Larry Bunch Versus Don K. Preston
Don K. Preston’s Second Affirmative
Submitted 12-5-2006
Proposition: The Bible teaches that the Second (i.e. final) coming of Christ, the judgment and the resurrection of the dead occurred at the time of the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
Affirm: Don K. Preston
Deny: Larry A. Bunch
In my first, I noted that in response to my questions whether his eschatological hope is based on the O. T., Larry said he does not know. I then noted that the N. T. writers did not share his confusion or lack of knowledge about the source of their eschatology. This point stands, regardless of Larry’s insistence that he can/does understand eschatology. If the N. T. writers all appeal to the O. T. for their eschatological beliefs, then for Larry to say other wise, and to either deny or to ignore the connection is to indeed preach another gospel than did the N. T. writers. Their eschatology was the hope of Israel. Larry says his eschatology is the hope of the church, cut off from Israel. That is a different message.
Larry wrote: "Don, you seem to denigrate my lack of knowledge regarding the O.T.. Tell us, can one be saved eternally if one has only the N.T.?"
Larry, why don’t you tell us this:
First, is your eschatology, is your gospel, based on the yet future fulfillment of God’s O. T. promises to Israel?
, is your eschatology, is your , based on the yet future fulfillment of God’s O. T. promises to Israel?
Second, where did Paul say that Christians can and should find comfort and hope?
, where did Paul say that Christians can and should find comfort and hope?
Third, what scriptures did Paul say were able to make one wise to salvation?
, what scriptures did Paul say were ?
Fourth, to what scriptures did the N. T. writers appeal when they spoke of their eschatological hopes?
The O. T. is unequivocally the foundation and source of the N. T. gospel. So, what happens if one ignores, or divorces himself from the foundation? They misunderstand the N. T.!
, to what scriptures did the N. T. writers appeal when they spoke of their eschatological hopes?The O. T. is unequivocally the foundation and source of the N. T. gospel. So, what happens if one ignores, or divorces himself from the foundation?
Fifth, when Paul told the Ephesian elders that he had declared to them the full gospel, we know his gospel was based on, and drawn from, the O. T. as already proven. That raises the question, if we today fail to preach from the O.T. are we truly preaching the whole counsel of God?
, when Paul told the Ephesian elders that he had declared to them the full gospel, we know his gospel was based on, and drawn from, the O. T. as already proven. That raises the question, if we today fail to preach from the O.T.
With these things said, let me apologize to Larry if he took my comments personally. Larry, I do not question your sincerity, nor devotion to the Lord or His truth. I meant no personal insult. When I noted your lack of knowledge of the O. T. however, I simply quoted you. You have admitted, three times, your ignorance of the O. T,. and your repeated insistence that you are not going to study the O. T.. I was simply pointing out the implications and consequences of this, in contrast to the N.T. writers. More on this below.
Larry argues that he does not need to study or know the O. T.. This is a false assumption. It assumes that without knowing the proper context of the N.T. texts, you can properly understand what the N. T. texts are saying. However, it is the O. T. that serves as the source and context of the N. T. passages, as we have proven beyond doubt. So, Larry’s refusal to consider, to even study, the O. T. source and context of N. T. eschatological passages calls his hermeneutic into question. It takes both the O. T. and the N. T. to proper interpret.
Larry, is it possible to properly exegete scriptures without knowing and considering the proper context of the scriptures? The answer of course is no. A scripture taken out of context is a pretext!
The answer of course is no. A scripture taken out of context is a pretext!
On Daniel 9
Larry has exhibited confusion on Daniel 9. In response to my question about when Daniel 9 was fulfilled he said, "I don’t know," but cited Wallace to the effect that it was fulfilled no later than A.D. 70.
When I stated that Daniel 9 extends no further than A.D. 70, Larry then said, "I’m not sure that I clearly agree with this or not!"
Then, when I asked him for clarification: "Are the seventy weeks of Daniel 9 completely fulfilled?" he responded, "Tentatively, I say, "Yes." However, that does not include the end of the world and the final judgment with reward and punishment dealt out by the Lord."
The problem is that Larry is assuming a doctrine of the "end of the world," and has not offered one jot or tittle as proof. Simply generically alluding to 2 Peter 3 does not constitute proof of his position, either.
He has stated that he disagrees with my view, but that is not the point! We know that.
Larry must, instead of simply saying he disagrees, prove why my exegesis of Daniel is wrong. Larry, is it not presumptive to claim to know the truth on eschatology, even though you admittedly reject the O. T. source of the doctrine, and say that you do not intend to study that source?
Is that not something like making up your mind before all the evidence is considered, no matter how critical that evidence is?
Is that not presuming that the source texts of the N. T. eschatological prophecies can offer no insight into the doctrine?
I fully concur that Daniel 9 says not one word about the end of the material world.
It says not one word about the end of the Christian age.
It does however, predict the resurrection!
It does limit the fulfillment to the end of the Old Covenant age of Israel!
And that is the point!
So, Larry, please clear up the confusion, and tell us plainly, Are the seventy weeks of Daniel 9 completely fulfilled? Yes or No?
For Larry to falsify my affirmative, as I have noted repeatedly, Larry must show that the putting away of sin foretold by Daniel 9 has nothing to do with the time of the resurrection. He has not even tried to do so, and cannot.
I argued, directly from Daniel 9:24-27, that
Seventy weeks were determined to put away sin. Larry, is this true or not?
The putting away of sin is inextricably connected to the resurrection from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:54-56)– in fulfillment of God’s O. T. promises to Israel. Larry, is this true, or false?
Therefore, the resurrection from the dead is inextricably tied to the consummation of the seventy weeks– in fulfillment of God’s O. T. promises to Israel.
This leads to this:
The resurrection from the dead is inseparably tied to the consummation of the seventy weeks.
But the seventy weeks ended at the time of the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
Therefore, the resurrection of the dead occurred at the time of the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
Did Larry address the argument? No.
I noted that the only way that Larry could falsify my argument is to prove that the putting away of sin in Daniel 9 is different from the putting away of sin in Corinthians. Did Larry even attempt to delineate between these texts? Not a word.
Both Daniel 9 and 1 Corinthians 15 are about the conquering of sin.
Both Daniel 9 and 1 Corinthians 15 anticipated the fulfillment of God’s O .T. promises to Israel about the putting away of sin.
Daniel 9 would be fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Paul said, to living, breathing human beings, "We shall not all sleep" (1 Corinthians 15:50-51). Paul affirmed that his generation (that is not an emphatic statement about the person of Paul, but a statement that his generation would not pass before the resurrection.)
Paul’s doctrine of the resurrection is from and based on the fulfillment of the O. T. promises to Israel.
Larry insists that his doctrine of the resurrection is unrelated to the O. T. promises to Israel–or at the very least, he does not know if his resurrection doctrine is based on the O.T. promises to Israel.
I asked Larry, " Is the overcoming of sin a resurrection motif?" He responded: "I suppose it depends on what you mean by the question. (motif 1 : a usually recurring salient thematic element (as in the arts); especially: a dominant idea or central theme 2 : a single or repeated design or color) If one desires to be raised to life eternal in Heaven, then sin must be forgiven by the sacrifice of Jesus."
This is evasion.
Larry, you quoted Willis to the effect that the resurrection and the taking away of sin are synchronous events. Now, you say I did not give the citation when I agreed with Willis. I was referring to the Willis citation that you gave. But this is not about what Willis did or did not say.
Larry, is the putting away of sin inextricably linked with the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15? Yes or No?
If it is, then I ask again, is the putting away of sin in Corinthians the same as the putting away of sin in Daniel? Yes or No?
If Daniel and Corinthians speak of different ends, of different ages, different events, different putting away of sin, yet all in fulfillment of O.T. promises made to Israel, please prove this by scripture!
On the Atonement
Larry wrote: "Jesus is not coming "to consummate the atonement and bring salvation to a reality" as Don affirms."
Let’s examine this a little closer, as I resume my affirmative on Daniel 9.
Here is my argument: The seventy weeks were determined to make the atonement ( Daniel 9:24).
The atonement work of Christ would be perfected at his second coming (Hebrews 9:28).
Therefore, the second coming of Christ, i.e. the time of the resurrection, is confined to the seventy weeks of Daniel 9.
Stated another way, the argument is:
The completed atonement work of Christ would bring salvation (i.e. at the parousia and resurrection) when man could enter the MHP.
But, the making of the atonement is limited to the seventy weeks of Daniel 9.
Therefore, the parousia and resurrection are limited to the seventy weeks of Daniel 9.
Now, Larry, the proper way for you to refute my arguments is to take the propositions, and prove that they are false. You have not examined even one of my major or minor premises, of any of my syllogisms. You have not offered one iota of refutation, other than to say I am wrong. That is not proof, and is somewhat less than convincing.
Larry denies that resurrection / parousia would finish the atonement, insisting that the atonement was finished at the Cross.
This patently violates the type / anti-type of Hebrews 9 in regard to the functions of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement.
Christ’s High Priestly actions were the anti-typical fulfillment of the O. T. High Priest’s actions on the Day of Atonement. True or False, Larry?
On the Day of Atonement, the Priest killed the sacrifice. Hebrews says "once at the end of the age, Christ has appeared to put away sin, by the sacrifice of himself."
Larry, was the Atonement completed at the singular point of the death of the sacrifice? Yes or No?
Was the death of Jesus the anti-typical fulfillment of the O. T. Day of Atonement sacrifice? Yes or No?
The High Priest went into the
Most Holy Place. Christ entered the
Most Holy Place(Hebrews 9:24).
Larry, was the Atonement completed before Christ entered the MHP? Yes or No?
Did Jesus have to enter the MHP, as part of the atonement process? Yes or No?
Was Christ’s entrance into the MHP the anti-typical fulfillment of the O. T. High Priest’s actions on the Day of Atonement, Yes or No?
The High Priest came out of the MHP to declare the Atonement accepted. (As long as the Priest stayed in the MHP, no one knew if the sacrifice was accepted.)
(As long as the Priest stayed in the MHP, no one knew if the sacrifice was accepted.)
Likewise, "to those who eagerly look for him he shall appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation for, the Law, having a shadow of good things to come, can never by those sacrifices which they make, make the comer thereto perfect." (Hebrews 9:28-10:1)
The "for" of Hebrews 10:1 tells us that Christ would come, "for" (because) the Law was a shadow. This demands that Christ’s parousia of 9:28 would be the anti-typ
ical fulfillment of the typical actions of the O. T. High Priest.
In other words, the Old Law and its typological functions were a shadow. Christ in his High Priestly function was the anti-typical fulfillment. Just as the High Priest killed the sacrifice, entered the Most Holy Place, and came back out, Jesus offered himself, and entered the MHP, and was set to appear "a second time, for salvation" for, the law was a shadow of good things about to come. (And, he was to come in "a very, very little while," a fact that Larry ignored).
It was necessary for the fulfillment of the typological Old Covenantal liturgical cultus that Christ fulfill every aspect of the High Priest’s Atoning function, and that included the coming out of the
Most Holy Place! Simply stated, if the High Priest did not come out of the
Most Holy Place, there was no atonement. That is why Hebrews 9:28 says, "to those who eagerly look for him, he shall appear a second time for salvation."
Larry, do not fail to answer these questions:
1.) Did the High Priest have to come out of the MHP to "bring salvation" and finish the Atonement, Yes or No? If your answer is "No," please give us some proof.
Did the High Priest have to come out of the MHP to "bring salvation" and , Yes or No? If your answer is "No," please give us some .
2.) According to Hebrews 9:28, would Christ have to come in order to bring salvation? Yes or No?
According to Hebrews 9:28, would Christ have to come in order to bring salvation? Yes or No?
3.) If Christ would come, to being salvation, is the coming of Christ in Hebrews 9:28 the completion of the atonement process begun by his death, Yes or No?
If Christ would come, , is the coming of Christ in Hebrews 9:28 the completion of the atonement process,
I argued that Christ’s parousia would be to complete the atonement, and the putting away of sin. Larry insists that if this is true that it destroys the Christian hope, and means that the saints before the parousia had no forgiveness. (Note: Larry’s doctrine of Hades proves that man has no forgiveness today. Sin is the one and only thing to keep man from the presence of God. Man today cannot enter the presence of God [Larry Bunch]. Therefore, sin is not truly forgiven today.)
Larry fails to understand the Biblical teaching on this issue.
First, the charismata were given to assure the consummation of the redemptive process (2 Corinthians 5:5; Colossians 1:12-13, 4:32). Larry, do we today have the charismata as the "arrabon" (guarantee), of the resurrection?
, the were given to assure the consummation of the redemptive process (2 Corinthians 5:5; Colossians 1:12-13, 4:32). Larry, do we today have the charismata as the "" (), of the resurrection?
Second, to affirm that the fulfillment of promises destroys the Christian’s faith fails to understand the nature and purpose of fulfillment. The fulfillment of the parousia and resurrection means that man can and does enter the MHP, whereas Larry’s eschatology denies that man enters the MHP.
, to affirm that the fulfillment of promises destroys the Christian’s faith fails to understand the nature and purpose of fulfillment. The fulfillment of the parousia and resurrection, whereas Larry’s eschatology denies that man enters the MHP.
Third, "Hope deferred makes the heart sick." (Proverbs 13:12). Larry’s eschatology has the parousia delayed for now 2000 years.
, "Hope deferred makes the heart sick." (Proverbs 13:12). Larry’s eschatology has the parousia delayed for now 2000 years.
Fourth, "But when the desire comes it is a tree of life." (Proverbs 13:12).
, "But when the desire comes it is a tree of life." (Proverbs 13:12).
Fulfillment does not destroy faith, it fortifies and confirms it!
Fifth, Hebrews says, "Now in a very, very little while, the one who is coming will come, and will not tarry" (Hebrews 10:35-37). This would be the coming for salvation of Hebrews 9:28, yet, per Larry, Christ has not yet come, he has delayed (deferred) his coming for salvation for 2000 years!
, Hebrews says, "Now in a very, very little while, the one who is coming will come, and will not tarry" (Hebrews 10:35-37). This would be the coming for salvation of Hebrews 9:28, yet, per Larry, Christ has not yet come, he has delayed (deferred) his coming for salvation for 2000 years!
In regard to the entrance into the MHP, I made an entire series of arguments, based on the emphatic statements of Hebrews 9:6-10. Larry said not one word in response, stating only in closing that even if Revelation 20 applies to A.D. 70, that it only proves him wrong on the question of Hades. Now, I do appreciate Larry’s tacit admission that he could perhaps be wrong on the Hadean issue. Nonetheless, he tries to mitigate the power and importance of this issue, by noting that brethren simply disagree on the issue.
Larry, you could not be more wrong in seeking to minimize the signi
ficance of this issue!
The question of Hades, the
Most Holy Place, the parousia, resurrection and salvation hinge on this issue. For you to seek to minimize the significance of this issue betrays your lack of understanding of Biblical eschatology.
Is the time of the destruction of Hades the time of the resurrection of the dead? Yes or No? Do not fail to answer this!
Could / can man enter into the MHP until the time of the destruction of "death and hades"? Yes or No? Do not fail to answer this!
Could man enter the MHP as long as the Old Covenant was valid? Yes or No?
Can (redeemed) man today enter the MHP? Yes or No? You have already said no.
You have already said
Therefore, since according to Larry, man does not and cannot enter the MHP today, of necessity,
There is no true forgiveness today.
The atonement has not been completed.
Israel remains the chosen people of God.
The Old Covenant and its Cultus remains valid, with the veil a reminder of the man’s separation from God.
Larry, it was the deficiency of the O.T. and its failure to give life (Galatians 3:20-21), that prevented man from entering the MHP.
You say that now, under the New Covenant of Christ, man still cannot enter the MHP.
Please explain for the readers, What is the deficiency of the New Covenant that still prevents man, although no longer under the O. T., from entering the MHP?
Let me repeat some of my arguments that were ignored.
The O. T. would remain valid –with no access to the MHP– until the time of the reformation, when man could then enter the MHP (Hebrews 9:6-10).
The time when man could enter the MHP is the time of the resurrection, and Christ’s second coming (Hebrews 9:28; Revelation 20:10-15).
Therefore, the O. T. would remain valid– with no access to the MHP– until the time of the resurrection and Christ’s second coming.
The O. T. would remain valid– with no access to the MHP– until the time of the resurrection and Christ’s second Coming."
But, the resurrection and Christ’s second coming have not occurred, and will not occur until the end of the current Christian age (Larry Bunch).
Therefore, the O.T. will remain valid– with no access to the MHP– until the resurrection and second coming of Christ at the end of the current Christian age.
Does Larry believe that the Old Covenant System will remain valid until the end of the current Christian age? He must if he believes that man cannot today enter the MHP!
Since Larry Bunch argues that man cannot today enter the MHP, of necessity, this means that the Old Covenant system remains valid, and that there is no forgiveness today.
It means that sin has not been removed. It means the atonement is not completed.
But if sin has not been removed, and the atonement remains incomplete, then the seventy weeks are not yet fulfilled.
If the seventy weeks have not been fulfilled, Israel remains the chosen, covenant people of God.
The irrefutable fact is that as long as man could not enter the MHP, the Mosaic Law remained valid. Larry claims that man today cannot enter the MHP until the end of the current Christian age.
Larry can claim that the O. T. was removed at the Cross all he wants. However, for him to insist that man today still goes to Hades falsifies his entire paradigm.
On Romans 11.
Finally, Larry insists that he is not going to study the O. T. and that he does not have to study the O.T. to properly understand the New. However, his confused and confusing comments on Romans 11 falsify his claims.
Essentially, Larry claims that the parousia mentioned in Romans 11:26f is referent to Christ’s first coming. Paul supposedly cites Isaiah 59 as predictive of Christ’s coming to inaugurate the preaching of the gospel so that Jews will be saved just like Gentiles since the establishment of the church. He co
uld not be more wrong. Isaiah 59, the source and context for Romans 11:26f, has nothing to do with Christ’s incarnation.
Paul was clearly anticipating the yet future, to him (not us), consummation of Israel’s promises at the parousia.
Paul was anticipating the fulfillment of the promise to take away the sin of Israel.
Daniel 9 limits the fulfillment of God’s dealings with O.T. Israel to the seventy weeks.
If the sin of Old Covenant Israel has not been taken away, Daniel 9 is unfulfilled, the seventy weeks remain unfulfilled, Israel remains God’s chosen people, the Old Covenant remains valid.
Romans 11 anticipated the consummation of God’s dealings with Old Covenant Israel, corporately considered, not the entire span of the Christian age!
Here is the proof, and the exposure of the deficiency of Larry’s refusal to study the O. T..
Romans 11:26-27 and the prediction of the coming of the Lord is a quote from Isaiah 59. (Larry admits this. Or at least he cites, with seeming approval, Wallace, who certainly did know this.)
But, the coming of the Lord predicted in Isaiah 59 would be the coming of the Lord in judgment (and salvation), of Israel for shedding innocent blood (Isaiah 59:3-7f, 15-20)!
The coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood was the coming of the Lord in A.D. 70 (Matthew 23:29-39; Matthew 24:9-34).
Therefore, the coming of the Lord in Romans 11:26-27 would be the coming of the Lord in A.D. 70!
By refusing to study the O. T. Larry has robbed himself–and those who listen to him– of the proper context for understanding and interpreting Romans 11 (and the rest of N. T. eschatology).
The coming of the Lord in Romans 11 cannot have been the incarnation. The coming of the Lord in Romans 11:26-27 was the coming of the Lord to judge Israel for shedding innocent blood! (Incidentally, Isaiah 27:10f is also cited in Romans 11. Isaiah 27 also predicted the salvation of Israel at the time of the judgment of Israel, i.e. when the altars would be made like dust.)
This all dove-tails perfectly with Daniel 9.
Daniel foretold the death of Messiah and the destruction of Jerusalem, which of course, would be the judgment on Israel for shedding innocent blood.
Isaiah 59 foretold the judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood.
Daniel 9 foretold the consummation of Israel’s eschatological and soteriological hope, and her covenant age.
Isaiah 59 foretold the consummation of Israel’s eschatological and soteriological hope, and her covenant age.
Daniel limits the final fulfillment of its prophecy to A.D. 70.
Romans 11 involves the putting away of the sin of Israel (Daniel 9), and the coming of the Lord to bring Israel’s eschatological and soteriological hope, and her covenant age, to fulfillment (Isaiah 59).
Therefore, Romans 11 is limited to, and would be fulfilled in A. D. 70, at the coming of the Lord.
Note: The time of this salvation of Israel would be "life from the dead" (Romans 11:15), i.e. resurrection!!
Both Daniel 9 and Isaiah 59 therefore serve as the proper context for understanding and correctly interpreting Romans 11. Yet, Larry vehemently tells us he will not study the O.T. and does not need to! His hermeneutic is fatally and fundamentally flawed.
Summary and Conclusion:
Here is what I have proven, so far:
1.) I have proven that the O. T. promises made to Israel were to be fulfilled at the end of Israel’s age, not the end of the Christian age.
I have that the O. T. promises made to Israel were to be fulfilled at the end of Israel’s age, not the end of the Christian age.
2.) I have proven that the putting away of sin and the making of the atonement is limited to the seventy weeks of Daniel 9, which Larry (seemingly) admits extends no further than A.D. 70.
I have that the putting away of sin and the making of the atonement is limited to the seventy weeks of Daniel 9, which Larry (seemingly) admits extends no further than A.D. 70.
3.) I have proven that the putting away of sin and the atonement are resurrection motifs and themes.
I have that the putting away of sin and the atonement are .
4.) I have proven that entrance into the MHP is a resurrection motif, and that entrance into the MHP would be at the end of the Old Covenant age, not the end of the Christian age. This proves that the resurrection would occur at the end of the Old Covenant age.
I have that entrance into the MHP , and that entrance into the MHP would be , not the end of the Christian age. This proves that the resurrection would occur at the end of the Old Covenant age.
5.) I have proven that Larry’s hermeneutic of ignoring the O. T. prophetic source and context of N. T. eschatology is false, and distorts and prevents the proper understanding of N. T. eschatology.
I have that Larry’s hermeneutic of ignoring the O. T. prophetic of N. T. eschatology is false, and distorts and prevents the proper understanding of N. T. eschatology.
My proposition stands proven: The Bible teaches that the second (i.e. final) coming of Christ, the judgment and the resurrection of the dead occurred at the time of the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
, is your eschatology, is your , based on the yet future fulfillment of God’s O. T. promises to Israel? , where did Paul say that Christians can and should find comfort and hope?, what scriptures did Paul say were ?, to what scriptures did the N. T. writers appeal when they spoke of their eschatological hopes?The O. T. is unequivocally the foundation and source of the N. T. gospel. So, what happens if one ignores, or divorces himself from the foundation? , when Paul told the Ephesian elders that he had declared to them the full gospel, we know his gospel was based on, and drawn from, the O. T. as already proven. That raises the question, if we today fail to preach from the O.T. The answer of course is no. A scripture taken out of context is a pretext! . .If it is, (As long as the Priest stayed in the MHP, no one knew if the sacrifice was accepted.) Did the High Priest have to come out of the MHP to "bring salvation" and , Yes or No? If your answer is "No," please give us some . According to Hebrews 9:28, would Christ have to come in order to bring salvation? Yes or No? If Christ would come, , is the coming of Christ in Hebrews 9:28 the completion of the atonement process, , the were given to assure the consummation of the redemptive process (2 Corinthians 5:5; Colossians 1:12-13, 4:32). Larry, do we today have the charismata as the "" (), of the resurrection?, to affirm that the fulfillment of promises destroys the Christian’s faith fails to understand the nature and purpose of fulfillment. The fulfillment of the parousia and resurrection, whereas Larry’s eschatology denies that man enters the MHP. , "Hope deferred makes the heart sick." (Proverbs 13:12). Larry’s eschatology has the parousia delayed for now 2000 years., "But when the desire comes it is a tree of life." (Proverbs 13:12)., Hebrews says, "Now in a very, very little while, the one who is coming will come, and will not tarry" (Hebrews 10:35-37). This would be the coming for salvation of Hebrews 9:28, yet, per Larry, Christ has not yet come, he has delayed (deferred) his coming for salvation for 2000 years! You have already said .: I have that the O. T. promises made to Israel were to be fulfilled at the end of Israel’s age, not the end of the Christian age. I have that the putting away of sin and the making of the atonement is limited to the seventy weeks of Daniel 9, which Larry (seemingly) admits extends no further than A.D. 70. I have that the putting away of sin and the atonement are . I have that entrance into the MHP , and that entrance into the MHP would be , not the end of the Christian age. This proves that the resurrection would occur at the end of the Old Covenant age. I have that Larry’s hermeneutic of ignoring the O. T. prophetic of N. T. eschatology is false, and distorts and prevents the proper understanding of N. T. eschatology.My proposition stands proven: