s ability to function as a nation on its own and make war to defend its boarders, and certainly this was the case in the song Moses taught Israel to sing in Deuteronomy:  “For the LORD shall judge his people, and repent himself for his servants, when he seeth that their power is gone, and there is none shut up, or left” (Deu 32:36).  The same word that is used in Daniel 12:7 is the word that is used in Deut. 32:36:

This is the reason Don labors so to make the song of Deuteronomy 32 the same song of Revelation 15.  However, it doesn’t work out that way as we saw while discussing his affirmative.

Some lean to the idea that the Holy people is talking about the church.  However, none of them even hint to the idea that it was the law of Moses (or the Torah as Don calls it).  This is A.D. 70 rhetoric to justify their false position, but it has no basis in truth.

So whatever the power of the Holy people was, it doesn’t have any reference to the law of Moses.  Therefore Don’s whole position is in error because it is based on an erroneous assumption.  Now he needs to go back and answer the argument on Acts 1.

Daniel does talk about the resurrection, but notice that he says “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt” (Dan 12:2).  The word for “sleep” is defined on the following chart.

From this we can see that Daniel was talking about a literal rising from the grave, not some figurative resurrection such as Don has conjured up.

Don writes:  “No matter what Jerry may claim, Daniel posits the resurrection and Acts 1 at the end of Israel’s Covenant age- not the end of the Christian age.”  Where does Daniel do that?  In order to get to Don’s position he has to prove that the power of the Holy people was the law of Moses (torah), but he can’t do that without denying what Jesus said in Mt. 5:17.  Thus another assumption goes down the drain.

I presented four syllogisms in my rebuttals and Don refused to answer them, so I will present them again in the following chart.

He then goes to 1 Corinthians 15 as though this denies my argument on Acts 1, but as we have seen his argument on Acts 1 taking place and the end of the Mosaic Law is erroneous.  Thus anything he has to say about 1 Cor. 15 is also erroneous.  When Don builds his constituent elements upon a faulty base, the whole house of cards come tumbling down.

Then he writes:  “BUT, JESUS ASCENDED IN AN UNCHANGED MORTAL HUMAN BODY (JERRY)” in an effort to counter my argument on Jesus coming the same way he left.  I never said that Jesus’ mortal body entered heaven, I said that his mortal body was resurrected, and that is what ascended, but since flesh and blood cannot enter heaven, it was changed, just as we will be changed.

Don has a penchant for rewriting what people say, especially the Bible.  So if he can so easily rewrite the Bible it should come as no surprise when he rewrites what I wrote.  But you can see I never said that Jesus’ mortal human body entered heaven which is what Don is trying to make me say:  “Therefore, Jesus must return from heaven- where Jesus’ unchanged mortal body could not go – in a mortal human body- at the end of the (endless) Christian age!”  No, Jesus’ body changed when he got to heaven, but he ascended to heaven in a mortal body.  “In like manner” does not refer to the kind of body that Jesus had, it refers to the manner in which he ascended.  It was a literal ascension (whether his body was mortal or immortal) and it will be a literal return even though the body will be immortal.  For example before Jesus left he was standing on the earth, but Jesus will never set foot back on this earth again because we will meet him in the air (1 Thess. 4:17).  This difference does not negate his return to be literal.  Don is nit-picking so as to keep from answering my argument.

He makes too much of 1 Cor. 15:54-56:

“So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.”

His argumentation is as follows:

  1. Because it is written that when we put on immortality then the saying that is written “death is swallowed up in victory” shall be brought to pass.
  2. The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law.
  3. Therefore the law won’t pass until death is swallowed up in  victory which won’t happen until we put on immortality.

When we put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying “death is swallowed up in victory.”  This saying comes from Isaiah 25:8:  “He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for the LORD hath spoken it.”  This is the saying that shall be brought to pass.  The questions {(1) O grave where is thy victory, and (2) O death where is thy sting} are not part of the saying that would be brought to pass.  These are questions that Paul asked Corinth.  Since this saying would be brought to pass when we put on immortality where is the grave’s victory, and where is death’s sting?  The sting of death is sin, so don’t follow it, and the strength of sin is the law, so don’t follow it either.

Notice that Mt. 16:27 says that Jesus would come with the angels.  Did Jesus ascend with the angels?  No the angels stayed on earth to direct the apostles to go to work.  Not everything is going to be identical, but if the ascension was literal then so must the return be.  Returning in the glory of God does not mean that he would come in a figurative manner, but rather that he would return with all of God’s glory.  Such a simple passage, and Don somehow finds a way to misunderstand it.

“So, Jerry, show us one single time when the Father had come in judgment, visibly, physically on literal cumulus clouds.”  Note the following verses:  “And it came to pass, as Aaron spake unto the whole congregation of the children of Israel, that they looked toward the wilderness, and, behold, the glory of the LORD appeared in the cloud” (Exo 16:10).  Was this a literal cloud or some figurative coming of God?  “And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD” (Exo 34:5).  Did Jehovah stand with Moses in a cloud, or was this some figurative reference?  “And it came to pass, that in the morning watch the LORD looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians” (Exo 14:24).  Did Jehovah come in a literal cloud upon the Egyptians or was this some sort of figure?

The Transfiguration was a vision of Christ’s second coming?  Peter doesn’t say that the transfiguration was a vision of Christ’s second coming, he said that the things that he taught about the second coming were not fables, for they had seen the majesty of Christ at the time of his transfiguration, and as that was real, so would be the second coming (2 Pet. 1:17-21).

If God can do all those things, then he will be able to deliver the wicked to judgment and punishment.  If the wicked have already been judged, then they won’t be judged again.

(2Pe 1:16)

He thinks that Jesus said his resurrection was a sign of something greater and even admitted this in Mt. 16:4:  “A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed” (Mat 16:4).  Did Jesus say his resurrection was a sign?  No, he said that wicked people seek a sign, but he said that no sign would be given except the sign of Jonas the prophet.  What was that sign?  Jonah spent three days in the belly of the whale, and that was a sign that Jesus would spend three day in the earth.  His resurrection was not the sign, but Jonah spending three day in the whale was the sign.  Don can’t you even read correctly?

Did John say that Jesus’ resurrection was a sign?  No!  Notice exactly what John said:

“And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name”(Joh 20:30-31).

This said that there were other signs that Jesus did IN THE PRESENCE OF HIS DISCIPLES!  (1) Did Jesus resurrect himself?  No!  The Father resurrected him:  “Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it” (Act 2:24).  (2) Was this done in the presence of his disciples?  No!  It was done before the disciples showed up at the tomb (Mt. 28:5,6).  The women did not see him rise, he was risen before they got there.  Even the soldiers didn’t see him, they saw the angels descend from heaven and they were frightened.  (3) These miracles were not signs of anything.  They were things that were done so that people might believe.

He continues to say that my questions poison the well, but he didn’t deal with what poisoning the well was.  Poisoning the well isn’t about showing the false implications of a doctrine, and it isn’t even dealing with things that are irrelevant, but as I pointed out in my first affirmative, poisoning the well is defined on the following chart.

My questions were designed to show the false implications of Don’s doctrine; they are not abusive ad hominem arguments.  They do not attack his good faith or intellectual honesty.  They do not undermine rational exchange.  They do put Don on the spot, however, and that is where he doesn’t want to be.

Preston on the Lord’s Supper.  He once again tells us that my question is designed to poison the well, and that it has nothing to do with my proposition.  Well it does have to do with my proposition.  Notice his answer to my preliminary questions for his affirmative:  “6.  Does 1 Corinthians 11:26 ‘For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come’ directly apply to Christians today?

Answer: No.” (  He tells us that 1 Cor. 11:26 does not directly apply to us today, but 1 Cor. 11:26 is an intrinsic part of the Lord’s Supper.  Look at the following chart and see why the Lord’s Supper cannot be observed unless we observe 1 Cor. 11:26, and Don can’t do that since he believes that Christ has already returned.  Therefore Don cannot scripturally observe the Lord’s Supper, and his doing so negates his entire position.

Also note that Curtis Cates quoted Terry Varner who quoted Geiser (another A.D. 70 proponent) as saying , “Nothing thus prevents the view that 1 Corinthians 11:26 teaches that we today observe the Lord’s Supper, as we know that Christ’s Second Coming confirmed and established the same” (The A.D. 70 Theology, A Religion That Overthrows The Faith And Undermines The Hope Of Men, p. 45).  Now Don’s problem is that if he agrees with Geiser then 1 Corinthians 11:26 must have direct relevance to us today, but Don has already stated that it doesn’t.  And if it doesn’t then Geiser’s assertion concerning 1 Corinthians 11:26 is in error.  You see Geiser wants to make “till” a conjunction rather than a preposition of time.  After telling us that 1 Cor. 11:26 does not have direct application to us today Don seems to be backpeddling on that a bit by stating  “I have produced several articles and even an MP3 series on why the Supper has its fulfilled, consummated meaning today. But that discussion does not prove whether the Lord came or not and Jerry knows it. His concluding remark proves this: ‘Don’s position on 1 Corinthians 11:26 has done away with…the Lord’s Supper.’”

Then he tells us:  “Well, what is the hermeneutic for ignoring the personal pronouns in 1 Corinthians 11:26 where Paul said ‘As often as YOU – who is that ‘YOU’ – eat bread and drink the cup, you – who was that ‘YOU’ again?- do show the Lord’s death UNTIL HE COMES!’” which is preceded by “’We must honor the personal pronouns!’ Right, Jerry?”  Yes, we must honor the personal pronouns, just like we honor the personal pronouns in every other passage of scripture where they are used.  If the personal pronouns in 1 Cor. 11:26 only refer to Corinth, then only the personal pronoun “ye” (2 Cor. 6:17) “come ye out from among them and be ye separate” applied only to Corinth and has no direct application for us today.

Also this argument destroys his very position for Paul said “for as often as ye (you) eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye (you) do shew the Lord’s death till he come.”  Now if the personal pronouns can only refer to the people to which this was written, then only they could shew the Lord’s death until he returned.  No, we can honor the personal pronouns all the while understanding that they refer to us as well.  Jesus said “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel.”  Who was he speaking directly to?  The apostles!  If you take the same argument on the personal pronouns here that Don has taken on the personal pronouns in 1 Cor. 11:26 and follow the argument to its logical conclusion you end up with the doctrine that nothing in the New Testament directly applies to man today, therefore it is just sort of a guide.  This is what the New Hermeneutic advocate proclaims.  Does Don follow the principles of interpretation set forth by the New Hermeneutic advocates?

The same is the case with baptism.  Jesus said to go and teach all nations, baptizing them, and teaching them to observe all things, and he would be with them until the end of the world (Mt. 28:19,20).  Now if the end of the world has already happened, then there is no need to preach and teach, there is no need to baptize, and there is no need to observe all things, and Christ is not with those who do.

Don said:  “My, my. Let’s turn that around, shall we?  The word “until” means “up to the point of, and not after” (Jerry). Jesus will be with the church, “until the end of the world” (Jerry).  Therefore, at the end of the world, (as defined by Jerry) JESUS IS NO LONGER WITH THE CHURCH.  This is where Jerry’s “logic” winds up.”  No, no, this is where logic, period, winds up.  If Jesus said “I will be with you even until the end of the world” and if the end of the world has come, then Jesus is not with us because he said he would be with them even unto the end of the world.  The word “unto” means “heōs heh’-oce Of uncertain affinity; a conjugation, preposition and adverb of continuance, until (of time and place): – even (until, unto), (as) far (as), how long, (un-) til (-l), (hither-, un-, up) to, while (-s)” (Strong’s Greek Dictionary, e-Sword).  So Jesus said “I will be with you as far as the end of the world.  When the world ends that promise he made will end.  There will be no more need for him to be with us because we will be with him in heaven.

When it comes to repentance, Paul said “but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent:  because he hath appointed a day in which he shall judge the world” (Acts 17:30,31).  Now if the judgment has already taken place, then God does not demand that all men everywhere repent.  Why?  Because of what Paul said “because he hath appointed a day….”  The word “because” here comes from “dioti” which means “on the very account that, or inasmuch as: – because (that), for, therefore” (Strong’s Greek Dictionary, e-Sword).  God commanded that all men repent inasmuch or on the very account that he had appointed a day in which he shall judge the world.  Now Don likes to deal with the word “intrinsic” so let him deal with it here.  Paul told the Athenians that God had commanded that all men repent.  Why did he command all men to repent?  Because he had appointed a day in which he would judge the world.  Thus the judgment and repentance are intrinsically tied together, and as such you cannot have one without the other.

Don likes to take the word “mello” (or mullein) and argue that it means “about to.”  He says he has given scholarly references to show that this is the case.  He didn’t give Robertson on Acts 17:31 who wrote:  “Will judge (mellei krinein). Rather, is going to judge, mellō and the present active infinitive of krinō. Paul here quotes Psa_9:8 where krinei occurs” (Word Pictures of the New Testament, e-Sword).  I would say that Robertson is about as respectable a Greek Scholar as any of them.  Notice what he said about Acts 24:15:  “That there shall be a resurrection (anastasin mellein esesthai). Indirect assertion with infinitive and accusative of general reference (anastasin) after the word elpida (hope). The future infinitive esesthai after mellein is also according to rule, mellō being followed by either present, aorist, or future infinitive (Robertson, Grammar, pp. 870, 877, 878)” (Ibid).  He doesn’t say, one time, that this has to mean “about to be.”  He says for both passages that it is translated as “will judge” or “will be.”

Don takes what I wrote concerning Revelation 11:15-19 and breaks it down into pieces so you don’t get the full context.  So here is what I said concerning it:  “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” (  When he felt that he needed further clarification he wrote:

“Clarification Question: I fully agree that we should not apply the elements of these verses to “when and where you please.” So, are you saying that all six of the constituent elements listed  in Revelation 11:15-19 (and listed just above) were all fulfilled in the first century generation of the seven churches of Asia? Please clarify for me.

Response:  I don’t know how to make this any clearer.  The only thing that was not fulfilled is final judgment of man, which will not happen until Christ returns to judge the world (Acts 17:30,31; 2 Tim. 4:1)” (Ibid).

Now he can continue to pick my response to pieces all he wants, but I won’t give any different an answer now than I did then.  It was a vision, it was not meant to be taken literally.  It was a vision regarding the persecution of the seven churches of Asia.  It was not referring to the destruction of Jerusalem.  The only thing that has not been fulfilled is the second coming and final judgment of man.  That ought to satisfy the man, but it won’t.  It won’t because he deals in minute details like the Pharisees and the Scribes did (Matthew chapter 23), and does not allow for the overall picture.  Take Revelation in the context in which it was intended and you will have no problems with it.

He doesn’t want to look at who it was written to, or what kind of language it was written in because if he doesn’t have to look at those two things, he can make the application that he chooses to make.  However, if you consider that these things were written to the seven churches of Asia, and that it was written in apocalyptic language you can see that this was a vision and was not to be taken literally.  I have given some explanations of several things in Revelation chapter 11 in the following chart.  These probably aren’t going to satisfy Don, but I can’t help that.  Don has a problem with making things that are supposed to be taken literal, figuratively (such as the resurrection) and the things that are supposed to be taken figuratively,  literally so until he changes his hermeneutical principle back to where it is supposed to be there isn’t anything I can say that will satisfy him other than to admit that he is right and I am wrong, but with all the problems with his hermeneutical principles, that isn’t going to happen.

Then Don says “I continue to be stunned at how Jerry continually abandons the church of Christ doctrine.”  I haven’t abandoned anything, I teach the same thing today that I taught 30 years ago, and it is the same thing my daddy taught in his 70 years as a gospel preacher, which was the same thing my grand-daddy taught for 40 years as a gospel preacher.

Would Don please show us where the word “eggizo” is used in 2 Pet. 3:8-12?  If he can’t do this then his objection is without merit because it is like comparing apples to oranges.

In his chart he writes:  “I have asked Jerry– repeatedly– if those same Gentiles would care about the death-Burial and Resurrection of Jesus– that was just as far from them as the fall of Jerusalem! And what about us– thousands of miles away?”  He says that I have ignored this question, but the truth is that I haven’t seen this question until now.  That is probably my fault, but here is the answer to it.  Only in Don’s mind is the destruction of Jerusalem as important as the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Curtis Cates was quite correct when he wrote:  “In fact, virtually everything they see in the Bible, it seems, breathes A.D. 70.  To them A.D. 70 and destruction of Jerusalem—not Pentecost of Acts 2—are the center of the Scriptures, the hub of the Bible” (The A.D. 70 Theology, p. 18).  And Max King (Don’s mentor in all of this) clearly states “These inauguration events (i.e., the cross/Pentecost—CAC) can not be permitted to overshadow the inseperable ‘parousia of Christ’s consummation with respect to the coming of the kingdom of God in power and glory at the end of the Age” (Ibid, p. 17).

Why would the resurrection of Christ be important to the Gentiles?  Simply because no man could be saved had Christ stayed in the grave.  Without his resurrection there simply is no salvation regardless of when or where the man lives.  However, the destruction of Jerusalem was not important to man’s salvation unless you hold to the A.D. 70 doctrine, but Don cannot show that this event is essential to our salvation.

However, Don has twisted what I said about 1 Pet. 3:8 “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”  I pointed out that God is not on our clock, and he does not have to do things when we want them done.  The scoffers were criticizing Christians for teaching the second coming because it had not yet happened, and Peter simply showed that time is finite and God is infinite.  To God one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like one day.  Peter was telling his recipients to wait and be patient because Christ would come.  Now Peter did not know when, and neither did Jesus when he was on earth.  By the way, Jesus knew when Jerusalem would be destroyed and gave signs for people to look at so they too would know, but when it came to the end of time, he said “of that day and that hour knoweth no man, not even the angels in heaven, but my Father only” (Mt. 24:36).

Then he brings up 1 Pet. 4:7 which uses the word “eggizo” (at hand) and argues that Peter was saying that the second coming was at hand.  However, looking at the context Peter is instructing his recipients to not be like those in the world who will be judged by Christ, who stands in a state of readiness to judge the dead and the living, because the end of all things is at hand.  As Gill pointed out, as did Barnes, “With respect to particular persons, the end of life, and which is the end of all things in this world to a man, is near at hand; which is but as an hand’s breadth, passes away like a tale that is told, and is but as a vapour which appears for a while, and then vanishes away” (Exposition on the New Testament, e-Sword).  When you look at the context you see that Peter is telling these Christians to live faithfully because the end of all things in their lives is at hand.  You and I could die at any time, and then our fate would be sealed.

Johnson pointed out, as did Clarke, that this could refer to the destruction of the Temple, but he told them to stay ready because whatever this end is it was at hand.  However, in 1 Pet. 3:10 he clearly stated that Christ would return as a thief in the night.  No one knew when Christ would return and there were no signs given, but for the destruction of Jerusalem there were signs to look at.

He complained about me not dealing with his anaphoric article, but I did deal with it.  See the chart that shows where I dealt with it.  He needs to deal with what I said about it.  See the chart on Malachi 3:5 and Exodus 22:21-23.  Also look at the chart on Malachi 3:5 and Duet. 27:19

The law of blessings and cursings were given to Israel as part of the Law of Moses, but those laws passed out of existence with the passing of the Law.  There is nothing either in Malachi or Exodus or Deuteronomy that even hints to the idea that these laws were carried on until A.D. 70.  This is Don’s assumption and it is nothing more than an assumption.  Jesus said that not one jot or tittle would pass from the law until all the law had been fulfilled.   The law was fulfilled by Christ when he died on the cross, therefore the law of blessings and cursings was fulfilled when Christ died on the cross.  All that he writes is useless material because he cannot make them effective after the cross.

Jesus coming in judgment is not his incarnation.  His incarnation was his coming in the flesh.  Don takes everything that is supposed to be understood literally and makes something figurative out of it, and everything that is supposed to taken figuratively and interprets it as literal.  He has it completely backwards.  Jesus’ incarnation was his coming in the flesh, not his coming in judgment upon the world.  Get it right Don.

Malachi does not predict the final judgment.  He predicts the judgment upon Jerusalem.  He speaks of John the Baptist coming, then Christ following (Mal. 3:1,2).  He tells them that they will learn to discern between the evil and good (Mal. 3:18).  In chapter 4 he tells them of the time when Jerusalem will be overthrown.  But none of this has to do with the final judgment of man.  Just because the prophecy is made in the time of the law of Moses does not mean that the law would have to wait to be fulfilled until every prophecy had been fulfilled.  If so then the law of Moses could not have passed away until the name Christian was given because Isaiah prophesied that a new name would be given to God’s people (Isa. 62:2) because this new name was given until the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch (Acts 11:26).  Now if the Old Law was still in effect then they would have to have been obedient to it, but Paul taught numerous times that they could not be obedient to the law of Moses (Rom. 7:1-4; Gal. 5:4).  The day of the Lord foretold by Malachi was fulfilled when Jerusalem fell in A.D. 70, but that was not the final judgment of man.  That was the final judgment of the city of Jerusalem.

Isa. 65:17-19 does not deal with the end of time or the end of the World.  Isaiah wrote during a time in which the remnant was going to be brought out of Babylonian captivity.  The new creation was the new life that they would be able to live after being held captive for so long.  Clarke wrote:  “I think it refers to the full conversion of the Jews ultimately; and primarily to the deliverance from the Babylonish captivity” (Clarke’s Commentary, e-Sword).  This was being written to people about them being able to come out of captivity, and this would be a new life.  Peter did not anticipate the fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy.  Just as Don seems to think that “Day of the Lord” must refer to the final judgment of man, he also thinks that “new heaven and new earth” must refer to the 2nd coming of Christ.  Again, he is wrong because he won’t allow the context to determine how the words are used.

Peter discusses, in 2 Peter 3:1-18, Christ’s promise to return,  and at that time take man to a new home that he has prepared (Jn. 14:1-3).  He is not quoting Isaiah, but is referring to Christ’s promise to his followers.  Heaven is called a “new heaven and new earth” in the same way that the return from Babylonian captivity was called a new heaven and new earth.  It would be a new life for them.  It does not have reference to a literal new heaven or a literal new earth.  It referenced a new life which the Jews had and it references a new life for us when this life is over.  Don reminds me of a man who was a member of a congregation  where I preached, a number of years ago, who had a reference Bible and thought that because a word was used in one place that it had to refer to the exact same thing that it did in another place.  I tried to explain to him that sometimes a word or phrase is used in one place referring to one thing and in another place to refer to something else.  He never could quite grasp the concept.

He thinks that because Christ’s death was substitutionary for our sins so we don’t have to spend eternity in hell this means that had Jesus not died physically that we would have to die physically.  No, we are all going to die physically (except those who remain when Christ returns), but his physical shedding of blood in his physical death is what paid the price for our sins.  His substitution argument does not show  that this was not literal.  Christ died a literal death so we could have salvation, but it wasn’t so we wouldn’t die physically, but so we wouldn’t have to suffer eternal death (separation from God) in eternity.  He can’t even understand the most simple concepts.

He says he had a question on the typology of the Lord’s Supper, but he obviously forgot to ask the question.  He seems to think that the bondage of death is physical death.  No Christ is our deliverance from the bondage of sin and spiritual death.  Physical death is going to happen to us regardless (unless we are here when Christ returns), but the death that we were delivered from was spiritual death.  Christ gave the means of deliverance from that when he died on the cross and was resurrected.

Notice the chart discussing the his defense of Daniel 9.

I think that I have dealt with everything in Don’s first rebuttal.  I didn’t follow him off into his endless repetitions, but I did deal with the arguments.  He still needs to answer my questions because he hasn’t done so.

I have come to the end of my word limit so I will close for now, and invite you to read Don’s 2nd rebuttal.

In Christ Jesus

Jerry McDonald

Categories: Uncategorized