Archive

Archive for the ‘Debates’ Category

Preston’s Fourth Affirmative

October 10, 2011 1 comment

You would think that after taking months to prepare a response Jerry would have been able to present a more substantive negative. But such is the weakness of his (and my former) eschatology, that he could not present anything better if he took a year or more. Frankly, I continue to be stunned at his desperation, and the “new theology” being created right before our eyes.

Now, I have presented well over 25 valid logical syllogisms. Jerry signed his name to answer my arguments. But, he admits he has not done so. But of course, he ridicules me if I don’t address every word he writes. This is not playing the role of the negative respondent.

Jerry notes that Jesus said: “I have finished the work that thou gavest me to do” (Jno. 17:4). Jerry admits Jesus had not yet literally accomplished all things, but had, “set things in motion that would put him on the cross and would cause his work to be finished. In the same manner when Christ died on the cross, he set things in order that would fulfill everything. Thus when he died on the cross the law was fulfilled.” Pure double-talk.

Jerry admits that until Jesus literally died, the Law was not actually fulfilled. He agrees that Jesus had to actually die to fulfill the law. Yet, he wants us to believe that Jesus did not have to literally accomplish the “all things” of Torah for the law to pass. On the one hand he says the law was fulfilled at the cross; then he tells us the cross set in motion the fulfillment of all things.

Well, Jesus said that until every jot and tittle in the law – which included the”accomplishment” of everything foreshadowed in the Sabbaths and Feast Days– none of Torah would pass. Jerry totally ignored my chart on Jesus’ use of genetai.

Jesus did not say, “Until things are set in motion for the accomplishment of every jot and tittle.” (Jerry, Jesus “set in motion” the process of fulfillment when he was born, but that does not mean all was fulfilled by his birth, does it?)

Jesus had to literally die to accomplish what Torah foretold. He also had to literally accomplish all that was foreshadowed in the Sabbaths and Feast Days– which Jerry admits refers to the Judgment and Resurrection.

JERRY AND THE SONG OF MOSES

Jerry cannot escape the implications of the Song and he knows it.

Jerry initially told us that the Song of Moses was fulfilled in Moses’ day and then in Revelation 15. “I specifically said that the first time the song was sang it was sang at the beginning of Israel’s existence as a nation. The next time was when Spiritual Israel sang it and it became the song of the Lamb (Rev. 15:3).” (Second Negative).

Now, however, Jerry says the Song in Revelation 15 is from Exodus 15 not Deuteronomy 32.

DEBATE CONVERSION! Here is his quote: “Then in Revelation 15 they sang the song of Moses, which was the song sang in Exodus 15, and it became the song of the Lamb, but no where do they sing the song of Deuteronomy 32:19-21.” (Third Neg).

He has undeniably changed his position; his desperation is palpable.

The Song spoke of the conversion of the Gentiles in Israel’s LAST DAYS. Both Paul and John quote it as being fulfilled– and about to be fulfilled– in their day. So, Jerry changed– YES, HE DID– and said the Song did refer to Israel’s last days, but not to AD 70. Note that he has consistently refused to identify Israel’s last days– WHEN THE GENTILES WOULD BE SAVED. This is critical, folks.

Jerry fills the air with smoke. He offers a chart in which he reiterates what he originally said: “Don sees “the last days” in everything, but Deut. 32:20 is not talking about the last days, but their end was simply their apostasy from God. The rejoicing (v:43) was that God would avenge the blood of his people upon the Nations of Canaan. None of Deuteronomy had to do with the last days, but with what was going on at that time.”

Jerry is all over the map.

He says the Song applied strictly to Moses’ day, not the last days– even though the Song twice says it was about Israel’s last days.

Fact: The Song applied to the time AFTER MOSES’ DEATH, when Israel would fill the measure of her sin (31:29-30) and “evil will befall you in the last days” (31:29).

The Song applied to MANY GENERATIONS TO COME (32:7) when Israel would look back on the time that Jerry says the Song applied to.

If the Song applied to Moses’ day:

1.) Israel met her “last end,” her last days, in Moses’ day. After initially denying that the Song was about Israel’s last end, Jerry then gave us the lexical definitions that prove the Song applied to her last end after all.

2.) The Gentiles were converted in Moses’ day.

Jerry has not, and cannot refute the fact that the Song is applied by the NT writers to their generation.

Paul cited the Song in promising the persecuted church that vindication was coming (Romans 12:19).

Paul said the Song was being fulfilled in his Gentile ministry. Jerry hopes you will not remember this glaring problem, but it will not go away.

The Song of Moses was “the law.”

The Song of Moses foretold the conversion of the Gentiles in Israel’s last days (32:19-21).

Not one jot or one tittle would pass from “the law” until it was “fully accomplished (genetai).

But, the Gentiles were being converted in Paul’s ministry, in fulfillment of the Song.

Therefore, the Law had not passed at the time of Paul’s Gentile ministry.

Jerry misrepresents me by claiming that I said the Law would pass when the Gentiles were converted. My point was that the law could not pass until (among other things) the Gentiles were converted. I did not argue that Torah would pass at that juncture.

My point was clear to anyone not willing to distort my argument. The fact is that Torah foretold the conversion of the Gentiles in Israel’s last days. The Gentiles were not converted at the cross. Therefore, Torah did not (could not) pass at the cross. Jerry simply distorted my argument.

I asked Jerry, “Did God call the Gentiles to be his people in Moses’ day?” His response: “It was always God’s intention to bring the Gentiles in and give them salvation. I don’t know if Moses ever stated this or not, but several of the prophets did.”

Jerry’s desperation is glaring. He refused to answer my question directly. JERRY, I DID NOT ASK IF GOD “ALWAYS INTENDED TO CALL THE GENTILES,” DID I? I asked if the Gentiles were called to be God’s people, in Moses’ day, which is where you claim the Song was fulfilled. I asked: If the Song applied only to Moses’ day, why did Paul say it was being fulfilled in his Gentile mission? Once again, you refused to answer. This powerfully exposes the falsity of your theology.

JERRY ON 1 CORINTHIANS 15 AND THE RESURRECTION

Jerry wants so desperately to deny that the resurrection was a Covenant promise made to Israel “after the flesh”, to be fulfilled at the end of her Covenant age.

He says the resurrection is the hope of all men. Well, Jerry, that could only be true if / when God kept His promises to Old Covenant Israel. Salvation was: “To the Jew FIRST, then to the Greek.) (Chart-WhyFirst)

Jerry has Israel cut off, not receiving her promised resurrection, and the resurrection ripped from the end of her age to the end of the Christian age. This is as false to the core.

Let me reiterate my argument on 1 Corinthians 15 that proves the resurrection belonged to Israel’s last days. Don’t miss this!

The resurrection would be when “the law” that was the strength of sin was removed.

The law that was the strength of sin was “the law of Moses” (JMcD).

Therefore, the resurrection was– nor will be– when the Law of Moses was– or will be–removed.

TALK ABOUT AN ACHILLES HEEL!

Jerry asked if Martha expected and Jesus predicted a physical resurrection. He says I ignored the questions. False.

Let’s see:

The resurrection that Martha anticipated was the resurrection of Daniel 12.

The resurrection of Daniel 12 would be when the power of the holy people (Torah) was shattered.

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

Therefore, the resurrection anticipated by Martha was in AD 70.

The resurrection that Martha anticipated– and Jesus predicted– was the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15.

The resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 would be when the”the law” that was the strength of sin was removed.

The law that was the strength of sin was Torah– the Law of Moses– JMcD.

If the resurrection has not taken place, the Law of Moses remains as the law that is the strength of sin.

JERRY, IS THE LAW OF MOSES STILL BINDING TODAY AS “THE LAW THAT IS THE STRENGTH OF SIN? YES OR NO? DO NOT EVADE THIS QUESTION!

THIS ARGUMENT FALSIFIES ANY FUTURISTIC APPLICATION OF ANY TEXT THAT JERRY MIGHT MAKE– AND HE KNOWS IT.

PRESTON’S ACHILLES HEEL?

Jerry claims my Achilles Heel in 1 Corinthians 15 is this: If Paul was drawing from Isaiah 25:6f, then since Paul was predicting the raising of human corpses “that must be what Isaiah 25 was predicting.” Jerry’s presuppositional theology is on full display here.

Jerry assumes, without one iota of proof, that Paul was discussing the raising of human corpses. He is guilty of begging the question. He assumes what he must prove. Neither Jesus or Paul taught such a resurrection.

Jerry turns Paul’s words completely around. Paul was drawing on Isaiah. THAT IS WHERE PAUL GOT HIS DOCTRINE. Paul said that when the resurrection took place, what Isaiah and Hosea foretold would be fulfilled. Jerry must therefore, be able to show that Isaiah foretold the raising of human corpses since Let me show Jerry’s problem.

The resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 would be deliverance from death as foretold in Hosea 13.

The death of Hosea 13 was “sin-death” covenantal death: “When Ephraim sinned, HE DIED… yet they sinned more and more (Hosea 13:1-2). Kinda hard for corpses to sin, is it not?

Therefore, the resurrection of 1 Corinthians would be deliverance from “sin-death” covenantal death.”

Jerry can’t get biological death out of Isaiah 24-25 or Hosea. It is therefore, not in Corinthians. And in fact, Jerry has abandoned 1 Corinthians as a future resurrection! Watch this:

Commenting on Isaiah 25– the source of Paul’s resurrection doctrine in 1 Corinthians 15, Jerry says in a chart– “Isaiah tells of the coming of the Christ and the setting up of his church. Through Christ we have victory over death. OUR VICTORY OVER DEATH IS NOT THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST, BUT WAS THE FIRST COMING OF CHRIST. Because Christ died and rose, we have victory over death. OUR VICTORY OVER DEATH DOESN’T HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE 2ND COMING, BUT HAPPENS WHEN ONE OBEYS THE GOSPEL.” (My emp.).

REALLY, JERRY?!?

Isaiah 25:8 and Hosea 13 foretold the victory over death.

Isaiah 25 and Hosea are the source of Paul’s resurrection doctrine in 1 Corinthians 15 (v. 54-56).

But, “Our victory over death (Isaiah 25 / Hosea 13- DKP) is not the second coming of Christ, but was the first coming of Christ” (JMcD).

Therefore, Paul’s resurrection doctrine (Isaiah 25 / Hosea 13 / 1 Corinthians 15) was not a prediction of the victory over death at the Second Coming.

Jerry now says that we have NOW what Isaiah 25 and Hosea 13 foretold– victory over death. We don’t have to wait until the Second Coming!

JERRY HAS ABANDONED HIS OWN RESURRECTION DOCTRINE!

He is affirming that the resurrection is past!

Jerry has entrapped himself, again.

RE: THE MESSIANIC BANQUET OF ISAIAH 25:6-8.

Isaiah foretold the Messianic Banquet at the time of the resurrection.

1.) The Messianic Banquet is the Wedding Banquet of Matthew 22 – Which occurred at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

2.) This matches Jesus’ teaching on the Banquet (Matthew 8:11). Jerry says Matthew 8 does not tell us when that would be. Yes, it does.

It would be when “the sons of the kingdom will be cast out.” In the parallel text, it says when “you yourselves are cast out” (speaking to the Jews– Luke 13:27-28).

I have repeatedly noted Galatians 4. Paul said OT Israel would be cast out for persecuting Christians. Chart– Galatians 4. Jerry has not offered a syllable of response.

3.) It is the time of the salvation of Israel. Remember, Paul said that the salvation of Israel would be at the coming of the Lord in fulfillment of Isaiah 27– the time of the judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood.

4.) The time of the salvation of Israel would be in fulfillment of God’s covenant promises to her– Romans 11:25-27. Jerry has ignored my arguments, but they are fatal to him.

The resurrection is the time of Israel’s salvation (Isaiah 25:8-10).

The resurrection / salvation of Israel would be in fulfillment of God’s covenant with her (Romans 11).

The resurrection has not happened (JMcD).

Therefore, God’s covenant with Israel remains valid– or failed. Which is it, Jerry?

Jerry claims that my position denies that Christ was physically raised from the dead. He says I deny the resurrection. This is both insulting and proof positive that Jerry is willing to purposefully distort what I say.

I AFFIRM THAT CHRIST WAS RAISED IN THE SELF SAME PHYSICAL BODY THAT WENT INTO THE TOMB.

Does Jerry? We will see. This fact is going to haunt Jerry.

I affirm that Christ’s physical resurrection was a sign of the greater, spiritual resurrection (Matthew 16; John 20:20-21).

I accept the Biblical testimony that the resurrection was to occur at the end of the Mosaic Age.

I accept the Biblical testimony that the resurrection was to overcome the death of Adam– which was not biological death.

I accept the Biblical testimony that the resurrection was near in the first century.

Jerry denies all of this. That is the difference between us.

Jerry is wrong.

DID THE CORINTHIANS DENY THE RESURRECTION?

Jerry claims that the Corinthians denied the reality of resurrection. This is patently false.

Paul uses a series of modus podens (if-then) arguments, employing Second Class Conditional clauses. The Second Class Conditional clauses means that the speaker or writer assumes as false a statement that he makes. His audience assumes it to be true, so the speaker utilizes that statement for his argument. In Corinthians Paul says “If Christ be not risen” which he assumes to be false, but which his adversaries believe to be true.

However, Paul then turns that on them by showing if what they believe to be true is true, then it nullifies other things that they believe to be true.

If the dead are not risen (Paul takes what they assume to be true, but which he rejects) then Christ is not risen. THEY DO NOT REJECT THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. Thus, they are not denying the resurrection.

If the dead are not raised, you are yet in your sins. THEY DO NOT BELIEVE THEY ARE STILL IN THEIR SINS. (Why didn’t Paul say, “If the dead are not raised, you will not come out of the ground? Why does he simply deal with sin?)

If the dead are not raised, then those fallen asleep in Christ have perished. THEY DO NOT BELIEVE THAT DEAD CHRISTIANS HAD PERISHED.

Clearly, those in Corinth were NOT denying the resurrection. They accepted Jesus’ resurrection, their own and that of Christians. WHAT THEY DENIED WAS THE RESURRECTION OF A CERTAIN GROUP, however, those of whom Christ was the first fruit. More on that later.

RESURRECTION: IN THE LAW BUT NOT OF THE LAW

Jerry tells us that even though the resurrection promise was “in the law” that it was not “of the law.” He also said: “The promises were not fulfilled until the OT was nailed to the Cross (Colossians 2:14-16). When that happened then the New Covenant could come in and the promises made under the Old Covenant could be fulfilled.”

Note that last claim– SOME OF TORAH PASSED BUT SOME OF TORAH REMAINS. But wait! Didn’t Jesus say, “NONE will pass until ALL is fulfilled”? Jerry is in flagrant violation of Jesus’ words.

Nothing exemplifies Jerry’s desperation more than these claims. To call this disingenuous is a huge understatement. Of course, he gave no scripture; no proof. Jerry is totally out of step with his c of C brethren and history. This is unprecedented! Chart.

Look at these facts:

1.) Jesus said “the law prophesied” (Matthew 11:12)– thus, PROPHECY WAS “THE LAW.” If “the law prophesied” then prophecy was “the law.” This is indisputable.

2.) Jesus said he came to fulfill the law and the prophets. He did not come to fulfill the law divorced from the prophets.

3.) Jesus said not one iota would pass from the law and the prophets until it was all fully accomplished (genetai).

Now, Jerry changes course again and tells us that all Jesus meant in Matthew 5:17f was that the “Old System would be fulfilled when it had served its purpose.”

WELL, AMEN, JERRY!

But, the purpose of the law was to bring man to the New Creation, to resurrection.

That is what Paul affirmed in 1 Corinthians 15.

THE RESURRECTION WOULD BE WHEN “THE LAW” WOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED, WHEN “THE LAW” THAT WAS THE STRENGTH OF SIN” WAS REMOVED.

Thus, the law would stand until it’s mission was accomplished– at the resurrection. The law would have served its purpose when all that if foretold was fully accomplished.

Thank you, Jerry, for ONCE AGAIN confirming my proposition.

Paul called the Psalms, Jeremiah and Isaiah “the law” (Romans 3; 1 Corinthians 14:20-21).

I guess Paul (i.e. The Spirit!!) was confused, because Jerry has decreed that prophecy was not “the law.”

The contrast could not be clearer: Inspiration calls prophecy “the law.” Jerry denies this.

Jerry is wrong, again.

With this in mind, consider this:

Jesus– not one iota of “the law” would pass until it was all fully accomplished (genetai).

Isaiah was “the law.”

Isaiah (the law) foretold the resurrection.

Paul said that Isaiah (the law) would be fully accomplished (genetai) at the resurrection.

Therefore, the law, would not pass until the resurrection.

Remember: Jerry admitted that “the law of Moses” was the strength of sin. Thus, Jerry has the law of Moses and the promises of the law continuing until the “end of time”. So, per Jerry– VIRTUALLY NOTHING OF “THE LAW” HAS BEEN REMOVED! The law and prophecy continue until the “end of time.” Jerry has entrapped himself… again.

Watch:

The Sabbaths and Feast days of “the law” foreshadowed the resurrection– JMcD agreeing.

Paul said those feast days were still shadows of good things to come (Colossians 2:14-16– Chart-Mello).

Paul said that the typological temple cultus (i.e. the feast days) would remain valid until the time of reformation. The time of reformation is the full accomplishment of what that cultus foreshadowed– entrance into the MHP.

HEBREWS AND THE MOST HOLY PLACE

I devoted almost 1000 words to Hebrews 9 (with six syllogisms) and the entrance into the MHP. Jerry’s response? Almost total silence.

This material is so critical, and so devastating to Jerry that I am reiterating it here. THIS ALONE FALSIFIES JERRY’S THEOLOGY. It is little wonder that Jerry totally ignored this material.

The High Priest’s actions on the Day of Atonement were typological of Christ’s Priestly actions. (Chart– Jesus and Judah)

The OT cultus could not bring man into the MHP, God’s presence, because it could not provide forgiveness (v. 8-9).

As long as that cultus stood valid there could be no access to the MHP.

The cultus would remain valid “until the time of reformation”– when man could enter the MHP.

Christ, in fulfillment of the typology, had appeared to put away sin (the barrier to the MHP)- v. 26).

He had entered the MHP to prepare it (v. 24).

He would come again to bring man into the MHP– this is the time of reformation.

Christ was to come again, “FOR, the law, having (present active indicative) a shadow of good things about to come (10:1– mello with the infinitive).

Jerry claims: “The day of Atonement was taken out of the way at the cross (Heb. 10:1-4).” False!

Christ had to come again to fulfill the High Priest, Day of Atonement shadows of the law. He had to come “FOR” (Hebrews 10:1– Greek, gar, giving the reason why Christ had to come again) the Law was still a shadow of good things about to come. Jerry destroys the typology of Hebrews 9.

I asked Jerry what happens to the child of God when they die. His answer: “Abraham’s bosom…the hadean realm Luke 16:22.” Let’s see:

The covenantal setting of Abraham’s bosom was “they have Moses and the prophets.” Under Torah there was no forgiveness, thus, no entrance into the MHP, per Hebrews 9.

Well, if Torah, which barred man from the MHP, was removed at the cross: WHY DOES THE CHILD OF GOD GO TO HADES LIKE THEY DID UNDER TORAH?

JERRY VERSUS HEBREWS

Hebrews– Man could not enter the MHP AS LONG AS TORAH WAS VALID.

Jerry– Man cannot enter the MHP until THE END OF THE GOSPEL AGE.

Jerry has the gospel as the barrier between man and the MHP!

If Torah ended at the cross– MAN SHOULD NOW HAVE DIRECT ENTRANCE INTO THE MHP. But, Jerry says there is still no entrance into the MHP UNTIL THE END OF THE CHRISTIAN AGE.

This violates Hebrews. Here is the contrast:

Hebrews–> Entrance into the MHP AT THE END OF TORAH. This agrees with 1 Corinthians 15 that resurrection / salvation would be when, “the law that is the strength of sin” (THE LAW OF MOSES PER JERRY.) was removed.

Jerry –> Entrance into the MHP AT THE END OF THE CHRISTIAN AGE.

BUT WAIT! Jerry now says of the promise of Isaiah 25 / Hosea 13: “We now have victory through Christ our Lord.” So, there it is folks! We don’t have to wait for Christ’s coming for the fulfillment of Isaiah / Hosea! But, this demands that the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 is fulfilled, Jerry. That is the victory over death.

JERRY, IF, AS YOU ARE NOW CLAIMING, WE HAVE WHAT ISAIAH 25 / HOSEA FORETOLD, WHY DOES MAN NOT ENTER THE MHP WHEN HE DIES?

Notice the harmony between Hebrews 9 and Revelation.

Hebrews 9– No entrance into the MHP while Torah remained valid– entrance into MHP at Christ’s parousia.

Revelation 11:15: 15:8– No entrance into the MHP until the wrath of God would be finished IN THE DESTRUCTION OF BABYLON.

So:

Hebrews– No entrance into the MHP as long as Torah remained valid.

Revelation– No entrance into the MHP until the wrath of God was consummated in the judgment of Babylon (Revelation 15:8 – 16:17).

Therefore, Torah would remain valid until the judgment of Babylon.

But, Babylon was Rome– per Jerry!

Thus, the destruction of Rome brought man into the MHP.

According to Paul, Torah– not Rome– prevented man from entering the MHP. Jerry denies Paul and says that Rome, a pagan city having nothing to do with God’s covenant or forgiveness stood as the barrier between man and the MHP.<current document>http://www.eschatology.org/all-articles-articles-211/96-salvation/939-entrance-into-the-mhp-and-the-end-of-tohttp://www.eschatology.org/all-articles-articles-211/96-salvation/939-entrance-into-the-mhp-and-the-end-of-torahhttp://www.eschatology.org/all-articles-articles-211/96-salvation/939-entrance-into-the-mhp-and-the-end-of-torahhttp://www.eschatology.org

Now, notice:

No entrance into the MHP while Torah was valid.

The Festal Sabbaths foreshadowed the time when man could enter the MHP- “the time of reformation.”(Jerry).

Thus, until what the Festal Sabbaths anticipated is ACCOMPLISHED man cannot enter the MHP– the time of reformation will not have arrived. Jerry says we still cannot enter the MHP. Thus, the time of reformation has not arrived– Torah remains valid.

Jerry’s claim denies what Paul said: That cultus- with its Festal Sabbaths, would remain “IMPOSED UNTIL THE TIME OF REFORMATION” – when man could enter the MHP.

Israel’s salvation– and our’s– would come when all that Israel’s Festal Sabbaths foreshadowed was accomplished AT THE TIME OF REFORMATION.

But, TORAH WOULD REMAIN IMPOSED UNTIL THE TIME OF THE REFORMATION.

Therefore, if, per Jerry, all that the Festal Sabbaths typified has not been ACCOMPLISHED, then without any controversy– Torah remains valid.

Jerry argues that since Job preceded Torah, and Job foretold resurrection that this proves that resurrection was not integral to the Law. This is untenable.

JERRY, ANIMAL SACRIFICES PRECEDED “THE LAW.” DOES THAT MEAN THEY WERE NOT FUNDAMENTALLY “OF THE LAW”?

The resurrection was promised in the Garden.

The resurrection was foreshadowed under Abraham. Jerry, was resurrection promised to Abraham, but not PART OF the Abrahamic Covenant?

The resurrection was in Job.

Here is the point: GOD INCORPORATED THE GARDEN PROMISE INTO TORAH AND MADE IT INTEGRAL TO IT. He placed fulfillment of the Garden promise (1 Corinthians 15:22) at the time of the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel (Isaiah 25; Hosea 14).

Fulfillment was when “the law, that is the strength of sin” – the law of Moses per Jerry himself– would be removed.

Paul did not place resurrection at the end of the (ENDLESS!!) Christian age– in fulfillment of “Christian” promises– divorced from Israel.

GOD HIMSELF JOINED THE LAW AND RESURRECTION. What God has joined, let no man put asunder.

Jerry’s dichotomization of the law is unknown in scripture.

Jerry, I challenge you:

GIVE US JUST ONE SCRIPTURE IN WHICH THE INSPIRED WRITER CLEARLY TAUGHT THAT THE RESURRECTION PROMISE WAS NOT “THE LAW.” JUST ONE, JERRY!

Now, Sabbath was indisputably “the law” (Exodus 20), right, Jerry?

SABBATH WAS A COVENANT BETWEEN GOD AND ISRAEL (Deuteronomy 5; Exodus 31:16). Right, Jerry?

The Sabbath Law foreshadowed the resurrection. (JMcD)

Until ALL of “the law” (God’s covenant with Israel) was fully accomplished Torah would not pass.

Israel would continue to be God’s covenant people until God’s covenant promises to her were fully accomplished (Romans 11:25-27- “This is my covenant with her”).

Therefore, until the resurrection– was / is fully accomplished– “the law” and God’s covenant with Israel would (will) remain valid.

Jerry now denies saying that what the Sabbaths and Feast Days foreshadowed were still “shadows of good things about to come” when Paul wrote. Pure desperation.

He admitted that the Sabbaths were typological of the resurrection and are still unfulfilled.

Jerry has the Sabbaths annulled without the accomplishment of what they foreshadowed.

But, let’s see, what was that Jesus said? Oh, yea:

“NOT ONE JOT OR ONE TITTLE SHALL PASS FROM THE LAW UNTIL IT IS ALL ACCOMPLISHED.”

Jerry has all sorts of jots and tittles passing without the accomplishment of what they foreshadowed. Jerry denies Jesus’ words. He is wrong.

ISAIAH 27 / 59– ROMANS 11:25-27

Paul anticipated the salvation of Israel at the coming of the Lord,

in fulfillment of Isaiah 27 / 59.

Jerry says, NO, ROMANS 11:25F IS NOT ABOUT THE FULFILLMENT OF ISAIAH AT ALL! Isaiah was fulfilled exclusively in the Babylonian invasion. He assures us (with no proof) that if Isaiah referred to Paul’s day, it could have no application to Babylon’s invasion.

REALLY, JERRY?

So, JERRY SAYS PAUL MISUSED ISAIAH because Isaiah said nothing about the salvation of Israel in Paul’s day. Remember: Jerry’s eschatology accuses Paul of being a false prophet. Remember my argument on 2 Thessalonians 1. Chart Relief. This likewise impugns Jesus who cited Isaiah 27:13 – Matthew 24:31.

Jerry, why would Paul quote Isaiah if it had nothing to do with his topic? He was not discussing Babylon, but events in his day.

HE APPLIED ISAIAH 27 / 59 TO THOSE EVENTS. Chart Isaiah 27.

Per Jerry, Paul (and Jesus) quotes from prophecies that had nothing to do with his discussion of the salvation of Israel. Problem: Jerry gave us no proof for his wild claim.

Jerry is sooo confused on Isaiah 27 / Romans 11.

He said Romans 11 (Thus, Isaiah) applied to the cross.

Then he says it (Isaiah–>Romans 11) was not even Messianic. Isaiah referred exclusively to Babylon.

CATCH THIS: If Isaiah 27 was not Messianic, then Romans 11 isn’t, because Paul cited Isaiah as the source of what he was saying in Romans 11.

Then Jerry says that Isaiah did, after all, typify the eschaton.

Jerry, you can’t have it both ways. If Isaiah 27 was not Messianic, you can’t apply it to “the end of the world.”

Speaking of Isaiah 27. Jerry adamantly denies that Paul cited Isaiah 27 in chapter 16:20. Because Paul did not say “to fulfill Isaiah” Jerry concludes that he could not have had Isaiah in mind.

In 11:26-27 Paul quotes Isaiah 27 –which predicted the destruction of Leviathan / Satan at the coming of the Lord (26:21–27:1-2) to speak of the salvation of Israel at the parousia. He says the Day of salvation “has drawn near” (13:12), and then says, “The God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly” (en tachei– Note: every commentator Jerry cited said the promised salvation was IMMINENT).

But, according to Jerry, we are supposed to ignore all of this– because he says so! What was Jerry’s proof? NOTHING, but his pontifications.

JERRY– DANIEL 12– THE POWER OF THE HOLY PEOPLE

I asked Jerry: TELL US, WITH SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT: WHAT IS THE POWER OF OLD COVENANT ISRAEL, THAT SHE WILL CONTINUE TO POSSESS UNTIL THE TIME OF THE RESURRECTION, WHEN THAT POWER WILL BE SHATTERED?

Jerry’s church of Christ brethren are probably shuddering at his “answer”. Jerry, citing Barnes again (no scripture) claims that ISRAEL’S power was her ARMY.

REALLY, JERRY? Amazing.

Let’s see:

The resurrection is when Israel’s power is shattered.

Israel’s power is her army (JMcD).

Therefore, Israel’s army is shattered at the time of the resurrection.

JERRY, WAS ISRAEL’S ARMY COMPLETELY SHATTERED IN AD 70? Yes, or No?

Jerry is now arguing that Israel will be “the holy people” until the end of the (ENDLESS) Christian age, when her army will be shattered!

When God gave Israel Torah He said, “If you will indeed keep my covenant then you will be a special treasure to me above all the people; for all the earth is mine, and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Exodus 19:5-6).

YHVH’s covenant relationship with Israel– not her military prowess– is what gave Israel’s army the ability to overcome superior forces (Deuteronomy 7:6-8).

Jerry, would Israel’s army have triumphed as they did, without her covenant relationship with God?

This issue is critical. The definition of the power of the holy people definitively posits the time of the resurrection.

Jerry has admitted that the power of the holy people was not the gospel; it will never be shattered.

Now, he says it was her army.

Israel had but one power. That power was Torah. Did it have power to save? I never said it did. But, it nonetheless set Israel apart from the nations in a distinctive way that cannot be denied. And the resurrection would be when that power was shattered.

TO DENY THAT ISRAEL’S POWER WAS HER COVENANT WITH GOD IS PATENTLY FALSE.

Jerry has not given a single verse to support his denial of this truth. He quotes uninspired men who likewise give no scriptural support.

Notice an argument (I-B-J) I made in regard to Daniel 12 and the Tribulation. McD-Trib

MATTHEW 23 AND THE JUDGMENT

Jesus said all the blood of the martyrs, all the way back to creation was to be judged in his generation. This includes the prophecy of Isaiah 2-4. To avoid this, Jerry cites Ezekiel that the children do not bear the sins of the fathers. Jerry distorts Jesus’ words.

Jesus did not say the Jews of his day would bear the guilt of their fathers. But, the guilt of their fathers, AND THEIR GUILT, TOGETHER, would collectively fill the measure of sin, and judgment would fall. Jesus’ words cannot be denied: “Upon you will come all of the blood of all of the righteous, shed on the earth, from righteous Abel to Zecharias… Verily I say unto you, all of these things shall come on this generation.”

And this means that Isaiah 2-4– the purging of the blood guilt of Jerusalem at the consummation of the last days– was not the Assyrian invasion. Chart- Is2-4

Jerry, how comprehensive was that AD 70 judgment? IT WENT ALL THE WAY BACK TO CREATION!! Jerry is wrong.

THE OLIVET DISCOURSE

Jerry’s fundamental assumption about Matthew 24 is that the disciples asked about two events, and mistakenly linked them together in their mind. Were the disciples mistaken or confused to link the destruction of Israel with the end of the age? No. Chart Mt24

Signs- No Signs– Jerry hangs his hat on a false contrast between signs of the fall of Jerusalem and no signs of the coming of the Lord. Chart Signs

A SHORT WORK WILL HE MAKE ON THE EARTH

You must catch the power of this argument. This is not just semantics. The salvation of “all Israel” promised in Romans 11:25-27 would consummate the work of saving the righteous remnant at the coming of the Lord. Paul said, “A short work will the Lord make upon the earth.”

Jerry is hung up on the word shortly. Okay, Jerry, I will give you “shortly” (Not that I surrender the point). Here is what I will take.

A.) The overwhelming translational evidence. The majority of translations render the text to indicate an imminent consummation. That being true, Jerry’s eschatology is falsified.

Jerry’s answer? He impugns all of the translations! I have asked for his credentials or substantive evidence for rejecting such testimony. He gave us nothing.

B.) I accept Thayer and the lexicons who say: “on suntemnon translated as “short” (p. 606)– “To cut short, briefly, execute or finish quickly…to bring a prophecy or decree speedily to accomplishment, Romans 9:28.” Not one lexicon even hints at the idea of rapidity versus imminence for suntemnos. They all express imminence. .

C.) I WILL NOW ACCEPT JERRY’S OWN DEFINITION OF SUNTEMNON!: “Paul says that Isaiah said that God would finish the work and CUT IT SHORT (AS OPPOSED TO LETTING IT CONTINUE) AND PERFORM A SHORT (BRIEF) WORK ON THE EARTH.” (My emphasis).

AMEN, JERRY, THAT IS PRECISELY MY ARGUMENT!

The work of the salvation of the remnant was to be a “brief work on the earth.” (JMcD).

The work of the salvation of the remnant had begun and was in process when Paul wrote.

Therefore, the completion of the work of the salvation of the remnant would be a brief work, “rather than let this continue it will be cut short” (JmcD).

The completion of the work of the salvation of the remnant would be a brief work, “rather than let this continue it will be cut short” (JmcD).

But, the consummation (completion) of the salvation of the remnant would be at the coming of the Lord (Romans 11:25-27– in fulfillment of Isaiah 27 / 59).

Therefore, the coming of the Lord for the completion of the salvation of the remnant was to be in a brief (short) time!

Jerry, since the salvation of the remnant had already begun and was to be a brief (not long) work, but you deny that Romans 11 is that consummation, then,

WHEN WOULD THAT “BRIEF (NOT LONG) WORK” BE FINISHED? DO NOT DODGE THIS QUESTION! Hint– Revelation 7, 14; at the judgment of Babylon!

Jerry tells us God finished His work with Israel at the cross. Thus, Romans 9:28 must have been fulfilled at the cross.

But, that can’t be the cross, because Romans 9:28 anticipated that consummation.

It can’t be Jerry’s anticipated parousia, because Jerry now admits that Romans 9 was not to be a long work.

If God has finished His work with Israel this demands that Isaiah 25:8-9 is fulfilled, and thus, 1 Corinthians 15.

Jerry cannot say that God has finished His work with Israel without affirming the fulfillment of her resurrection promises.

On Hebrews 10:37: Jerry says: “He then tells them that the day of the Lord will come. He doesn’t say when, but that it will come.”

REALLY, JERRY?

What desperation! Listen to Paul: “And now, in a very, very little while (hosan, hosan micron) the one who is coming will come, and will not tarry.” Jerry says these are not time statements. Jerry is wrong.

In fact, Paul says that the Song of Moses was about to be fulfilled. He quotes the Song twice to encourage his suffering audience to perseverance until the parousia.

“Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” (Deuteronomy 32:35) says the Lord.” And again, “The LORD will judge His people.” (Deuteronomy 32:36) “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. … For you have need of endurance, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise: ‘For yet a little while, And He who is coming will come and will not tarry.”

So, Paul, who preached nothing but the hope of Israel, encourages the suffering saints to hold on, by citing the Song, twice. The Song promised that in Israel’s last days the martyrs would be vindicated when the Lord judged the people. He told them to be patient, “FOR in a very, very little while, the one who is coming will come, and will not tarry.”

That “for” is the ground of their faithfulness under that duress, but, that “for”predicts the coming of the Lord in a “very, very little while”, WITHOUT DELAY!

Jerry claims that God does not communicate time as man sees it. Jerry, when God caused John and Jesus to say “the kingdom of heaven has drawn near” did He mean that in a temporal sense? (Matthew 3:2 / 4:17)? Were those time statements of true imminence? Yes or No?

Jerry, you know, I know, and every reader of this debate knows that you are playing games with the time statements of scripture.

PRESTON AN ATHEIST– POISONING THE WELL

Once again, Jerry’s desperation and lack of logic is on full display.

He appeals to a man (who calls himself Rivers of Eden) a radical preterist. “Eden” rejects the clear cut testimony of scripture that God intended to bring all men of every nation to him, and insists that only the blood line Abraham is or was ever intended to be saved.

I CATEGORICALLY REJECT THIS. If Gentiles are unknown and unloved, we have “No God.” This is practical atheism.

Jerry attempts to poison the mind of the readers and make a “guilt by association” argument. Rivers is a preterist. Rivers is an “atheist.” Preston is a preterist. Therefore, Preston is an atheist. See how that distorted logic works? It is like saying Mormons believe in Jesus. Jerry believes in Jesus. Therefore, Jerry is a Mormon! See how that works, Jerry?

Look at his “argument”:

“He says that the second song was not sang by spiritual Israel, but by the 144 thousand, those who were saved from Israel. If the 144 thousand has reference only to the literal remnant of Israel, what hope does his position have for anyone now living since no Jew can trace his genealogy beyond A.D. 70? His position implies that only those (the 144 thousand) who lived before A.D. 70 have any hope. This is the position that RoE takes and Don calls his position atheism. This is Don’s position, he just won’t admit to it, so I guess by his own admission, he teaches atheism.”

This is extremely poor logic and a distortion of my position.

1.) The 144K was the righteous remnant of Israel. They are of the twelve tribes.

2.) Jerry claimed: “His position implies that only those (the 144 thousand) who lived before A.D. 70 have any hope.”

FOLKS, JERRY KNOWS THIS IS NOT MY VIEW. His “implication” is false, BECAUSE IT IGNORES MY POSITION BASED ON THE TEXT.

In addition to the 144K there was an innumerable multitude out of every nation, tongue and tribe. THESE ARE NOT OF THE TWELVE TRIBES, but they enjoy the salvation that came through Israel. This falsifies Jerry’s “argument.”

Jerry, why did you purposely distort my position?

Watch this:

THE 144K ENDURED THE GREAT TRIBULATION (7:14)

The 144K were the first generation of Jewish Christians– the first fruit of those redeemed to God from man (14:2f).

BUT, THE GREAT TRIBULATION OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE FALL OF JERUSALEM IN AD 70– JMcD AGREES!

Therefore, the suffering / martyrdom of the 144K occurred prior to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70

(IT DID NOT OCCUR UNDER DOMITIAN!)

(See my book Who Is This Babylon for more on this).

This is from the inspired, internal text. This falsifies Jerry’s claims about Domitianic persecution, his appeal to Pliny, his arguments against the imminence of Revelation– it falsifies everything he has said.

JERRY AND REVELATION

Jerry falsely claims that I said that Revelation was written only to the Jews. False. Jerry refuses to accurately present what I believe.

Revelation is, however, about the fulfillment of the OT promises made to Israel.

Unless and until Israel’s promises were fulfilled the Gentiles could not receive salvation. Jerry has not touched this.

Peter wrote to the identical churches in Asia, (Chart– Pet-Rev) and said that the salvation they were anticipating was foretold by the prophets. It was revealed to those prophets that the salvation would not be revealed in their day, but, it was “ready to be revealed” when Peter wrote. Christ was, “ready to judge the living and the dead,”; “the end of all things has drawn near,” and “the appointed time for the judgment had arrived.” Note: Jerry totally ignored my argument on the anaphoric article that demands that the time for the resurrection had arrived. Chart

Jerry not only ignores the temporal contrast in Peter, he ignores the identical contrast in Revelation 22:10. The end time prophecies in Daniel were not imminent to Daniel (Daniel 12:4). Daniel was told to seal his book because fulfillment was not near. John, reiterating Daniel’s prophecies, was told “do not seal the book, for the time is at hand.”

Jerry has ignored this temporal contrast, because it is fatal to him. It negates all his charts claiming that tachu means rapidly, not soon, his charts against mello, his arguments on Domitianic persecution. It falsifies his appeal to uninspired men who, like him, simply denied the temporal urgency of, “Let the wicked remain wicked.” (Chart McD-wicked)

JERRY’S DOUBLE-TALK ON THE ALL SUFFICIENCY OF SCRIPTURE

Jerry accuses me of not believing in the all-sufficiency of scripture. He says: “Maybe he doesn’t believe that it is. If it isn’t all sufficient, then it isn’t inspired.”

Jerry misconstrued my answer, so let me state this: The Bible is its own best commentary, and is the final authority.

But let’s take a look at Jerry’s duplicity.

Jerry CLAIMS to believe in the all-sufficiency and authority of scripture; that the Bible “is its own best commentary,” Right?

Hmmm, well, consider this:

When it comes to trying to establish the dating of Revelation, Jerry gives no scriptural testimony. No attempt to allow scripture to interpret scripture.

In fact, after appealing to Summers, Johnson, Barnes, et. al., HE SAID THAT SCRIPTURE DOES NOT MATTER IN DETERMINING THE DATING OF REVELATION! Here is his quote: “Until the date of Revelation of settled it makes no difference how many scriptures he brings up” (JmcD– Second Negative).

So, Jerry himself says scripture is not all sufficient or authoritative. We have to have Pliny, Iranaeus, Barnes, Summers, etc. BEFORE WE CAN EVEN GO TO THE INSPIRED TEXT!

Here is the contrast:

I have used scripture to interpret scripture to determine the date and meaning of Revelation.

Jerry has given us Johnson, Barnes, Pliny, etc..

So, just who is it that truly believes in the all-sufficiency / authority of scripture? It is not Jerry. He cannot come to his late date conclusions based solely on the “all sufficient” text. He is totally reliant on the external, uninspired testimony of men who lived long after the Revelation was given.

A FINAL AFFIRMATIVE ARGUMENT.

Malachi 3:1-5: Notice the elements:

1.) The coming of “the Messenger” (v. 1).

1.) The Messenger would prepare the people for the coming of the Lord– the Great And Terrible Day of the Lord (:3:1-2; 4:5-6).

2.) The Lord would come “suddenly” to his temple– in judgment: “who shall stand at the Day of his coming”; “I will come near to you in judgment” (v. 2, 5).

3.) The Lord would come in judgment of the sorcerer, adulterer, liars, those who mistreated the widows, orphans, and turned away the foreigner (Gentiles)– V. 5.

4.) Verse 5 is a direct citation of Exodus 22:21-23; Leviticus 19-20 and Deuteronomy 27:19.

5.) This coming would be in application of the Law of Blessings and Cursings (Deuteronomy 28-30) at the Day of the Lord.

6.) This punishment would be national punishment: “I will punish you with the edge of the sword” (Exodus 22)– and national destruction (Deuteronomy 28:43f).

It is indisputable therefore that Law of Blessings and Cursings (the law) would still be in effect at the Great Day of the Lord of Malachi 3:5-4:5-6. Now…

John the Baptizer was undeniably the Messenger (Elijah) foretold by Malachi (Matthew 11:10).

John foretold the coming of judgment: “Who warned you to flee from the wrath about to come?”; “the axe is already at the root”; “his winnowing fork is already in his hand” (Matthew 3:7-12).

John, as the messenger / Elijah, was therefore preparing for the coming of the Lord in application of the Law of Blessings and Cursings.

Jerry claims that the Law of Blessings and Cursings died at the cross.

Inspiration demands that Malachi 3:5-4:5-6 be fulfilled at the coming of the Lord in judgment, in application of Mosaic Covenant wrath.

That was not the Cross / Pentecost.

You can’t apply the provisions of a dead covenant.

John (The Messenger / Elijah) foretold “the wrath to come” –judgment on Israel– and said it was near.

Paul foretold “the wrath to come” (1 Thessalonians 1:10)– and said judgment on Israel was about to fall, because (along with blood guilt) THEY WERE DENYING THE GENTILES THEIR PLACE IN THE KINGDOM (1 Thessalonians 2:14-16).

When Paul wrote, John’s “wrath to come” had not yet fallen, but was near.

If the coming of the Lord of Malachi 3:1-5; 4:5-6 did not occur soon, inspiration fails.

If Jerry’s view of the death of Torah is correct, the coming of Malachi 3-4 had to take place between John and the cross.– BUT NO SUCH COMING OCCURRED AT THAT TIME!

Jesus did come in AD 70.

Thus, Torah was still valid and applicable in AD 70.

Jerry claims that the Day of the Lord of Joel 2 / Acts 2 is the end of time. But see this chart– JOEL 2 / ACTS 2. If he is right,

TORAH REMAINS VALID UNTIL THE END OF TIME.

JERRY, WHEN DID THE LORD COME IN JUDGMENT OF ISRAEL– PUNISHING THEM WITH THE EDGE OF THE SWORD– AFTER JOHN’S MINISTRY, BUT BEFORE THE CROSS– IN FULFILLMENT OF MALACHI 3:1-5?

Now, don’t miss the fact that in Revelation 6:12f John anticipated the Day of God’s wrath– the Great Day of Malachi (Joel 2; Isaiah 2-4). THIS IS THE DAY FORETOLD BY JOHN. But, this means that Revelation 6 would be the application of Mosaic Covenant Wrath.

This argument alone establishes my affirmative, and falsifies everything Jerry has said.

Now to Jerry’s charts.

GENTILES AND TORAH

GENTILES– NECESSARY

MATTHEW 23- LUKE 18– REVELATION

LXX-2 THESSALONIANS 1

ROMANS 7

2 THESSALONIANS’ 1- RELIEF

HYMENAEAUS

SUFFERING IN PETER

SODOM

SODOM #2

WHERE THE LORD WAS SLAIN

THAT GREAT CITY

ROME AND THE WEDDING

LET THE WICKED REMAIN WICKED

EN TACHEI

SUMMARY

McDonald’s Fourth Rebuttal

Back

Home

Categories: Debates

McDonald’s Third Rebuttal

September 29, 2011 4 comments

When Jesus died on the cross, he fulfilled the law, but that did not mean that everything would happen immediately. Jesus told the Father “I have glorified thee on earth, I have finished the work that thou gavest me to do” (Jno. 17:4). Had Jesus finished everything, literally by that time? No, because he had not yet died on the cross, but he had set things in motion that would put him on the cross and would cause his work to be finished. In the same manner when Christ died on the cross, he set things in order that would fulfill everything. Thus when he died on the cross the law was fulfilled. He says that I ignored his argument which he lays out in the following chart. However a look at the following chart will show that I did not ignore anything.

But while we are on the topic of ignoring people’s arguments, I made the following statement on the next chart and Don ignored it. I wonder why? I think the reason is clear. Martha understood the resurrection of the dead to be a literal bodily resurrection. Jesus, obviously, understood this when he told Martha that Lazarus wouldn’t have to wait until the resurrection of the dead to be raised. I would say that whatever Jesus understood something to be is what that would be.

The following chart shows what I said about the song, originally, and it is all that I said. Don wants to act as if I have changed my position, but I haven’t. I maintain that the song in the first instance was sang by Israel at the beginning of their coming out of bondage, and the second song was sang by Spiritual Israel, during their persecution. Notice what I said about this song in my first affirmative. So I have said the same thing in both rebuttals. Don has no response so he accuses me of changing positions. Israel’s latter end in the song in Deut. 32:20 was not A.D. 70, but was Israel’s end in their apostasy from God. I would quote commentaries, but then Don would complain about me quoting from uninspired men (which he does frequently with impunity). The song that was sang in John’s day was not about the same thing. This song was a song that was sang in John’s vision was not literally sang by the saints, it was part of a vision of the persecution what the early Christians were going through. Notice the chart concerning Ray Summers on the 144,000. Don needs to understand that this was not written to fleshly Israel, but to the “seven churches which are in Asia” (Rev. 1:4). Those seven churches are named: unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea” (Rev. 1:11). When one looks at these verses, one can see that Revelation was not written to the children of fleshly Israel. While the last two chapters still apply to people today, all of this was directly applicable to those saints in those seven churches.

So for Don to make the statement, he made, only shows that (a) he either is not reading what I write, or (b) he is purposely trying to misdirect the reader from reading what I said by claiming that I have abandoned my claim. I have pointed that the song was sang in Moses’ day, and was led by Joshua, the son of Nun. This was about Israel and her life after Egyptian bondage. However, the other is sang by SPIRITUAL Israel in reference to the persecutions they underwent. How does that constitute a contradiction?

Don completely ignored everything I have said about the resurrection in this debate. He won’t deal with it because he can’t. Paul condemned the church in Corinth for not believing in the resurrection of the dead. Paul states that if there was no resurrection of the dead, then Christ had not been raised. Don denies the resurrection of the dead. He defines the resurrection as: “the restoration of the life lost in Adam.” He can’t say that he means “physical” life because he does not believe that the dead literally rose in A.D. 70. He understands the resurrection as a spiritual resurrection so the implication is that Christ never rose from the dead (1 Cor. 15:13). Therefore his position denies the resurrection of the dead. Martha understood that the resurrection of the dead would be when people actually rose from the dead, but Don does not understand it as such. He believes that the Law of Moses was still in effect until the resurrection, which he says happened in A.D. 70. He believes that the “power of the Holy people was the Torah” even though Paul denied that the Torah had any power. Notice the following chart on which we find arguments to show the fallacy of Don’s position.

Don asked the following question in his second affirmative: “Question #1 for Jerry, did God call the gentiles to be his people in Moses’ day?” My response was: “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.” I clearly stated that it was always God’s intention to bring the Gentiles in, and this is what Paul was discussing in Rom. 10:19-21. Don uses the statement “I don’t know if Moses ever stated this or not” and claims it was an act of desperation. I don’t see what was so desperate about it, since I had already stated that it was always God’s intentions to bring the Gentiles in. However, Deuteronomy is not referring to A.D. 70 since the Gentiles came in before A.D. 70. If Don is saying that the Torah was to remain valid until the conversion of the Gentiles, then it became invalid before A.D. 70. It wasn’t the Torah that the Gentiles were under. They were under Patriarchal law. The Law of Moses was given only to Jews. While there were Gentile converts to it; they lived as Jews. However, the Gentile people (as a whole) were not bound by Mosaic Law. For Don to pick on my statement and call it an act of desperation is an act of desperation, and if that’s all he has, he has nothing. However, for him to say that the song of Revelation 14 and the song of Deuteronomy 32:19-21 are the same songs, is erroneous. There were actually three songs sang in Revelation. The first was a “new song” (Rev. 5:9). The second was the new song in Rev. 14. Then in Revelation 15 they sang the song of Moses, which was the song sang in Exodus 15, and it became the song of the Lamb, but no where do they sing the song of Deuteronomy 32:19-21.

Don’s next statement is another act of desperation: “I noted that Jerry claimed that had Jesus and Paul truly preached the hope of Israel that they would have been accepted. Jerry denied saying this, and challenged me to produce it. Well, Jerry said: ‘If Jesus’ intent was to come and marry Israel and Judah, why did the Israelites want him dead?'” Here is the actual statement: “Jerry says that if Paul preached the hope of Israel,  they would have accepted his message. Well, the remnant of Israel did accept it!” Now what I said was “If Jesus’ intent was to come and marry Israel and Judah, why did the Israelites want him dead?” Where did I say that the Israelites accepted Paul’s preaching the hope of Israel? I never said it, read what I did say!

He continues: “Unbelievably, Jerry says resurrection was not Israel’s salvation.” Here is exactly what I said: “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.” No where did I state or even imply that the resurrection was not Israel’s salvation. I said that the resurrection was promised to the Jews, but also to all men. It wasn’t part of the law of Moses (If it was part of the Law of Moses it would have applied solely to the Jews), but a prophecy that was made during the time the law was in effect. I also stated: “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).” If this is the statement he is talking about he is wrong again. I said that Romans 11:27 has reference to the church, not fleshly Israel. Israel’s salvation was the same as the Gentile’s salvation—Jesus Christ our Lord. His resurrection from the dead is essential for both Jew and Gentile to have salvation. Don denies that Jesus rose from the dead because he teaches that there is no, literal, resurrection of the dead. Thus it is Don who denies that the resurrection is Israel’s salvation because he denies the resurrection of the dead.

He brings up a Chart to show that Paul was speaking of the same thing that Isaiah was speaking of. Notice my chart in response. Also notice Isaiah 25:6-9. Then Paul says: “(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them” (Rom 11:8-9). Paul is not quoting Isaiah 25:6-9 in Romans 11:8,9, he is referencing Isaiah 29:10: “For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered. Does Don even bother to check these scriptures before writing?

Matthew 8:11-13 is speaking of the judgment, but it does not say when the judgment will come. Don sees a passage on the judgment and he automatically thinks “A.D. 70.” Jesus said “And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Mat 8:11-12). For a look at the context of these verses look at the following chart. Jesus is simply saying that in the resurrection, people like the Centurion will be saved while the children of the kingdom are lost; because of their lack of faith. Don sees a verse that deals with the judgment and A.D. 70 automatically pops into his mind regardless of the context.

Israel’s salvation was Jesus Christ. His resurrection made it possible for us to have salvation. In the general resurrection we will all be raised to judgment and those who are righteous will be saved, but those who are unrighteous will be lost. So the resurrection is not salvation or condemnation. The resurrection is the event where all men will be judged whether good or bad (2 Cor. 510).

Thayer says it means to dispatch briefly, execute or finish quickly, or speedily. It is a brief dispatch, and a quick (fast) execution. Don wants to use the word “shortly” because he wants it to mean “soon,” and this is not what Paul was saying. Paul was quoting Isaiah where he prophecied about a remnant being saved. Paul says that Isaiah said that God would finish the work and cut it short (as opposed to letting it continue) and perform a short (brief) work on the earth. Putting Dungan’s rule of substitution into play let us substitute “soon” for short and see what it looks like: “For he will finish the work, and cut it ‘soon’ in righteousness: because a ‘soon’ work will the Lord make upon the earth” (Rom 9:28). Does the word “soon” sound proper here? Look at the word “shortly.” “For he will finish the work and cut it ‘shortly’ in righteousness: because a ‘shortly’ work will the Lord make upon the earth.” Nope, that doesn’t work either. So let us look at the words “off short” and “brief.” “For he will finish the work and cut it ‘off short,’ in righteousness, and a ‘brief’ work upon the earth.” In other words, rather than let this continue it will be cut short, like a meeting is cut short because of a certain circumstance.

Don’s quotation of Thayer is like everything else he quotes, only half-way. Notice the following chart. Now I am not advocating that every word needs to be quoted when quoting a source, but the way that Don butchers his sources, it is always good to go back and see what was really said. Thayer did not say that it was translated “shortly” or “soon,” (which is what Don means by shortly). It is translated as short, cut off short, briefly, or something of that nature, but I have not found where it is to be translated as shortly in the sense of it being soon. He brings up different translations so translating, but he can find a translation that will translate things any way he pleases, but notice how he criticizes me for sticking with the KJV.

He wants us to look at what Barnes wrote, but a look at the next chart reveals that Barnes does not take Don’s position. Yes, he quoted Duet. 32:21 to show that the gospel was to go to the Gentiles. However, Don’s usage of this is totally opposite of what Barnes’ was.

Now here is the “Achilles Heel” of Don’s position. He explicitly asked: “Jerry, have you never read Isaiah 25:6-9 (the source of Paul’s resurrection hope in 1 Corinthians 15:54f)?” Now why is this so deadly to Don? Because Don claims that Isaiah 25:6-9 refers to the time of A.D. 70, and he says that the source of 1 Cor. 15:54f is Isaiah 25:6-9. 1 Corinthians chapter 15 is discussing the resurrection. (a) 1 Cor. 15:1-8 is dealing specifically with the preaching of the resurrection, how that Christ died and rose again, and was seen by others after his resurrection. (b) In 1 Cor. 15:9-11 Paul defends his apostleship. © In 1 Cor. 15:12-23 Paul deals with the false doctrine that there is no resurrection. (side note* he is not talking about any spiritual resurrection, but of a literal, bodily, resurrection from the dead). (d) the rest of the chapter deals with things of the final judgment of man and Christ’s return.

Now, the problem that Don has is this: “If Isaiah 25:6-9 is the source of Paul’s information on the resurrection in 1 Corinthians chapter 15 (specifically verses 54 and following), and if 1 Corinthians 15 is dealing with a literal, bodily resurrection where the dead will rise, then Isaiah 25:6-9 must be dealing with a literal, bodily resurrection where the dead will rise. And if that is true then Don only has two alternatives: (1) Either the literal, bodily resurrection has not yet happened (because this would happen when Christ would return), or (2) the literal, bodily resurrection took place at the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, and all the dead rose up out of their graves, Christ returned and literally judged the world, and all has been fulfilled. If this is the case, then the church no longer exists, baptism is no longer valid, we are no longer authorized to partake of the Lord’s Supper. Our lives today, are meaningless because we have no hope of salvation. That is the “Achilles Heel” of Don’s position. He only has these alternatives. Question: Did all that were in the grave, literally rise in A.D. 70? I asked this question in my second rebuttal and Don left it unanswered. So, without equivocation, without hesitation, answer the question. He won’t answer it now any more than he would answer it last time. He won’t answer it because it destroys his position.

He wants everyone to think that Paul was talking about some spiritual resurrection of the spiritual life lost in Adam, but that is not what Paul was talking about. Let me demonstrate with the following chart.

Paul was talking about Christ literally being raised from the dead. Now if he is saying that Paul was dealing with some kind of spiritual resurrection, then he is forced to say that Christ never actually rose from the dead, that he is still in the grave. This does two things: either (a) it says that Christ’s body is still in Joseph’s tomb, which flies in the face of the apostle Peter who clearly stated that Christ had been literally raised up and his body was not in the tomb as David’s body was (Acts 2:29-32), thus denying the inspiration of the Bible. Could this be why he answered the preliminary question on the all-sufficency of the Bible in the way he did: “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? Answer: The Bible is definitely its own best commentary.” The question was “Do you believe that the Bible is all sufficient, and it needs nothing to explain it for it is its own best commentary?” He didn’t answer as to whether or not he believes that the bible is all sufficient. Maybe he doesn’t believe that it is. If it isn’t all sufficient, then it isn’t inspired.

You know, he charged “riverofeden‘s” position to be atheism, while RoE never took the position that God does not exist. He took the position that since the second coming has already occurred (his and Don’s position for RoE is an advocate of the A.D. 70 doctrine—just taken to its logical conclusion), then all of man has been judged and nothing applies to us today. However, he refuses to answer as to whether or not the Bible is all sufficient. If it is not all sufficient, then it is not inspired. If it is not inspired then we have no hope of salvation, we are without God. Ergo Don’s position is “atheism.”

Or (b) he denies that Christ literally rose from the dead, which in effect has the same implication, except that denial of the resurrection of Christ means that all today are still in their sins and have no hope of eternal life. Either way Don’s position is heresy.

He says that the second song was not sang by spiritual Israel, but by the 144 thousand, those who were saved from Israel. If the 144 thousand has reference only to the literal remnant of Israel, what hope does his position have for anyone now living since no Jew can trace his genealogy beyond A.D. 70? His position implies that only those (the 144 thousand) who lived before A.D. 70 have any hope. This is the position that RoE takes and Don calls his position atheism. This is Don’s position, he just won’t admit to it, so I guess by his own admission, he teaches atheism.

Heb. 10:37 is a quote from Hab. 2:3: “For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry,” “For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry” (Heb 10:37). What is Paul talking about? If you read the context of this you see that Paul is using Habakkuk’s statement to show that the church is to have faith, and not waver. He shows that as Habakkuk told Israel to have faith and wait, then the church is to have faith and wait. He was not applying the prophecy to anything, he just uses the statement to encourage the church to have faith. If you look at chapter 11 you see that Paul then teaches the church about faith. They were not to lose faith in God. Is this basically not the same thing as what Peter said when he wrote what he wrote in 2Pe 3:1-4?

He then tells them that the day of the Lord will come. He doesn’t say when, but that it will come. One of the problems that people have is waiting for the coming of the Lord. Most get impatient, and start setting dates; which is why premillenialists try to set the date for Christ’s return in the future, and the transmillenialists try to set it in the past (AD 70). Don is just as guilty as the dispensationalist who tries to set the date in the future. Don just sets it in the past. Instead of having faith and waiting for Christ to return in his own time (we need to remember that God is not on our clock—as far as he is concerned “one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as one day”) people start getting impatient, and this can lead to a failure to live faithfully. Christ will come when God is ready for him to come. So just as Israel was to have faith about the messiah, we are to have faith about the second coming.

He falsely accuses me of misrepresenting his position, but I have misrepresented nothing. Notice the following chart for my response. His “consistent argument” is faulty because the coming of the Lord in Isaiah 59:21 is not the second coming of Christ or the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Isaiah tells Israel that their sins (not the sins of their children, cf Ezk. 18:20) have separated between them and their God. Their sins of having defiled hands, fingers of iniquity, lying lips, (Isa. 59:4,5), and having hands that shed innocent blood (Isa. 59:7) will be punished. It has nothing to say about what will be done during the Christian age, but the punishment that fleshly Israel would suffer because of the sins that they had committed in their day.

Just as Israel had shed innocent blood, so the Jews of Jesus’ day have shed innocent blood. The same punishment of shedding innocent blood (from the time of Abel to Zechariah) will be applied to them for what they have done, not what Isaiah said their forefathers had done. Remember, the son is not punished for the sins of the father, but for his own sins. The Jews of Jesus’ day had followed right in the footsteps of their forefathers. Thus Don’s argument is not valid because the major and minor premises have nothing to do with each other except in comparison.

Don brings up Isa. 27:9-13 and argues that the consitutent elements of it teach that all this would happen in AD 70, but notice what happens if his position is correct: (1) If Don’s position is correct then the altar was not destroyed until A.D. 70, but both the Bible and history tells us that it was destroyed by Babylon (the literal kingdom of Babylon). (2) If Don’s position is correct then the city was not forsaken until A.D. 70, but both the Bible and history teach us that Jerusalem was forsaken by the Jews when they went into Babylonian Captivity. (3) If Don’s position is correct then God had no mercy on the people he created until A.D. 70, but again both the Bible and history teach us that God did have mercy on his people when they were in Babylonian captivity. (4) If Don’s position is correct then the remnant was not saved UNTIL A.D. 70, but once again both the Bible and history teaches that a remnant did come out of captivity, go back to Jerusalem, rebuild the walls and the temple. Their soul salvation came when Christ died on the cross (Heb. 9:15). But Don’s position is that they had NO salvation until A.D. 70, some 35 years after Christ died on the cross.

Look at the following chart to see what Thomas Warren wrote concerning implication. In short this says that if a doctrine implies a false doctrine, the doctrine itself cannot be true, it must be false because truth will never imply false doctrine. Don’s doctrine implies false doctrine. (1) It teaches that the altar was not destroyed until A.D. 70, so I guess the book of Ezra is in error when it says records what it does in Ezra 3:2. How could they have built it (in Jerusalem) if it had never been destroyed? (2) It teaches that God’s people didn’t forsake Jerusalem until A.D. 70. How could God’s people have returned to Jerusalem if they hadn’t forsaken it? Maybe Ezra is wrong in verse 1 as well. (3) It teaches that God had no mercy for his people until A.D. 70, and it teaches that the remnant was not saved until A.D. 70.? But I guess maybe Ezra is wrong (Ezra 3:1-4). All of these are false doctrines as can be seen from both the Bible and history.

Here is what I said about Isaiah 59: “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 refuses to answer my question because he does not believe that the hope of Israel was the salvation of man through Jesus Christ our Lord. He believes that the hope of Israel was the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. In other words the remnant wasn’t saved until A.D. 70, and it wasn’t the act of Christ dying on the cross and being resurrected that saved them, but God bringing judgment upon the city of Jerusalem that saved them. My question is a valid question, but Don’ won’t answer it.

He makes a giant leap from Isaiah 27:1,2 to Romans 16:20 and says Leviathan in Isa. 27:1,2 is in reference to satan in Rom. 16:20. Where did he get this idea? There is nothing in Paul’s letter to indicate that he is quoting Isaiah. Paul is telling the church in Rome to mark false teachers for they that are such serve their own belly, not our Lord Jesus Christ (vs 17,18). He tells them that their obedience is come before all men, (v. 19), and then he says that God will bruise Satan for their sakes (v.20). Verses 1-16 and 21-27 are his salutations to Rome. So just where did he even imply that he was quoting the prophet Isaiah? Don just makes stuff up, and he has the audacity to accuse me of not dealing with text. Look at the following chart which deals with Don’s chart. The next chart deals with commentaries on Rom. 16:20.

If you look at the context, you will see that there is nothing here about the judgment, the resurrection, or any quote from Isaiah. Shepherd. Whiteside, Wacaster, and McClish all have the right idea. Don has to have this refer to the judgment so he can continue to propagate his false doctrine. He stretches scriptures, pulls them out of their contexts (as he has done with Rom. 16:20), and misapplies them wherever he wants to. There is no rime or reason to his application of certain scriptures, but as long as he can force a square peg into a round hole, he is satisfied because in his mind he is teaching the truth, and it matters not what the scriptures have to say. His doctrine, in his mind, is correct regardless.

Don has consistently argued that the doctrine of the resurrection is the Law of Moses because of the things prophesied during the time the Law of Moses was in effect. According to that idea then the doctrine of the resurrection was actually Patriarchal Law because Job spoke about it before Moses’ law was ever written (Job. 14:12-14).

So according to this the resurrection was Patriarchal law. No, I don’t think so. The doctrine of the resurrection is one that has always been taught, and it has always taught that the resurrection would be a literal, bodily resurrection of the body from the grave, and it would happen when the heavens would be no more. It would be at an appointed time, when all that are in the grave would rise again. This is not some spiritual resurrection, but a literal resurrection of bodies that had died.

He makes a wild leap from Isa. 27:10-13 to Romans 11:26,27 to the avenging the blood of all the martyrs to fulfillment in A.D. 70 and makes the incarnation and passion of Christ all about Israel shedding innocent blood. Romans 11:26,27 simply shows that the Gentiles were grafted in and when he says that “all Israel shall be saved” he was not saying that every person of the remnant of Israel would be saved, but rather that salvation was open to all of the remnant. Don’s argument isn’t that different from ROE, (who Don claims preaches atheism) who claims that the salvation was for Israel and only for Israel. The difference between Don Preston and ROE is that ROE is consistent in his beliefs and Don Preston isn’t. Preston wants to lay claim to salvation, but at the same time teaching that Christ’s incarnation and passion was all about Israel being judged for shedding innocent blood.

Notice his chart on Isa. 27:13 and the Olivet Discourse, and notice my chart in response. Also regarding his statement on Romans 11:8 and Isaiah 59, (1) I have already pointed out that Romans 11:8 is referencing Isaiah 29:10 not Isaiah 59. (2) I pointed out that Isaiah 59 is not discussing A.D. 70, but the sins that Israel was committing right then. (3) Therefore the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 had nothing to do with either of those passages, and it certainly was not the second coming of Christ in judgment on the world. In A.D. 70 God only came in judgment upon Jerusalem, this does not constitute Christ returning to judge the world.

Yes I do take the position that Romans 11:26,27 does not refer to the second coming of Christ. I take the position that it refers to salvation coming to the Jews and to all men. This happened before Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70. The church came into its established state (whether Don wants to call it an infant or whatever) it was still established on the day of Pentecost of Acts chapter 2, it wasn’t able to become mature until the Bible was completed (Eph. 4:11-13). Those Jews were baptized for the remission of their sins (Acts 2:38) and they were saved from their past sins that day, not some 35 years later. Don’s position makes them having to wait until A.D. 70 to have their sins washed away. No wonder he thinks that the Law of Moses was still in effect until A.D. 70. However, Paul declared “Ye who are justified by the law, ye are fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4). Paul also told Peter that “no flesh is justified by the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 2:16). Notice that he said both of these things prior to A.D. 70., but Don denies what Paul taught by inspiration. So who will we believe? As Peter and the apostles said “we ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

He brings up the fact that I apply Mt. 24:31 to A.D. 70, but he doesn’t show why I teach that verses 36ff don’t apply to A.D. 70. (1) Jesus was answering two questions, not one Tell us, when shall these things be?” (the first question) “and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?” (the second question). What did they mean by “when these things shall be?” Jesus had told them “See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” He had them look at the city and told them that when the city falls not one stone shall be left that has not been thrown down. They asked when this would happen, and then they asked what the sign of his coming would be at the end of the world. They equated the destruction with the end of time, but Jesus gives them signs to look for concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, but of the end of time he said “of that day and hour knoweth no man, not even the angels in heaven, but my Father only” (v.36). He proceeds to tell them that things will continue on as normal (concerning his second coming) until he comes again. Peter tells us that this will happen as a thief in the night (2 Pet.3:10). It will be at a time when no one expects it.

I do not deny Jesus’ words in Mt. 24:31ff, what I deny is Don’s application of Jesus’ words. He wants the entire chapter to refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, but Jesus himself gave signs to look for concerning the destruction of the city. In verse 34 he said that the present generation would not pass until those things, that he spoke of in his answer of the first question, would happen. He said in verse 35 that those things would pass away, but his word would not pass away. In other words, his word is true. However, in verse 36 he says “but of that day and hour knoweth no man.” What day and hour is he talking about? He is now turning his attention to the second question. He has given signs regarding the destruction of the city, but of his second coming there would be no signs at all. Everything would be just like it was in the days of Noah before the flood. They were eating, drinking, marrying and giving in marriage and knew not until the flood came. That is the way it will be with the second coming. Life will be going on as usual, and it will suddenly happen. There are no signs, no passages of scripture to look to which will give us a hint as to when this is going to be. Only the Father has that knowledge. Once again, I do not deny Jesus’ words, I believe them and embrace them. I am not the one who has changed position on the second coming. I am not the one who has to manipulate scripture to get what I believe. I am not the one who has to claim that 2 Thess. 1:9 is a verbatim quote of Isaiah 2:19 in the LXX. Don, thou art the man who has done that.

Then he tried to show that because I said that because the judgment was pictured in the feast of trumpets that I was contradicting myself. No, I was not! The passover feast was a shadow of the Lord’s Supper, and the Lord’s Supper was established out of the passover. So, does this mean that the Lord’s Supper was a part of the Law of Moses? Come on Don, you can do better than that, surely you can! There were many things in the Old Law that were shadows of things in the New. They were shadows, not the thing themselves (Heb. 10:1-4). The blood of bulls and of goats were a shadow of the blood of Christ. Does this mean that preaching on the blood of Jesus Christ is preaching the law of Moses? See how absurd his position is?

He says that I admitted that Col. 2:16,17 show that the feast days had not been accomplished, that they were about to come. For him to make such an accusation shows either (a) that he has not read my remarks regarding this, or (b) he is purposely misconstruing what I did say. Either way he is wrong. Look at the following chart and you will see exactly what I said regarding this.

Notice his chart on D-E-A-D and my chart in response. I never said that the promises were dead. I said that the law, that the promises were made under is dead (again, if the promise of the resurrection was part of the Law of Moses, then it was given solely to the Jews. What part of the Law of Moses was ever given to anyone other than the Jews?). This is what Paul said in Romans 7:1-4. Don has never even attempted to deal with Romans 7, Galatians 5:4 or anything else on the law being dead except Col. 2:16,17. His only response there is because the present infinitive is used this means that it was about to happen, but a look at the previous chart will dispel that theory for ever more. Look at the next chart for a discussion on the present active indicative and infinitive.

The promises were not fulfilled until the Old Covenant was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14-17). When that happened then the New Covenant could come in and the promises made under the Old Covenant could be fulfilled. Israel lost out on being God’s people a long time before this. When they were taken into Babylonian captivity they lost their standing with God and only a remnant would return. It was out of that remnant that the church began, so I guess according to Don’s philosophy the church was part of the Old Testament. That being the case then the church ceased to exist after Jerusalem was destroyed, according to Don’s position.

Why was it necessary to preach to the Jews first? Because they had been God’s chosen people, and they had been God’s chosen people because they were more receptive to God. God made the promise to them that they would receive the gospel.

His chart on Christ the High Priest is fallacious as can be seen from my chart in response.

Don is making 1 Cor. 15:53-58 harder to understand than it needs to be. Paul discusses the corruptible putting on incorruption, and the mortal putting on immortality. When this happens, then the saying that is written can be brought to pass. What is that saying? Read 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” (Isa 25:8). Paul only quotes part of Isaiah 25:8 “death is swallowed up in victory.” Then he asks two questions: (1) O grave where is thy sting, and (2) O death where is thy victory. Then he says (1) the sting of death is sin, and (2) the strength of sin is the law. Those two rhetorical questions are not part of Isaiah 25:8, but they are a quotation of Hosea 13:14. The sting of death is sin, which is what Rom. 6:23 tells us, and the strength of sin is the law. Why the Law? Because the law of Moses had no salvation attached to it, all it did was to let them know that they had sin in their lives. “But NOW,” he says, “thanks be to God for his unspeakable gift.” What is that unspeakable gift? God gives us victory through Jesus Christ our Lord. In other words, we don’t have to worry about death any more because the law has been done away and death has no more dominion over us. We now have victory through Christ our Lord. According to Don’s position they would not have victory until Jerusalem fell, but Paul says that they had it at the time he was writing.

Notice, if the resurrection was part of the Old Law, and if the resurrection was about people coming out of literal graves, then the Law of Moses is still in effect, according to Don’s argument. The following syllogisms will take care of many of the repetitious arguments that Don has made in his third affirmative. He seems to be of the opinion that if he repeats something enough that what he states will become true.

Don says the resurrection was an inherent part of the Law of Moses. A. Job knew of the resurrection before Mosaic law (Job 14:12-14), (B) Martha told Jesus that Lazarus would rise from the dead on the day of the resurrection (John 11:20-25). Now if the dead did not rise out of their graves at the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, then the resurrection didn’t happen during the destruction of Jerusalem, in A.D. 70. Notice the following chart to show the absurdity of this position.

Well…so much for Don’s position of the Resurrection being an inherent part of the Law of Moses. Notice the meaning of “inherent:” (http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/inherent).

So unless Don can argue that the word “inherent” (notice definition #4) does not have the aforementioned meanings then he is going to have to either argue that Job lived and died under the Law of Moses, or he going to have to admit that the resurrection is not an inherent part of the Law of Moses. Don seems to think that if something under the law of Moses was a shadow of something under the law of Christ then the anti-type itself was a part of the Law of Moses. This would mean that (a) the law of Christ was part of the Law of Moses, (b) the Lord’s Supper is part of the Law of Moses because both of those things were shadowed under the law of Moses. The law of Moses was a shadow of the law of Christ. The passover feast was a shadow of the Lord’s Supper. Don writes: “resurrection, AN INTRINSIC ELEMENT OF GOD’S COVENANT PROMISES MADE TO ISRAEL” (Preston’s Third Affirmative). Notice that he used the word “intrinsic.” Now notice the definition of the word “intrinsic:” (http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/intrinsic ).

So according to Don the resurrection was situated within and belongs solely to the Law of Moses. Thus there is no resurrection under the Christian dispensation, and there was no resurrection under the Patriarchal Dispensation; only under the Mosaic Dispensation. Therefore, since the Law of Moses has been fulfilled (even according to Don) we have no hope of the resurrection because we are not under the Law of Moses. If we have no hope of the resurrection, then we have no hope of heaven. Thus we are all lost.

I never said that the resurrection was an inherent element of the Festal Sabbaths. I said that Festal Sabbaths were shadows of the Resurrection. If that makes the resurrection an inherent part of the Festal Sabbaths then the blood sacrifice of Christ was an inherent part of the blood sacrifices of bulls and goats. The problem with that is that the blood of bulls and of goats cannot take away sin (Heb. 10:4), and the blood of Christ can take away sin (1 Jn. 1:7). So does Don think that the blood of Christ is an inherent part of the blood of bulls and goats? Yes or No! Regarding his argument on the festive Sabbaths let us change “Sabbaths” with “blood of bulls and goats” and see if he will accept it:

The blood of bulls and goats were fundamentally part of GOD’S COVENANT WITH ISRAEL, right Don?

The blood of Christ was inextricably part of the blood of bulls and goats.

Thus, the blood of Christ was a fundamental element of ‘The Law’ and God’s covenant with Israel.

IF THE BLOOD OF CHRIST WAS NOT PART OF THE LAW OF MOSES, THEN NEITHER WAS THE BLOOD OF BULLS AND GOATS.”

Will Don accept this argument? If not, he cannot accept his argument.

Don makes a false statement concerning Romans 7:1-4. Paul said “ye have become dead to the law so that ye could be married to another.” Another what? Another law! If they were dead to the law, it is because the law was taken out of the way. A wife is dead to her marriage relationship when her husband dies. If he is still alive she cannot be considered dead to that relationship. This is what Paul was talking about when he used the marriage law to explain the law of Moses and their relationship to it. If the law of Moses was still alive they could not be married to another. Don overlooks those facts in Romans 7:1-4.

What did Jesus mean in Matthew 5:17,18? (Notice the chart). If you look at the context of this statement Jesus was saying that Jesus was not arguing that the resurrection would take place before the law could pass away. He was saying that the Old system would be fulfilled when it had served its purpose.

One concern we have with Jewish history is knowing our roots. The promise of the resurrection and/or salvation was not indigenous to Mosaic law. Both were promised under Patriarchal law. Another concern is as Paul sated in Romans 15:4, we can use the OT scriptures to learn from and be admonished by. However, OT law was done away with at the cross.

Notice the chart on the LXX.

Here is his chart on false prophets, and mine in response.

His chart on the last days then mine.

His chart on en tachi and my response.

His chart on the wedding now mine.

Another chart on the wedding now mine.

His chart on evidence of Revelation’s date. My response to his chart.

His article, and my next chart.

His chart on Luke and Matthew. Now notice my chart.

His chart on Gentiles, Jerusalem and OT promises then mine.

His chart on Gentiles and Torah, then my chart.

His chart on Israel in Abraham’s day now my chart.

His chart on Paul about to be the resurrection and my response chart#1, chart#2

His chart on when did Nero persecute Asia. Now notice my chart#1, chart# 2, and chart #3.

His chart on my evidence for Domitian persecution. Now notice my chart.

His chart on Sodom. Now notice my chart.

His chart on Joel 2 and my chart in response.

His 1stchart on the Great City, then mine.

His 2ndchart on the Great City, then my previous chart.

His 3rdchart on the Great City, then my previous chart.

His 4thchart on the Great City, now notice my previous chart.

His chart on Hymeneaus, now mine.

His chart on let the wicked remain, now notice my chart.

I asked Don some questions in my last article that Don has not responded to, and I would like for him to do so now. Also there were several arguments that Don did not respond to and they are listed on a chart. So it would be good if he could respond.

I have a question for Don: “Did Jesus teach a literal bodily resurrection from the dead”?

Here is another: Did Martha understand the resurrection to be a literal bodily resurrection from the dead?”

I now invite you to read Don’s final affirmative.

In Christ Jesus

Jerry D. McDonald

Preston’s Fourth Affirmative

Back

Home

Categories: Debates

The McDonald-Baty Debate

July 10, 2011 3 comments

DID CORNELIUS RECEIVE HOLY SPIRIT BAPTISM?

A WRITTEN DEBATE

Participants:

Jerry D. McDonald

&

Robert L. Baty

2009

Introduction


Categories: Debates

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