Debate on the Passing of the Mosaic Law Formal Written Debate
Don K. Preston -V- Terry Benton
Don K. Preston’s Third (Final) Negative
Submitted September 6, 2007
Let me say with Terry that I appreciate the opportunity to engage in this debate. This kind of exchange is profitable for those interested in examining both sides of a very important issue. As you can tell by Terry’s lengthy attempt at a final affirmative, I have a lot to cover, so, here we go!
Terry’s Ad Hominem "Argument"
I could not help but be amused as Terry tells us that he read all the verses I had cited, and he just could not see what I was saying. Amazingly, he says they all supported his view! If ever there was an "ad hominem" argument, there it is! He looks at the scriptures through his tradition conditioned eyes, ignoring the contexts, denying the emphatic statements, and says he just doesn’t see what Preston is saying! Are we supposed to be impressed by such an argument/observation?
The Sanhedrin of Jesus’ day examined the Scriptures, and declared that no prophet comes out of Galilee. They declared Jesus a fake and charlatan because they just didn’t see where the scriptures foretold this guy. They looked at their tradition bound concept of the kingdom which they read into the Scriptures, and concluded that the kingdom that this Jesus was preaching was not what they saw on the pages of Torah…so they killed him!
Matthew 28:18f Proleptic or Perfected?
It is so interesting that Terry spent a good part of all of his presentations denying that we should honor the present tenses of the Greek in numerous passages. Then, he stumbles onto the aorist tense in Matthew 28, and demands that we honor this. I suggested in my last that Terry would be well advised to be cautious in making hard fast arguments based on the aorist tense, but, instead of heeding that solid advice, he comes back adamantly insisting that the aorist tense in Matthew 28 destroys my position.
Such an argument reveals that Terry is not sufficiently familiar with the vagaries of the aorist tense. He blindly tells us that aorist means "done deal" while never explaining (or knowing?), whether we should understand the aorist in Matthew 28 as Constative, Ingressive or Culminative. (Dana and Mantey, A Manual of the Greek Grammar, 193ff). On the other hand, I presented two texts that prove that you cannot take the aorist in Matthew 28 in the sense of a perfect– which is what Terry wants us to do.
Luke 19– A certain man went into a far country, there to receive a kingdom. Jesus said he had to go away to receive the kingdom. Terry says he had already received it. Who shall we believe? What was Terry’s response to Luke 19? Not so much as a mention of it! It is the same as if I had not mentioned it, yet, it destroys his contention on the aorist, because it shows that Christ was speaking proleptically.
– A certain man went into a far country, there to receive a kingdom. Jesus said he had to go away to receive the kingdom. Terry says he had already received it. Who shall we believe? What was Terry’s response to Luke 19? It is the same as if I had not mentioned it, yet, it destroys his contention on the aorist, because it shows that Christ was speaking proleptically.
Daniel 7:13ff– One like the Son of Man came before the Ancient of Days…and he was given a kingdom (dominion– from exousia, authority). When was that authority/dominion to be given? Well, Terry argues that it was a done deal before Jesus even went into the far country! Daniel, however, was told that it would be at the coming of the Son of Man. Now watch this: Although Terry applies Daniel 7:13-14 to the Ascension, Daniel himself saw that this coming of Christ WAS TO BE THE TIME OF JUDGMENT! The context of Daniel 7 begins in 9ff and the vision of the little horn persecuting the saints. In vs 11f–the immediate context for v. 13f– this beast was slain when the thrones were set. It was then that Daniel saw his vision of the coming of the Son of Man! Daniel 7:13 is a vision, not of Christ’s ascension– and most assuredly not a vision of Matthew 28, but, a vision of Christ’s coming in judgment of the persecutor of the saints! Revelation 11:15ff is the perfect commentary on this, and shows that Christ’s coming in judgment of the persecuting power– the city where the Lord was slain (11:8f)–is the time when "the kingdoms of the world have become the kingdoms of our God and of his Christ."
One like the Son of Man came before the Ancient of Days…and he was given a kingdom (dominion– from exousia, authority). When was that authority/dominion to be given? Well, Terry argues that it was a done deal before Jesus even went into the far country! Daniel, however, was told that it would be at the coming of the Son of Man. Now watch this: Although Terry applies Daniel 7:13-14 to the Ascension, Daniel himself saw that this coming of Christ WAS TO BE THE TIME OF JUDGMENT! The context of Daniel 7 begins in 9ff and the vision of the little horn persecuting the saints. In vs 11f–the immediate context for v. 13f– this beast was slain when the thrones were set. It was that Daniel saw his vision of the coming of the Son of Man! Daniel 7:13 is a vision, not of Christ’s ascension– and most assuredly not a vision of Matthew 28, but, a vision of Christ’s coming in judgment of the persecutor of the saints! Revelation 11:15ff is the perfect commentary on this, and shows that Christ’s coming in judgment of the persecuting power– the city where the Lord was slain (11:8f)–is the time when "the kingdoms of the world have become the kingdoms of our God and of his Christ."
Let’s see now, what did Terry say about my argument on Daniel 7– the time when the Son of Man was to be given the dominion, i.e. the authority? HE SAID NOT ONE WORD ABOUT IT!!
Terry takes note that I pointed out that in Matthew 28 Jesus had not yet ascended to the Father and says: <<Don’s answer does not help him in the least, because both his seating on the throne and entering the MHP as our High Priest happened between His statement of the Great Commission and the first day of Pentecost in Acts 2.> Yes, Terry, it does help, because you argued that Jesus had already received everything BEFORE HIS ASCENSION, AND BEFORE HIS ENTHRONEMENT, and you are clearly wrong on this, as your argument has now conceded! I have and do argue that the work of Christ in putting down his enemies and consolidating his authority began at the resurrection, progressed in his ascension, was empowered by the ministry of the Spirit, and consummated at the parousia. This is precisely what scriptures affirm. The Bible affirms that Christ had triumphed over his enemies in the Cross, but, that all things (i.e. the last enemy) had not yet been put under him (1 Corinthians 15), and would not be until his parousia! Terry’s refusal to accept the progressive and transitional work of Christ is lamentable, but, his refusal does not prove his position, or falsify mine!
Once again, Terry simply makes claims without considering the entire scope of Scriptures. Genesis 49 says that the scepter would not pass from Judah until the coming of Shiloh and the gathering of the people. I argued that the scepter was Judah’s authority and that authority was based on Torah. Incredibly, Terry rejoins: <<However, this is extreme eisegesis on his part. The scepter is not the Torah, but the right of royalty symbolized by the king&rsqu
o;s royal staff (scepter).>> So, Terry wants us to believe that Judah’s scepter had nothing to do with her covenant relationship with YHVH, but rather, it was simply "royalty." Much like his argument on Daniel 12, in which he claimed that Israel’s power had nothing to do with her covenant relationship with YHVH, Terry’s claim is truly sad. To suggest that Judah had any royalty apart from her covenant relationship with YHVH is to simply ignore the O.T. testimony! Terry, do you not know that Judah was a THEOCRACY, based SOLELY and squarely on COVENANT? I cannot imagine anyone arguing that Judah had any "royalty" apart from her distinctive covenant relationship with God, and yet, Terry’s desperation forces him to make such unfounded arguments.
The gathering of Genesis 49:10 is directly related to the passing of the scepter, and the coming of Shiloh. Terry wants to argue that because people were being converted in Acts, that this disproves my argument. However, I took note of Matthew 21:40f that the scepter– the royalty if you please– would pass from Judah at the coming of the Lord to take the kingdom from her. And what was Terry’s response to Matthew 21? NOT ONE WORD! Yet, this single passage, conflated with Genesis, totally refutes his affirmative, so, he had to ignore it! Furthermore, I pointed out that in Matthew 24:29f, predictive of the coming of the Lord to take the kingdom from Judah, Jesus said that was the time when the "gathering" would take place. Did Terry even mention that time of gathering and removal of the scepter from Judah? No, it is as if I had not mentioned it! Yet, again, this passage is devastating to Terry’s affirmative. Why? Here is the argument:
The scepter would not pass from Judah until the coming of Shiloh to gather the elect.
The scepter of Shiloh was Judah’s covenant relationship with God.
Therefore, Judah’s covenant relationship with God would not pass until the coming of Shiloh to gather the elect.
Judah’s covenant relationship with God would not pass until the coming of Shiloh to gather the people.
But, the coming of Shiloh to gather the people– when the scepter would pass from Judah– was at Christ’s coming in judgment of Judah in A.D. 70.
Therefore, Judah’s covenant relationship with God did not pass until the coming of Shiloh to gather the people in the A.D. 70 judgment of Judah.
At this juncture I would remind the readers of this debate that I have offered one syllogistic argument after another, both in affirmative and negative form. NOT ONE TIME HAS TERRY EXAMINED EVEN ONE OF MY SYLLOGISMS, ATTEMPTING TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY ARE FALSE! Yet, the one time that Terry attempted (poorly) to formulate a syllogistic argument, I showed definitively that his argument was false to the core. You will notice that Terry has not even attempted another syllogism. Terry has claimed that I did not say anything about some of his arguments. (Yet he admits that he did not address some of mine because he thought them irrelevant. Well, if he can do that, am I not allowed to do so? Frankly, some of Terry’s arguments are so disjointed and illogical that they do not deserve response.)Yet, his total, absolute refusal to examine my formal syllogistic arguments speaks volumes.
DEUTERONOMY 18–ACTS 3 HEARING THE PROPHET
Terry insists on making false claims. He argued that Moses foretold the coming of Christ and that the people were to hear him. In fact, to hear Christ was to obey Moses. Terry then claims that Preston said: <Not a word about the significance of the "Hear Him" passages of Deut.18:15f and of Matthew 17 that placed obligation upon all people to listen to the authoritative voice of Jesus over Moses and Elijah after the cross and resurrection. That silence is very revealing.> Well, Terry should have paid more attention to what I wrote!
Here is what I DID ARGUE on Deuteronomy 18/Acts 3:
<There was a transitional period of time between the Cross and A.D. 70.
A.) It was a time in which the Old Covenant was passing away, and was ready to vanish. By the way, you will notice that in the midst of Terry’s obfuscatory verbiage, he never once explained why NO O.T. writer ever called the Torah "Old" or ready to vanish away. He never explained why the Torah is never called "Old" or "ready to vanish" until 2 Corinthians 3! TERRY WAS THE TORAH READY TO VANISH AWAY, BEFORE IT EVER EVEN BEGAN TO BE FULFILLED, WHICH WAS THE PREREQUISITE FOR ITS PASSING.
B.) The New Covenant was being revealed and confirmed. Israel was being called into her New Covenant.
C.) During that period of time, it was wrong for Israel to violate the Torah.
D. But, as I have taught for years–not because Terry has made me admit anything,– Israel was being given the invitation to come into the New Covenant world.
E.) She was being given A PERIOD OF GRACE, with the warning that if she refused, she would be utterly destroyed (Acts 3/ Acts 13).
F.) When the gospel–to the Jew first– was preached inviting and warning Israel to come into her inheritance– had been preached into all the world (Romans 10:16f), taking away any excuses, and she continued to rebel, then, and only then, IN FULFILLMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE OLD COVENANT ITSELF, judgment came, and swept away that Old World, including the covenant.>
Now, that is quite a few words about hearing the prophet like Moses. And, in contradistinction to Terry, who falsely said that I said not a word about his claim, TERRY DID NOT IN FACT, SAY A WORD ABOUT THIS ARGUMENT! Yet, the reality of that transitional time when Israel was fulfilling Torah, and being called into her New Covenant, is an undeniable truth.
Well, I guess I am a prophet. I predicted: <Mark my words here. I am going to predict that Terry will argue that the Transfiguration was not a vision of the parousia of Christ!> I was spot on, for Terry did in fact deny that the Transfiguration had anything to do with Christ’s judgment parousia, insisting instead that it was a vision of Christ’s incarnation! Here is what he said: <Amazingly he began a long effort to combine the Transfiguration scene with 2 Peter 1:16 that talks about their eyewitness testimony to the first coming of the Lord (parousia in the flesh and on into that Mountain episode) and then he tried to make a second connection with the SECOND coming (parousia) mentioned in chapter 3. His logic chain was nothing short of amazing.>
Also– according to Terry, since the aspect of the prophets that passed dealt with the law- but their promises continue, then Elijah should have only PARTIALLY VANISHED! He should not have totally vanished away! After all, according to Terry’s claim, NOT ALL OF THE PROPHETS PASSED, only PART of them! Of course, this violates–again– Jesus’ words, ‘not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the Law until it is all fulfilled.
Terry argues that the Transfiguration was a vision of Christ’s incarnation. Take note:
1.) That means that the parousia being denied by the scoffers was Christ’s incarnation! Peter said "We have not followed cunningly devised fables in making known to you the power and the parousia…" Peter was responding to the scoffers denying the parousia! Were they denying Christ’s incarnation? There is not so much as a hint of a clue of a suggestion that this was the issue in 2 Peter. Now, at this juncture, I could, like Terry, give a plethora of commentary citations– NONE of which agree with Terry by the way– but, I prefer to stick with scriptures.
2.) The word parousia is never– get this, Terry– NEVER used to speak o
f Christ’s incarnation, unless Second Peter 1 is the lone exception. When used to speak of Christ, the word parousia INVARIABLY refers to his coming in judgment.
3.) Why would Peter appeal to the Transfiguration as proof of Christ’s incarnation? How in the name of reason did the incarnation prove that Jesus had been incarnated? The issue between Peter and the scoffers was "the power and the parousia", not the incarnation!
4.) Peter is using the Transfiguration vision, not to prove that Jesus was incarnate, but to prove and establish the judgment parousia.
Terry continued: <The parousia (coming) that Peter describes in 2 Peter 1:16 is the one he SAW and was witness to. The parousia (coming) of the Lord described in 2 Peter 3 was one that was still ahead ("the day of the Lord WILL come" –v.10). So, Don was wearing his AD 70 glasses again and trying desperately to get the passing of the Law and Prophets into the second coming slot of 2 Peter 3.>
1.) Terry assumes, petitio principii, that what Peter saw on the Mountain could not be what was coming in 2 Peter 3. What is his proof? It is his presuppositional belief that, A.) The Law had already passed, B.) There is no relation between the passing of the Law and eschatology. Terry says that because Peter and the other disciples SAW the vision on the Mount that the vision could not have been of something yet future! That is distorted logic to be sure! According to your own misguided theory, what the vision anticipated was not yet past, and did come to pass for a good while–until at least the Cross! So, YOU FALSIFY YOUR OWN POSITION. What they SAW was indeed FUTURE!
Furthermore, if you argue that because the Mountain vision was something that Peter SAW, therefore it could not be what was future in 2 Peter 3, what does that do to the book of Revelation? Does not John tell us over, and over, and over again, "I looked, and I saw"? So, according to Terry Benton’s (bad) logic:
Anything seen (past tense) could not be a vision of things yet future.
But, John in Revelation saw– past tense– a vision.
Therefore, the things that John saw could not have been future to John!
See where Terry’s desperation leads?
2.) Terry says I am looking through my eschatology glasses. Well, Terry forgets that I once looked at the scriptures through the very glasses he is wearing! I did not believe what I believe now! I was forced by the Scriptures to lay aside the glasses of tradition and to view the Scriptures in their proper context.
3.) Terry says that 2 Peter 1 and 2 Peter 3 are speaking of two different parousias. But, chapter 1 is the ground for the rest of his discourse, and he does not change the subject. He is refuting the scoffers who were denying, NOT THE INCARNATION, but the parousia!
4.) Peter said the scoffers were denying the parousia of Christ. He said they were eyewitnesses of his power and parousia. Now, the incarnation of Christ is always referred to as his time of humiliation, when he would be like a "bruised reed and smoking flax" (Isaiah 42/Matthew 12). The term POWER is used with PAROUSIA or the terms for his "Second Coming" (e.g. erchomai), it INVARIABLY refers to his judgment coming, never to his incarnation (See for instance Matthew 24:29f!).
5.) Terry says the Transfiguration was a vision of Christ’s incarnation. Terry did not explain why the Transfiguration was needed to give a vision of the incarnation SINCE IT WAS THE INCARNATE JESUS THAT WENT UP ONTO THE MOUNT! They did not need a vision of the incarnate Jesus! He was right there! However, they did need a vision of the parousia to assure and reassure them in the light of Jesus’ prediction of the coming time of persecution (Matthew 16:23f).
6.) Again, Terry says the Transfiguration was a vision of Jesus’ incarnation. Just stop and think about that for a moment! It was the incarnate Jesus that went up to the Mount, as just noted. However, the incarnate Jesus was "transfigured" (from the Greek metamorphasize). In other words, Jesus’ incarnate appearance was so radically altered–from that incarnate form– that the disciples were absolutely terrified! The Transfiguration was not of Jesus’ incarnate form, it was his Deity shining through, and this is directly related to the parousia! After all, Jesus was to come "in the glory of the Father" and to, "reveal who is the only King and Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords" (1 Timothy 6). The fact that Jesus’ incarnate form was radically transformed falsifies Terry’s rather desperate attempt to divorce the Transfiguration from 2 Peter 1. His statement that my "logic train was nothing short of amazing" is in fact, a look in the mirror, for Terry. His claims are shown to be false at every turn.
So, let me make the argument again, for it totally destroys Terry’s affirmative.
The parousia being denied by the scoffers was the parousia seen by Peter on the Mount of Transfiguration.
But, what Peter saw on the Mount of Transfiguration was the passing of the Law and the Prophets (Terry Benton agrees!).
Therefore, the parousia being denied by the scoffers, the parousia seen and preached by Peter, was the passing of the Law and the Prophets– i.e. the end of the Old Covenant age!
Now watch this:
The parousia being denied by the scoffers was the parousia seen by Peter on the Mount of Transfiguration.
What Peter saw on the Mount of Transfiguration was the passing of the Law and the Prophets (Terry Benton agrees!). It was not the incarnation of Jesus, as Terry speciously claims!
But, the parousia that Peter saw on the Mount of Transfiguration– the passing of Moses and the Prophets– was still future when Peter wrote 2 Peter 3.
Therefore, the passing of Moses and the Prophets was still future when Peter wrote 2 Peter 3!
LAW WOULD PASS; PROPHETS WOULD CONTINUE?
On the Mount, Moses and Elijah disappeared at the same time. Terry has argued that the Law could pass, but that prophecies, God’s promises, could continue on. Yet, this does not agree with the Transfiguration at all! Moses and Elijah disappeared at the same time!
NOW YOU HAVE TO CATCH THIS!
Terry has argued that the Law is not the prophets and the prophets are not the Law, therefore, the Law could pass while the prophets–the promises– continued valid. Now, however, Terry changes his position, again, and says that Elijah did represent, after all, the commandments!
Here is what he said: <In an attempt to make it appear that this disagrees with my earlier point that some prophecies can be fulfilled later, Don said that I said that only the Law of Moses could pass and that I said that the Prophets would or may never pass. The readers should know that this is not a truthful representation of what I said at all. In fact, what I said about the "commandments" (the binding and commanding voice of the Law and the Prophets, what they commanded and imposed upon the Jews) was that they are/were the obligations upon man. But, I said that some promises of God can be, were, and will be fulfilled later….He knows what I said about the Law and the Prophets had to do with "obligations" that these imposed upon MAN, not promises that God would yet and will yet carry out. >
1.) This is double talk, plain and simple! Just exactly where Terry gets these ideas is a good question. I know he makes up some of it as he goes along, so that is what is happening here, I guess!
2.) This brings us back of course, to Jesus’ words, doesn’t it? Jesus said not one jot or one tittle of the Law would pass until it was all fulfilled! Now, Terry, although wanting desperately to avoid the problem, nonetheles
s accedes to it, says that in fact, that the Law and Prophets did go hand in hand, as an organic unity! Yet, he creates a dichotomy UNKNOWN IN SCRIPTURES, that says that some of the Law and some of the prophets could pass, yet, the PROMISES of the Law and Prophets could continue valid and unfulfilled! Desperation indeed! What was Terry’s authority for his claims? His authority is Terry Benton, and nothing else.
3.) What Terry fails, or refuses to see, is that the prophets operated strictly and solely within the confines of the Covenant. And, as I have shown, the eschatological promises that they gave are all posited at the end of the Old Covenant world, not at the end of the Christian age as Terry falsely imagines. The New Creation would be when Israel was destroyed (Isaiah 65). The resurrection would be when Israel was destroyed (Isaiah 24-26/ Daniel 12). The New Covenant would come into full bloom when Israel was judged (Jeremiah 31–>Isaiah 59–>Romans 11).
Terry’s objection, instead of showing that I misrepresented him, shows beyond doubt that I presented the case accurately. It is Terry’s desperation that is showing, as he attempts to escape the illogical and unscriptural nature of his own arguments.
4.) You said, repeatedly, that the promises of God in the Old Covenant prophets can continue while the Law was invalidated. You gave us no authority for what you said, no scripture– not even one– but, you claimed it nonetheless. That is hardly convincing.
There is no justification for the passing of the Law, BUT THE CONTINUANCE OF THE PROPHETS! According to what you argued in your first affirmatives– that the prophets could continue unfulfilled until now– ELIJAH SHOULD NEVER HAVE VANISHED! This totally invalidates your earlier argument. But, it confirms my argument that the Law and the Prophets were considered an organic whole, standing or falling together. That is PRECISELY what the Transfiguration vision shows, and it is fatal to your view of things!
This brings us back to consider Daniel 9. My argument has been so effective that Terry has basically ignored it for the most part, except to deny, again, WITH NO SUPPORTING SCRIPTURE– that "seal up vision and prophecy" is a comprehensive term. I challenge the reader to go back and find ANYWHERE that Terry offered ONE SINGLE SCRIPTURE to refute the idea that seal up vision and prophecy is a comprehensive term (and virtually all conservative scholarship stands against Terry on this, as I show in my book Seal Up Vision and Prophecy).
Here is what Terry offers as his last effort to counter my Daniel 9 arguments:
<Don thinks the expression "seal up vision and prophecy" in Daniel 9 just counters all of these clear expressions found in Hebrews and positively proved that the old covenant could only end at the destruction of Jerusalem. But, again the context of the expression pertains to all that Jesus the Messiah was going to accomplish. All the blessings visualized, dreamed about, and anticipated, including especially the blessing of Gen.12:1-4 for all nations will have come to fruition in Jesus, and those visions and prophecies will have reached their conclusion in the Messiah. Sealing up vision and prophecy does not argue that the Old Testament would remain in effect until Jerusalem was destroyed.>
1.) Notice– Not one single scripture to justify his claims! NOT ONE!
2.) Was Christ to be and to bring the fulfillment of Daniel 9:24? Who has ever doubted it?
3.) The question is, were all of the things listed in Daniel 9 fulfilled at the Cross? The answer is a resounding, NO!
VISION AND PROPHECY WAS NOT ALL FULFILLED
In spite of Terry’s futile claims to the contrary, seal up vision and prophecy is comprehensive of all prophecy. Terry tries to make the term refer specifically to a particular set of promises, listing Genesis 12. However, as an abundance of scholarship shows, there is no definite article in the Hebrews to indicate that Daniel 9:24 refers to a specific prophecy. Terry is flying in the face of the storm here, with no supporting evidence.
Jesus described the destruction of Jerusalem–foretold by Daniel in Daniel 9– and said: "These be the days of vengeance in which ALL THINGS THAT ARE WRITTEN MUST BE FULFILLED." Now, Terry made a ridiculous argument attempting to say that all things were not fulfilled, and I showed how ridiculous it was. He has not touched the argument since. Folks, how much clearer could Jesus have been? Daniel said vision and prophecy would be fulfilled in the Seventy Weeks culminating in the fall of Jerusalem. Jesus said that in the fall of Jerusalem "ALL THINGS THAT ARE WRITTEN MUST BE FULFILLED." Yet, we are supposed to accept Terry’s presuppositional doctrine that says all things were not fulfilled then, that all the things mentioned in Daniel were actually fulfilled before then, even though the destruction of the city clearly lies at the end of the Seventy Weeks!
THE ATONEMENT WAS NOT COMPLETED AT THE CROSS
Terry has even admitted this when he admitted that the atonement could not be completed (at least) until the High Priest entered the Presence. So, the Atonement was not completed at the Cross, and Terry’s argument is falsified.
Furthermore, as I have shown repeatedly, the Atonement was not considered perfected and finished until the High Priest came out of the MHP. Now, of course, Terry, in his desperation, says I just fabricated this idea. No, I showed that just as Jesus had fulfilled the typological aspects of offering the sacrifice, and entering the MHP, he also had to appear the second time…for salvation, for, the Law having a shadow of good things to come…" (Hebrews 9:24-10:1-2). It is THE INSPIRED TEXT that says that Jesus had to come again to fulfill the Law that was still a shadow of good things to come when Hebrews was written.
THE PUTTING AWAY OF ISRAEL’S SIN HAD NOT YET OCCURRED
Seventy Weeks were determined to put away Israel’s sin (Daniel 9:24).
Christ’s parousia in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood, would be the time when Israel’s sin would be put away (Isaiah 59–>Romans 11:25f– more on Romans below.)
Therefore, Israel’s sin would be put away at the time of Christ’s coming in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood.
This means of course, that the blessings of Daniel 9 were not fully realized at the Cross. It also means that God’s covenant with Israel remained valid until the time when God dealt finally with Israel’s sin– in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
EVERLASTING RIGHTEOUSNESS HAD NOT YET FULLY ARRIVED.
Paul preached NOTHING but the hope of Israel, and preached NOTHING but what Moses and the prophets foretold (Acts 24:14; 26:21f; 28:16f). Now, if Paul said that he taught nothing but the hope of Israel, and preached nothing but what was found in the O.T. prophets, then when we read of Paul’s expectation of the coming of the hope of righteousness, we must, if we are going to be good students, LOOK TO THE O. T. FOR THE PROMISE OF COMING RIGHTEOUSNESS! So, Terry, the burden of proof would be on you to show where the hope of righteousness anticipated by Paul in Galatians 5:5, was NOT the bringing in of everlasting righteousness of Daniel 9. And you can’t do it!
Your presuppositional, traditional theology sees NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOPE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS IN GALATIANS TO THE FULFILLING OF DANIEL 9, OR, FOR THAT MATTER, ANY OTHER O. T. PROPHECIES, for in truth, you do believe that the entirety of God’s promises to Old Covenant Israel were fulfilled and taken away at the Cross, don’t you?
Peter said the same thing. His eschatological hope was found in Moses and the Prophets (Acts
With this in mind, note that Paul was still anticipating "the hope of righteousness" (Galatians 5:5). Remember, Israel’s hope of righteousness would come at the end of the Seventy Weeks.
Yet, Paul, writing years after the Cross where Terry says that righteousness was fully established, says he was still awaiting that hope of righteousness!
Terry cannot make this hope of Paul anything other than what was foretold in the O.T. for Paul emphatically has told us that his gospel was NOTHING but what Moses and the Prophets foretold.
Terry cannot say that the world of righteousness arrived at the Cross because Paul was still looking for it– and remember, ITS ARRIVAL IS CONFINED TO THE SEVENTY WEEKS OF DANIEL! If Terry would make this "hope of righteousness" to be the parousia– and if I were a betting man I bet he would– then that confines the parousia to the end of the Seventy Weeks. And, the Seventy Weeks cannot be extended beyond A.D. 70. So, any way that Terry turns on this, his doctrine is destroyed. He knows this, and it is why he tried so desperately to cloud the issue with irrelevant arguments, and by mostly ignoring the issue.
Peter was still anticipating the arrival of the world of righteousness foretold by the O. T. prophets (2 Peter 3:13). Now, once again, Terry’s doctrine founders on the O.T. promises and on the N. T. writers’ affirmations that their gospel, their eschatology, their hope, was NOTHING but what was foretold by the prophets of Israel!
Here is the argument:
Everlasting righteousness would arrive within (and was confined to), the Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9:24f.
Peter was still anticipating the arrival of the world of righteousness (2 Peter 3).
Therefore, the Seventy Weeks were not fulfilled when Peter wrote, and, the everlasting world of righteousness had not yet arrived when Peter wrote.
This is prima facie demonstration of the falsity of Terry Benton’s paradigm! To falsify this argument– and he has not touched it, top, side, or bottom, he must prove one of the following things:
1.) Peter’s hope of the world of righteousness was not from the O.T.. He can’t do it, because Peter emphatically says his hope was from the O.T. prophets (2 Peter 3:1-2, 13).
2.) He must show that Peter’s anticipated world of righteousness was a different world of righteousness than that foretold by Daniel. He can’t do that, Israel had one hope–remember Ephesians 4:4?
Now since Peter’s (and Paul’s), anticipated world of righteousness was what was foretold by the O. T. prophets, and since Daniel said that the world of righteousness was confined to the Seventy Weeks, it is therefore irrefutably true that the Seventy Weeks were not yet fulfilled when Peter and Paul wrote. Terry’s argument that the promises of Daniel 9 were fulfilled at the Cross is falsified, irrefutably.
IF THE SEVENTY WEEKS WERE NOT YET FULFILLED, THEN GOD’S COVENANT RELATIONSHIP WITH ISRAEL REMAINED VALID AND WOULD REMAIN VALID UNTIL A.D. 70.
Let me now demonstrate even more the fatally flawed nature of Terry’s argument. Since Terry has made this new argument, I am free to respond. Terry tried to deny the comprehensive nature of "seal up vison and prophecy" in Daniel 9: "The context of the expression pertains to all that Jesus the Messiah was going to accomplish. All the blessings visualized, dreamed about, and anticipated, including especially the blessing of Gen.12:1-4 for all nations will have come to fruition in Jesus, and those visions and prophecies will have reached their conclusion in the Messiah. Sealing up vision and prophecy does not argue that the Old Testament would remain in effect until Jerusalem was destroyed. The context does not demand or allow the phase-in theory of Don, nor the phasing out of the old. Obligation to the Law of Moses ended at the cross of Christ – because a testament is of force after men are dead, and Jesus DIED to establish the New Testament."
RESPONSE: I must tell you that at times, when I have read Terry’s responses/arguments, I have just sat in stunned amazement. Like when he made his "the power of the holy people was the pagan perception that they were God’s people" argument, or, when he attempts to dichotomize between the Creation Sabbath and the Torah Sabbath, his claim that at death, the Christian enters BOTH into Abraham’s bosom and into heaven, etc., ETC.! Although I commend Terry for his courage and his convictions, when he argues that "seal up vision and prophecy" is not a statement of the fulfillment of prophecy comprehensively considered, but, THEN ARGUES THAT DANIEL 9 DOES ENTAIL THE FULFILLMENT OF THE ABRAHAMIC PROMISES, this is just incredibly revealing!
: I must tell you that at times, when I have read Terry’s responses/arguments, I have just sat in stunned amazement. Like when he made his "the power of the holy people was the pagan perception that they were God’s people" argument, or, when he attempts to dichotomize between the Creation Sabbath and the Torah Sabbath, his claim that at death, the Christian enters BOTH into Abraham’s bosom and into heaven, etc., ETC.! Although I commend Terry for his courage and his convictions, when he argues that "seal up vision and prophecy" is not a statement of the fulfillment of prophecy comprehensively considered, but, THEN ARGUES THAT DANIEL 9 DOES ENTAIL THE FULFILLMENT OF THE ABRAHAMIC PROMISES, this is just incredibly revealing!
Terry, NOTHING IN SCRIPTURE IS MORE COMPREHENSIVE OR ESCHATOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT THAN THE PROMISES MADE TO ABRAHAM!
I will make this as succinct as possible, but, I must demonstrate some critical issues that Terry clearly has not considered. What were the promises made to Abraham? Well, before answering, let me state Terry’s argument on Daniel and present the implications:
Terry Benton– The sealing of vision and prophecy foretold in Daniel 9 entailed and included the fulfillment of all of the Abrahamic Promises. (All the blessings visualized, dreamed about, and anticipated, including especially the blessing of Gen.12:1-4 for all nations will have come to fruition in Jesus, and those visions and prophecies will have reached their conclusion in the Messiah).
SCRIPTURE: But, the Abrahamic promises included the promises of the New Creation, entrance into the Most Holy Place, the Resurrection, and the New Heavens and Earth.
Therefore, the sealing of vision and prophecy foretold in Daniel 9 entailed and included the fulfillment of the promises of the New Creation, entrance into the Most Holy Place, the resurrection, and the New Heavens and Earth.
TERRY, IS THERE ANYTHING MORE PROPHETICALLY COMPREHENSIVE THAN THESE PROMISES AND PROPHECIES?
Now let me prove my point.
The promise to Abraham was that he would inherit the world (Romans 4:13f)!
The promises to Abraham included entrance into MHP– Hebrews 6:16-19).
The promises to Abraham included the New Creation–(Hebrews 11:13f)! This included the heavenly country, the "homeland" and the New Jerusalem!
The promise to Abraham was THE BETTER RESURRECTION (Hebrews 11:35– they sought a "better resurrection").
Terry, are these promises ESCHATOLOGICAL? You know they are! Are these promises COMPREHENSIVE? AS COMPREHENSIVE AS IT GETS!
Now, several things are undeniably true, based on these facts:
1.) Terry cannot argue that the blessings of Daniel 9 were fulfilled at the Cross, for that would mean that all of the Abrahamic promises–including the above mentioned blessings– became a reality at the Cross! Terry does not believe that.
2.) Terry cannot argue that even Genesis 12:1-4 was completely fulfilled at the Cross, or Pentecost,
for by his own admission, Genesis 12 included THE CALLING OF THE GENTILES!
3.) Point #2 falsifies Terry’s argument: "The context does not demand or allow the phase-in theory of Don, nor the phasing out of the old." Terry’s own argument proves EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE, because by his own admission, the Gentiles were not brought in at Pentecost!
4.) Terry’s denial of the phase in, phase out reality is also falsified by his admissions, because Abraham looked for the New Jerusalem, and the New Creation. The New Testament affirms that the New Creation had broken in (2 Corinthians 5:17), was guaranteed by the Spirit (2 Corinthians 5:5; Ephesians 1:13), but, was awaiting perfection and consummation (Galatians 4:30f; Hebrews 12:25f; Revelation 21:1f).
5.) Terry cannot argue that SOME of the Abrahamic promises were to be fulfilled, for he is now on record as saying: "All the blessings visualized, dreamed about, and anticipated, including especially the blessing of Gen.12:1-4 for all nations will have come to fruition in Jesus, and those visions and prophecies will have reached their conclusion in the Messiah." Well, if all the promises anticipated in the Abrahamic promises would be realized in Messiah– and remember that Daniel confines fulfillment to the Seventy Weeks– then all of the Abrahamic promises listed above, including Resurrection, had to be fulfilled within the Seventy Weeks!
6.) Terry has tried to put a contextual qualifier on Daniel that simply is not there! Where does he get the authority to insert the promises of Genesis 12 into the text, but, to excluded all of THE RELATED ESCHATOLOGICAL PROMISES? Furthermore, his position would demand a definite article to be present in Daniel, that would demand that we know that a specific set of prophecies were in mind. However, as I show definitively in my book Seal Up Vision and Prophecy, there is no definite article in the text, and therefore, Daniel 9 is predictive of the fulfillment of prophecy comprehensively considered. Of course my main point remains this: by affirming that Daniel 9 includes the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises, Terry has, without any doubt whatsoever, demanded that Daniel 9 is predictive of the fulfillment of all eschatological promises, by the end of the Seventy Weeks, because THE ABRAHAMIC PROMISES ARE ESCHATOLOGICAL TO THE CORE!
7.) Terry cannot find in Daniel 9 a delineation between non-eschatological elements of the Abrahamic promises and the eschatological elements. He has already told us that Daniel is about the fulfillment of all the Messianic hopes and promises, so, he has refuted himself, definitively.
We could add much more, but, what we have shown already totally falsifies Terry’s uninformed claims. Now, however, we need to see where Scripture posits the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises.
One thing we know for sure, and Terry even tacitly admits it, is that THE ABRAHAMIC PROMISES ARE LIMITED TO THE SEVENTY WEEKS OF DANIEL, THAT ENDED IN A.D. 70!
The blessings of the Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9 are confined to the period of time ending in the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
But, the blessings of Daniel 9 include all of the Abrahamic blessings (the New Creation, the resurrection, etc.).
Therefore, the fulfillment of the Abrahamic blessings (the New Creation, the resurrection, etc.), is confined to period of time ending in the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
Now look at Romans 4. Paul tells us that the promises to Abraham were not to be, and could not be fulfilled under Torah, or through the Torah (Romans 4:13-14).
However, in Galatians 3-4, the time of the "inheritance" of the Abrahamic promises was to be at the end of Torah, when the children of the flesh who were persecuting the children of promise, were cast out. This is when the Old Covenant, that could not fulfill the Abrahamic promises would be cast out! When "the faith" came, the promises of Abraham would become reality! In my newest book, Seventy Weeks Are Determined…For the Resurrection, I present extensive documentation showing that "the faith" the New Covenant world is indeed posited by Daniel at the end of the Seventy Weeks. This does not deny that it began, was initiated on Pentecost. It simply affirms that the final fulfillment, the bringing to perfection of that world, the arrival of "that which is perfect," arrived at the time of the parousia of Christ in A.D. 70.
However, what does Terry believe? He believes that Abraham will receive his promises– not at the end of the Seventy Weeks– but at the end of the Christian age! So, in spite of Terry’s claim that the Abrahamic promises were fulfilled well before the fall of Jerusalem, he does not actually believe that, for he does not believe that the New Creation had fully arrived– and won’t until the end of the Church age. He does not actually believe that entrance into the MHP has come yet, for he believes that Abraham himself is still in Abraham’s bosom (how does THAT work by the way???). In other words, he believes that Abraham is still in Hades, awaiting the end of the current Christian age. And, Terry most assuredly does not believe that the promise to Abraham of the resurrection has arrived, even though he claims to believe that "All the blessings visualized, dreamed about, and anticipated, including especially the blessing of Gen.12:1-4 for all nations will have come to fruition in Jesus, and those visions and prophecies will have reached their conclusion in the Messiah."
The point is, as we have noted several times, Scripture posits the reception of Israel’s blessings– you know, the Abrahamic promises– at the time when Israel would be destroyed! Let me point this out ONE MORE TIME:
1.) The time of the resurrection– the Abrahamic promise– would be fulfilled when Israel was destroyed (Isaiah 24-26) judged for shedding innocent blood (Isaiah 26:20f).
2.) The time of the New Creation– the Abrahamic promise– would be fulfilled when Israel was destroyed, and YHVH created a New People with a New Name (Isaiah 65:8ff). You will note that Terry has not so much as mentioned Isaiah 65!
3.) The time of entrance into the MHP –the Abrahamic promise– is posited at the end of the Old Covenant age (Hebrews 9:9-10).
So, Terry’s admission and claim that Daniel 9 included the fulfillment of all of the Abrahamic promises DEMANDS:
1.) The phasing in of the New Covenant and the phasing out of the Old Covenant is true and confirms my proposition and falsifies Terry’s.
2.) That the end of Torah and eschatology are inextricably related.
3.) That the blessings of Abraham, inclusive of resurrection, were fulfilled in A.D. 70.
4.) That seal up vision and prophecy in Daniel 9 is in fact comprehensive of all eschatological prophecy.
5.) It proves also that Jesus’ statement that all prophecy dealing with Israel and vengeance on her would be fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem and is inclusive of the resurrection, the New Creation, etc.. This is true since Terry has admitted that Daniel 9 is inclusive of the Abrahamic Promises. Those promises included the eschatological promises. But, Daniel 9 would be fulfilled when God’s wrath on Israel was consummated in A.D. 70. Therefore, for Terry to argue and admit that the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 was the complete fulfillment of God’s wrath– as foretold in Daniel– is to argue and admit that all eschatological promises– the promises to Abraham– were fulfilled in A. D. 70.
Terry’s own arguments made in desperation have destroyed his own paradigm.
TERRY’S RESPONSE TO MY QUESTION ON ACTS 3
I asked the following question in response to Terry’s misguided argument on Acts 3. Terry admitted that this is a good question, and I appreciate him attempting to answer, al
though his answer is false. Here is my question:
<If obedience and acceptance of Jesus as Messiah was obedience to the Law, how would this be possible if the Torah had already passed away? How can you obey a covenant or Law that has been abrogated?
First, the law was abolished at the cross (Eph.2:15).>
Terry has a mantra, almost a magical saying to him: "The Law was abolished at the Cross."
Now, I have shown repeatedly that the passages that Terry has brought forth DO NOT SAY WHAT HE CLAIMS! I know where he is coming from however, for I once thought just like him, that is, until I took the time to actually read and study the texts! Let’s take a quick look at Terry’s key passages:
ROMANS 7– Terry did indeed find where he had mentioned Romans 7! So, I apologize for not being able to find that with my search engine. What is so interesting however, is that Terry now says that his point on Romans 7 was so insignificant that he just thought he would ignore my response. Well, that is not what he originally said, is it? He originally said that he had made such a powerful argument on Romans 7 that Preston had to capitulate! I did no such thing! The fact that he did mention Romans 7 does not alter the fact that his argument was poor, and that I made no concession in regard to that argument.
– Terry did indeed find where he had mentioned Romans 7! So, I apologize for not being able to find that with my search engine. What is so interesting however, is that Terry now says that his point on Romans 7 was so insignificant that he just thought he would ignore my response. Well, that is not what he originally said, is it? He originally said that he had made such a powerful argument on Romans 7 that Preston had to capitulate! I did no such thing! The fact that he did mention Romans 7 does not alter the fact that his argument was poor, and that I made no concession in regard to that argument.
Terry did also apologize for misrepresenting me, when he said that I had actually said that the Law was nailed to the Cross. Here is what he said. <That is correct! As I look back, that was not what Don said. So, I apologize to you Don. You did not say the law was nailed to the cross. You did say that Christians "died to the Law" and implied that it was right for them to do so. Paul is the one that said it was "abolished in His flesh"(Eph.2:14f) and said the "handwriting of requirements" was "nailed to the cross" (Col.2:14f).>
I appreciate Terry’s apology. Anyway, what does Romans 7 actually say? It (nor Ephesians or Colossians), DOES NOT SAY, as Terry claims, that the Law was nailed to the Cross! It says that those who had died with Christ in baptism (Romans 6) had entered his death, and therefore, HAD DIED TO THE LAW. As I have shown repeatedly, there is a huge difference between the Law passing objectively, and a person dying to the Law by entering Christ! Terry has actually admitted this difference from time to time, but then tried to confuse them as if they were the same. They are not, and Romans 7 says not one word about the Law being done away.
EPHESIANS 2:15F– Just like Romans 7 Paul is speaking of the fact that the Law of commandments contained in ordinances was removed "in the body of his flesh." Nine times Paul uses the term "in him" in his body" etc. to speak of the locus of the blessings described. But, if Terry’s view is correct, then the blessings described also belong to those outside of Christ, for Terry says that the Law itself had been removed! Well, if the Law itself was abolished, then the blessings attendant with that abolishment belonged to those outside as well! Terry would of course respond "Foul" and say, No the blessings belong to those "in Christ!" Amen! And that means, definitively, that the Law of Commandments was removed for those "in Christ" not outside!
– Just like Romans 7 Paul is speaking of the fact that the Law of commandments contained in ordinances was removed "in the body of his flesh." Nine times Paul uses the term "in him" in his body" etc. to speak of the locus of the blessings described. But, if Terry’s view is correct, then the blessings described also belong to those outside of Christ, for Terry says that the Law itself had been removed! Well, if the Law itself was abolished, then the blessings attendant with that abolishment belonged to those outside as well! Terry would of course respond "Foul" and say, No the blessings belong to those "in Christ!" Amen! And that means, definitively, that the Law of Commandments was removed for those "in Christ" not outside!
This is precisely the same thing as in Romans. It is not the Law that was removed. It says that for those in Christ, the middle wall of partition had been broken down, that wall of separation was removed, IN CHRIST!
Ephesians 2 says not one word about the objective passing of the Law. It speaks of the blessings IN CHRIST! To fail to honor the specific words of the text, to support a false doctrine does no honor to scripture.
COLOSSIANS 2:14F– I have spent considerable time in the Greek sources demonstrating that Paul did not say that the Law itself had been nailed to the Cross, but, the obligation to keep the Law had been nailed to the Cross for those entering Christ. Just like Romans 7, those to whom Paul was writing had been buried with Christ into his death, and thus, died to the Law.
– I have spent considerable time in the Greek sources demonstrating that Paul did not say that the Law itself had been nailed to the Cross, but, the obligation to keep the Law had been nailed to the Cross for those entering Christ. Just like Romans 7, those to whom Paul was writing had been buried with Christ into his death, and thus, died to the Law.
So, Terry’s three key texts, the ones he has insisted say exactly what he teaches, in fact, say not one thing to support Terry! They all say exactly what Preston has affirmed, and that is that those entering Christ died to the Law! Terry’s refusal to accept these emphatic statements just shows the power of presuppositions and tradition.
On the other hand, as I have shown, 2 Corinthians 3 and Hebrews 8 speak of the passing of the Law, objectively.
2 CORINTHIANS 3 AND HEBREWS 8
In regards to 2 Corinthians 3, I made the following arguments, and asked the following question:
1.) The transition from the Old Covenant world, to the New Covenant world, was not perfected at the Cross, or on Pentecost Paul said it was on-going when he wrote.
2.) That transition was to be accomplished through the miraculous ministry of the Spirit, and through Paul’s distinctive ministry (2 Corinthians 3:16-4:1-2). Terry did not bother to address the issue of Paul’s distinctive ministry in this regard, choosing to totally ignore it!
3.) I called attention to this text repeatedly, and Terry totally ignored it until now, perhaps hoping I would not notice. Yet, it emphatically says that the Torah was, PRESENT TENSE, passing.
4.) It says that the passing from that Old Glory to the New remained a HOPE when Paul wrote. Terry did not so much as mention this incredibly important fact. Paul said that this passing away was HIS HOPE.
5.) That transition from glory to glory was being accomplished (PRESENT TENSE): "we are being transformed, from glory to glory." Terry tried to divert attention from these present tenses, again, by simply repeating his mantra, "the Law was abolished at the Cross!" No, Paul said that through THE MIRACULOUS MINISTRY OF THE SPIRIT, that the transition from the Old Covenant to the New was still on-going– "We are BEING transformed, from glory to glory." No amount o
f obfuscation or denial can change what Paul said.
At this juncture, let me address an important issue, and that is:
"THAT WHICH IS PERFECT"
The reader of this debate will remember that Terry accused me, repeatedly and FALSELY, of saying that the church was not complete until the completion of the written word. He repeatedly castigated me for this–read his second affirmative again and note how many times he charges me with believing this. Terry insisted that the full revelation of the New Covenant had nothing to do with the written word, but was orally committed to the church long before it was committed to writing. Now, I want you to note that I MOST ASSUREDLY DO NOT BELIEVE THAT "THAT WHICH IS PERFECT" WAS THE COMPLETION OF THE WRITTEN WORD, as Terry falsely accuses me. Before fully addressing this issue, let me make a note on 1 Corinthians 13.
Paul said "now we know in part." This "in part" is from "ek merous," and means PARTIAL as opposed to whole or fullness. Furthermore, this "ek merous" of 1 Corinthians 13 is directly parallel with Ephesians 4, where Paul said they were awaiting "the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, the perfect man." Paul then (1 Corinthians 13), contrasted their then state of "ek merous" with the coming of "that which is perfect." So, whatever or however you define "that which is perfect" then the current to Paul condition or state WAS NOT YET IN A STATE OF COMPLETION.
Now, what does Terry Benton say "that which is perfect" was? And, to set the stage for understanding his problem here, remember that he has adamantly insisted that the New Covenant had already been fully revealed and fully confirmed through the Spirit before– or at least by the time of, 1 Corinthians 13. Well, here is what Terry believes "that which is perfect" was:
<"When that which is perfect is come" refers to the stabilized state of maturity provided in the full resources of the written word in which full availability of knowledge fills the human heart with all that need be known about Him so that Christ is "formed in us" and instability is less of a threat. With the New Testament established and written only in hearts, it became easy for false teachers to create instability by causing members to forget what they heard or to blur the meaning and applications of what they heard. The design of the gifts and the accumulation of the written word was to provide a mature and stable resource for pushing out all false concepts and filling the heart with completeness in Christ."> Catch this: Terry believes that "that which is perfect" was the completion of the written word!
So, for all of his castigation of Preston, and falsely accusing me of believing something I do not believe, Terry winds up telling us that "the stabilized state of maturity…of the written word" was "that which is perfect." And, he tells us that the oral revelation of the New Covenant, written on the hearts was INSUFFICIENT, "to prevent false teachers from causing members to forget what they heard and learned." So, according to Terry, the New Covenant had been fully revealed, the New Temple was complete, everything was signed, sealed and delivered, BUT… the church was still in a state of immaturity, instability, insufficiency, vulnerability– in fact, CHRIST HAD NOT YET BEEN FORMED IN THEM!– until the completion of the written Word! So, Terry is essentially telling us that although the church was complete, the New Covenant was complete, that this state of "completion" was insufficient and incomplete after all, and had to await the completion of the written word to correct the insufficiencies! Am I the only one that sees a huge self contradiction in Terry’s argumentation here? No, I don’t think so.
I have repeatedly asked Terry the following question:
Was the church, the New Temple, complete on Pentecost, since,
1.) It had no elders.
2.) It had no deacons.
3.) There were no Gentile members.
4.) It possessed the charismata.
5.) The New Covenant had not yet been revealed, even in the oral form.
Has Terry answered even ONE of these questions? NOT ONE. He demands that we believe that the New Creation was complete, perfect, since Christ had become High Priest, because the New Covenant was being preached, and because the New Temple is said to have come. Yet, he tacitly admits, by his refusal to answer these questions, that the church (The New Temple) was not complete, that the New Covenant Creation was not yet perfected! (Of course, I have proven that the New Temple was under construction as Paul and Peter both affirm, but all Terry can do is say "Not so!"
This is devastating to his view! He can argue all he wants to about the Priesthood, the New Covenant, the Temple, etc., but, his refusal to answer these questions– in light of the undeniable testimony that the church was not perfected, not mature, not complete, falsifies any argument he might make or has made.
Just exactly how Terry can argue that the Temple was completed, that the New Covenant was perfected, that the New Creation had become a reality, ALL BEFORE THESE THINGS HAD ARRIVED, HE NEVER EVEN ATTEMPTS TO EXPLAIN. He refused to answer these questions, although I repeated them several times.
Terry has met himself coming and going on this, and is guilty of not only misrepresenting my position, but of contradicting the scriptures.
MORE ON HEBREWS 8
In Hebrews 8– In regards to Terry’s argument that the moment Jeremiah promised the New Covenant, that that Torah became old and "nigh unto passing" I asked: <<TERRY WAS THE TORAH READY TO VANISH AWAY, BEFORE IT EVER EVEN BEGAN TO BE FULFILLED, WHICH WAS THE PREREQUISITE FOR ITS PASSING!>> Terry’s response? TOTAL SILENCE! Just more obfuscatory verbiage that proves nothing, and denies the language of Hebrews 8 that says that the Law was "nigh unto passing."
It is interesting that Terry feels, strongly, the problem of "nigh unto passing" because he says a couple of times that no matter what you want to make of it, it has to apply to Jeremiah’s day. No, Terry, it doesn’t! It was nigh unto passing when Hebrews was written, and no amount of denial can counter this. Terry admitted early on that nigh normally means near, imminent. Yet, due to his desperation, he cannot now allow the normal meaning to hold in Hebrews 8, because if it does, then his theology is falsified. So, he takes an admittedly aberrant definition of nigh, and calls Preston the false teacher!
I also pointed out that Terry’s application of Hebrews 10, "he is taking away the first, that he might establish the second" was misplaced and distorted. He said that this meant God was taking away the first (Mosaic) covenant when David said "a body you have prepared for me." I pointed out that this meant that the Old Covenant was being removed long before Jeremiah ever made the prediction of the New Covenant! Yet, Terry has insisted all along that it was when Jeremiah gave his promise, that AT THAT MOMENT the Torah became obsolete and nigh unto passing. Then, however, he changes his entire argument and says that Torah was passing away when David predicted Christ’s suffering!
So, Terry has three positions:
1.) Torah began to pass away before it even began to be fulfilled, which was the prerequisite for its passing. You will note of course, that he never answered my question on this.
2.) Torah became obsolete the moment Jeremiah gave the promise of the New Covenant. But this creates an false definition of nigh, and Terry knows this is problematic for him!
3.) Yet, Torah was actually passing
away when David, hundreds of years before Jeremiah, predicted Jesus’ passion! Yet, this view means that his position on Jeremiah is falsified!
There has seldom been a more desperate or self contradictory set of arguments offered.
I demonstrated from the lexicons, from the prophetic scriptures, and from the Greek sources that apokatastasis (restoration, Acts 3:24), and diorthosis (reformation, Hebrews 9:10), are synonyms. The prophets use the terms synonymously– but Terry totally ignored this. The lexicons say the words are synonymous– but Terry denies this- or says it doesn’t matter. The Greek sources say these words are synonymous– but Terry denies this! Did he offer any lexical refutation? NO. Did he offer any critique of the prophetic texts that use the terms synonymously? NO. Did he offer any reason why the Greek authorities who say the words are synonymous should be rejected? NO. As usual, the only "authority" is Terry Benton! But Terry’s "authority" is insufficient to counter the authority of scripture. Let me reiterate some of the arguments presented in my second affirmative.
In Hebrews 9 the time of reformation is the time of the fulfillment of Israel’s promises, contained in the types and shadows of the sacrificial cultus.
In prophecy, the time of the reformation, (the diorthosis), was the time when the promises of Israel’s salvation would be realized.
Jerusalem would be established, (diorthosis), at the coming of the Lord in judgment and salvation (Isaiah 62:7-11). The LXX uses diorthosis in verse 7 to speak of the restoration of Jerusalem/Israel when YHVH would be married to His people, and given them the New Name, the Gentiles would be called, and the parousia would occur.
Thus, the diorthosis would occur at the parousia in fulfillment of God’s Old Covenant promises to Israel. And, in Hebrews 9, the diorthosis would occur when the promises contained in the sacrifices, feast days and commandments made to Israel were fulfilled!
The time of the reformation (diorthosis) would be the time when Israel’s promises of salvation were fulfilled at the coming of the Lord (Isaiah 62:7-12).
The time of the diorthosis would be when the prophetic elements contained in the Temple cultus were fulfilled, and man could enter the presence of God, i.e, the time of salvation (Hebrews 9:6-10).
Therefore, the time of the diorthosis, the time when man could enter the presence of God, would be when Israel’s promises of salvation were fulfilled at the coming of the Lord.
(Of course, this agrees perfectly with Hebrews 9:28 that the time of Christ’s coming would be the time of salvation, i.e. the time when man could enter the presence of God, the diorthosis!!)
Let me repeat the argument as simply as possible:
The time of the reformation is the time of Israel’s salvation at the coming of the Lord. (Isaiah 62)
But, the time of the reformation would be at the end of the Mosaic Covenant (Hebrews 9).
Therefore, the end of the Mosaic Covenant would be at the time of Israel’s salvation at the coming of the Lord.
The fact that Isaiah posits the time of the reformation– Israel’s hope– at the time of the judgment parousia of Christ, and the fact that Hebrews places the reformation– Israel’s hope– at the end of the Mosaic Covenant, is prima facie, irrefutable proof of my affirmative, and the falsification of Terry’s affirmative!
Now, Terry simply denied the argument, with no scripture, no exegesis. His rebuttal consists in, "Christ removed the Law at the Cross, the reformation took place then, and Christ has not come." I think that anyone can see through this specious and desperate attempt at refutation. THIS IS NOT PROOF!
Here is what Terry did say in "response" to the evidence I presented: <He argued that the terms for reformation and restoration are synonymous, but that proves nothing even if it was so.>
RESPONSE: I want the readers to let that soak in just a minute. Even if the words are synonymous, that proves nothing! That is like saying that although "the washing of the water by the word" (Ephesians 5:25f), and, "the laver of regeneration" (Titus 3:5), are synonymous, it proves nothing! The word desperation keeps coming to mind! Did Terry explain how it is possible for words to be synonymous, and yet not mean the same thing? No, it is just another example of his desperation, assertions with no proof.
Note what he then said: <These are not identical. Reformation began when Jesus nailed the old Law to the cross, changed the Law and provided a better priesthood, sacrifice, and covenant. The restoration of all things is when Satan is cast forever into the lake of fire and man and God are restored to full glorified togetherness forever (Rev.20-22).>
RESPONSE: Terry’s paradigm is full of self contradictions. I want to take some time here to show just how bad his position really is.
1.) Petitio Principii– Terry assumes, without trying to prove, that the goal of reformation, and the goal of restoration are two different goals, accomplished at two different times. Yet, he inadvertently lets the cat out of the bag.
2.) Terry says that the goal of restoration is the RESTORATION OF FULL FELLOWSHIP BETWEEN GOD AND MAN. Well, in Hebrews 9:10 what is the goal of the reformation? It is access to the Most Holy Place! Terry, isn’t access to the MHP the restoration of fellowship?
3.) What was lost in the Garden was FELLOWSHIP –did you notice how Terry has implicitly admitted this, since he says that the goal of restoration is the restoration of FELLOWSHIP? Amen, Terry!
4.) Terry, what did the veil of the Temple represent? Was it not separation from God, lack of fellowship? Of course it did! That veil was a reminder of the loss of the Garden!
Here is the argument:
The goal of the restoration was the restoration of fellowship between God and man.
The goal of the reformation was the restoration of fellowship between God and man– man given the privilege of entering the Presence!
The time of the reformation– and thus, the restoration– would be at the end of the Old Covenant age (Hebrews 9:10).
Therefore, the time of the restoration– the time of Christ’s parousia (Acts 3:21ff)– would be at the end of the Old Covenant age.
So, the work of restoration began under the Old Covenant age, but will not be completed until the end of the Christian age! That is a pretty long process, a pretty long transitional period! And all the while, Terry is telling us on the one hand that the work of Christ gives us what the Old Covenant could not, then he takes it back and tell us that salvation does not truly come until the end of the New Covenant!
5.) Scriptures declare that THE RESTORATION HAD ALREADY BEGUN– UNDER JOHN THE IMMERSER (Matthew 17:10f, from apokathestemi a form of apokatastasis). This means that both the reformation and the restoration had begun, as the same time, according to Terry’s own claims! Furthermore, it proves, prima facie, my contention of a process, a transitional time.
The work of the restoration (apokathistemi) began with John (Jesus- Matthew 17:11).
But, the work of restoration (apokatastasis) will not be completed until the "end of time, and the end of the Christian age. (Terry Benton).
Therefore, the work of restoration, begun by John, is still on-going, and will continue until the end of time and the end of the Christian age.
6.) What Terry did not address, didn’t so much as mention it, is the fact that in both Acts 3, the restoration would be the consummation of YHVH’s promises TO OLD COVENANT ISRAEL, and in Hebrews 9, the reformat
ion would be the fulfillment of God’s promises to Old Covenant Israel! NOW, CATCH THE POWER OF THIS!
Terry’s eschatology is, after all, COVENANTAL– although he likes to deny it. Lamentably, however, his eschatology involves THE END OF THE WRONG COVENANT! He believes that the restoration comes, not at the end of the Old Covenant of Israel, but, at the end of the New Covenant age, and the fulfillment of God’s promises to the church, divorced from Israel! Terry believes in the end of what the Bible says is endless–as I have demonstrated repeatedly in this debate, and Terry has not touched that argument. Yet, the Bible places the resurrection and the New Creation at the time of the destruction of Old Covenant Israel, when YHVH would consummate and terminate His covenant with her (Isaiah 65:13f; Daniel 12; Zechariah 11:1f– more on this below).
In other words, both the restoration and the reformation was NOTHING BUT THE HOPE OF ISRAEL! Yet, Terry believes that God was through with Israel at the Cross! If God was through with Israel at the Cross, how in the name of reason could Paul, Peter and the rest of the N. T. writers and speakers be preaching NOTHING BUT THE HOPE OF ISRAEL??
What this means is that since the N. T writers were preaching nothing but the hope of Israel, awaiting the fulfillment of God’s Old Covenant promises– both Cursings and Blessings– that God’s covenant with Israel remained intact, and would remain valid until the parousia.
MORE ON THE MOST HOLY
We have really touched a nerve with Terry when it comes to the entrance into the Most Holy Place, haven’t we? Let me remind the reader that from my very first affirmative, AND IN EVERY PRESENTATION SINCE THEN, I have challenged Terry– virtually begged him- to answer the following question:
"When the faithful child of God dies physically today, where do they go:
A.) To the Hadean realm and Abraham’s bosom? Yes or No?
B.) Directly to heaven? Yes or No?
Terry Answered (Second Negative): "Yes to A and B. Abraham was looking for a city (Heb.11:10,16) and seems to be among those who have come to the "city of the Living God, the heavenly Jerusalem" where spirits of just men have been made perfect (Heb.12:22-24). The city of God is tied to heaven where Christ is. So, in some way, this part of the unseen realm (Hadean realm), where Abraham’s bosom provides comfort, is connected with heaven. Whether it is in its final glorified state or will later be enhanced with greater things than Abraham has yet seen, we cannot tell. What does this question have to do with the proposition?"
Here is what I said in response: <I must say, this is strange! Terry, you will have to clarify your answer for us, for, I suspect that the readers are just as confused by your answer as I am–especially the c of C ministers! 🙂
TERRY, IF THE HADEAN REALM IS HEAVEN, THEN DOES THAT MEAN THAT HEAVEN IS THROWN INTO THE LAKE OF FIRE AT THE PROPOSED END (Revelation 20:10ff)? DID TERRY ADDRESS THIS? NO!
(Revelation 20:10ff)? DID TERRY ADDRESS THIS? NO!
<If Abraham’s bosom was heaven, why was Christ’s death necessary? Those under Moses and the prophets (Luke 16), dying prior to Christ, went to Abraham’s bosom, right Terry? So, if those under the O. T. went to heaven, prior to Christ’s work of atonement, why did he even have to die?
I am going to make a statement here, and if I am wrong, Terry can correct me. However, I know the traditional view of the c of C, very well, so, I will state it, and use it as part of my affirmative.
Here is the statement: Hades (or Paradise in Hades), is not Heaven. When a faithful child of God dies today, they must go to Hades and Abraham’s bosom to await the parousia and the resurrection. It is not until Christ’s final coming that man can enter into heaven itself, but, at His coming, Hades will be emptied and destroyed, and all the faithful of all the ages, will then enter the presence of God in heaven.
Terry, is this what you believe, Yes, or No?>> And now, SIX PRESENTATIONS LATER, Terry still has refused to candidly answer the question! Instead, he said this:
<Then, Don went into his specious argument about entrance into the MHP again. He keeps saying that I deny that people now have access into the MHP. That is ridiculous. It drives Don up the wall that I never walked into the trap he thinks others have walked into on his MHP argument. I said Paul went to be with Christ (Phil.1:23) and that was before the destruction of Jerusalem. He hasn’t liked what I said, so he has resorted to putting words and positions in my mouth that I have not taken. He keeps saying that I deny the blessing of the way into the MHP provided in Christ.>
He claims that he answered the question by saying this: <Secondly, I have not said, as Don continuously accuses me, that there is not a sense in which the dead in CHRIST go to be with Christ in the MHP. All of his misrepresentations of me are just fabrications to make it appear that he is answering me and exposing severe holes in my arguments. When Don says such things as "Terry says that man still is not today in the Presence of God, and does not enter the MHP when he dies!," just go back and check up on Don.> By the way, I have challenged Terry to explain, in some way, anyway, what this nebulous, ambiguous, "in some sense" is that the Christian does go to the MHP! I know it is not heaven, because in his quote above, it is Abraham’s bosom, sorta, kinda, in some sense, I guess.
RESPONSE: AMEN AND AMEN! PLEASE, GO BACK AND CHECK TO SEE IF TERRY EVEN ONCE SAID THAT WHEN THE FAITHFUL CHRISTIAN DIES TODAY THAT THEY GO DIRECTLY TO HEAVEN! I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO DO IT!
: AMEN AND AMEN! , GO BACK AND CHECK TO SEE IF TERRY EVEN ONCE SAID THAT WHEN THE FAITHFUL CHRISTIAN DIES TODAY THAT THEY GO DIRECTLY TO HEAVEN!
Let me say this again: Terry believes– AND ACTUALLY (grudgingly) ADMITTED IT ABOVE– that when the faithful child of God dies physically today, THEY GO TO ABRAHAM’S BOSOM! And, folks, you know as well as I do that ABRAHAM’S BOSOM IS NOT HEAVEN! It is not the Most Holy Place! Terry does not for one moment believe that it is! If Terry was not debating me, he would admit that.
So, even though Terry originally claimed not to understand the relevance of the question to our discussion, he has now come to realize that to answer the question based on what he really believes, destroys his entire theology! So, what does he do? He brags somewhat about not walking into my "trap" on the MHP as others have done? Well, if he did not originally see the relevance of the question to our discussions, how did he know it was a trap that others had fallen into? The reality is that my argument on the MHP catches Terry totally unprepared theologically , and here is why. Here is the argument, again:
In Revelation 11 and 15, John was told that no man could enter the MHP, until the Wrath of God was completed (Revelation 15:8).
That Wrath would be completed under the Seventh Vial that would be poured out in the judgment of Babylon (Revelation 16)..
Babylon was the city where the Lord was slain (Jerusalem, Revelation 11:8– and by the way, you will note that Terry has never refuted the point! So, this means that Terry MUST ADMIT that God’s wrath of the Seventh Bowl was indeed finished in A.D. 70!!).
Therefore, no man could enter the MHP until God’s wrath was completed in the judgment of Jerusalem.
Now, notice again the argument on Hebrews 9
There would be no access to the Most Holy Place as long as the Old Covenant remained valid (Hebrews 9).
There is no access to the Most Holy Place even today (Terry Benton).
the Old Covenant remains valid today.
REVELATION 15– THE NAOS– AND ENTRANCE INTO THE MOST HOLY
I must confess to (very successfully) setting a trap for Terry! And he walked in with his traditional blinders on, and with his typical desperation, entrapped himself beyond recovery.
Here is what I argued– the trap that I set– on Revelation 11, 15:8f:
<John saw the Ark of the Covenant in the Temple (Naos, the MHP, as opposed to heiron–Revelation 11:19).Terry, where did the Ark of the Covenant reside?
John was told that no one could enter the NAOS until the plagues of the seven angels were completed (Revelation 15:8). Notice Terry’s desperation, "It merely indicates that there was no entrance into the temple (holy place or most holy place) for the duration of these plagues."
Terry, blindly falling into my trap, then went into a discourse showing that naos and heiron are sometimes used interchangeably. (You will note that I did not say that naos and hieron are ALWAYS different, or that NAOS is INVARIABLY the MHP! Terry, however, did not notice what I did not say, and then charged me with saying or believing it!)
Here is what Terry gave, thinking I was not aware of it, or thinking I was denying it, or something:
<Well naos is the general term for the holy and most holy place. Don argued that there is a naos versus heiron distinction that validates his contention that "temple" in Revelation 15 is the MHP. His naos argument is faulty because it (naos) does not refer exclusively to the MHP.
And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple (naos) , and departed, and went and hanged himself. Matt 27:5 KJV. Did Judas throw the money down in the MHP? Hey, Terry, I never made any such claim.
According to the custom of the priest’s office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple (naos) of the Lord. Luke 1:9 KJV Did Zachariah burn incense in the MHP? He was not a High Priest. Did he go into the MHP? The point is that these verses use the word "naos". Don knows it does not exclusively refer to the MHP, (NOTE: You are right, Terry, I DO know that, and never said to the contrary! You have set up a straw man, and charged me with believing it!) but he has built a doctrine around entering the MHP when we die and it serves his interests to make Revelation 15 a proof text that no one could enter the MHP until the destruction of Jerusalem. In Revelation 11:1 there were those who worshiped God at the naos. The church is metaphorically called the naos…. The point is that if the church is the naos, and Don’s argument is that the naos is the MHP, then it follows that the church had been part of the MHP long before the seven bowls of wrath in Rev.15, and the vision would only show a PAUSE of entrance into the naos that would allow entrance AGAIN after the seven bowls of wrath were complete. If there was entrance going on before the bowls of wrath, then it destroys Don’s whole line of argument. He has built his whole doctrine around the premise that entrance into the MHP was not opened until the destruction of Jerusalem. Now, by arguing that the word naos in Rev.15 proves his case about when entrance was first granted into the MHP, he has backed himself into a corner. Naos refers to the temple and the church is the naos, with God in us and we in God. Eph 2:21-22- in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple (naos) in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit. NKJV – Therefore, entrance into the naos started back on Pentecost (Acts 2).>>
RESPONSE: I could write a book on all the errors found here, but, I will keep it brief! Let me say that I am well aware of the fact that sometimes naos and hieron are used interchangeably. That is not the issue, but, by framing the argument as I did, Terry assumed (falsely) that I either did not know this, or was ignoring it! NOT SO! I was arguing from the context, which is always the determinative factor, right? What is that context? It is that THE TEMPLE IN HEAVEN WAS OPENED, AND THEN THE ARK OF THE COVENANT WAS SEEN! So, in light of this…
: I could write a book on all the errors found here, but, I will keep it brief! Let me say that I am well aware of the fact that sometimes and are used interchangeably. That is not the issue, but, by framing the argument as I did, Terry assumed (falsely) that I either did not know this, or was ignoring it! NOT SO! I was arguing from the context, which is always the determinative factor, right? What is that context? It is that THE TEMPLE IN HEAVEN WAS OPENED, AND THEN THE ARK OF THE COVENANT WAS SEEN! So, in light of this…
1.) I asked terry WHERE THE ARK OF THE COVENANT WAS FOUND? Was it in the naos generically, or was it in the Most Holy Place? He did not respond, did not write a word in response, because to admit that the Ark of the Covenant was seen in the naos in Revelation defines the naos there as the MOST HOLY!
2.) Now watch how Terry has destroyed his own doctrine by arguing that the naos is the church.
The church is the naos of Revelation 11, 15. (Terry Benton–By the way, he did not PROVE this, just more assertions!)
People were entering the church from Pentecost onward.
Therefore, people were entering the naos from Pentecost forward.
There are so many problems with this that space will not allow us to develop them all. One of the main problems, however is this:
REVELATION 11, 15 EMPHATICALLY DECLARES THAT NO ONE COULD ENTER THE NAOS THAT WAS THE FOCUS OF THE VISION UNTIL THE SEVENTH BOWL OF WRATH WAS POURED OUT! You see, it is not a question of how naos is used in other contexts. IT IS A QUESTION OF WHERE THE ARK OF THE COVENANT SAT, IN THE NAOS, and, it is into THAT naos that no one could enter UNTIL THE CONSUMMATION OF GOD’S WRATH!
You see, it is not a question of how is used in other contexts. IT IS A QUESTION OF WHERE THE ARK OF THE COVENANT SAT, IN THE , and, it is into THAT that no one could enter UNTIL THE CONSUMMATION OF GOD’S WRATH!
So, here is Terry’s dilemma, created by walking into my trap:
The church is the naos of Revelation 11, 15. (Terry Benton).
But, no man could enter the naos of Revelation 11, 15, until the completion of the Bowls of the Wrath of God, consummated in the judgment against Babylon.
Babylon was Old Covenant Jerusalem (Terry has never denied this!).
Therefore, no man could enter the naos of Revelation 11, 15, i.e. THE CHURCH, until the completion of the Bowls of the Wrath of God, consummated in the judgment of Old Covenant Jerusalem!
TERRY HAS TAKEN A POSITION THAT DEMANDS THAT NO ONE ENTERED THE CHURCH UNTIL THE FALL OF JERUSALEM IN A.D. 70!
Notice also that Terry’s position contradicts what the inspired text says:
The church is the naos of Revelation 11, 15 (Terry Benton).
People were entering the naos of Revelation 11, 15, from Pentecost onward.
However, Revelation 11, 15 says that no one could enter that naos until the wrath of God against Babylon was finished!
So, while Terry argues that man COULD enter the naos of Revelation 11, 15 from Pentecost onward, THE INSPIRED TEXT OF REVELATION irrefutably denies what Terry is saying!
Now, you have to see that even Terry has admitted this! Notice what he says: <the vision would only show a PAUSE of entrance into the naos that would allow entrance AGAIN after the seven bowls of wrath were complete.> Terry claims that this is "devastating" to my view. NO, it has no impact on my view, because it is based on a rotten foundation,
faulty logic, and denial of the text!
RESPONSE: Did you catch it? Terry is admitting that there was at least a "pause of entrance into the naos until the outpouring of the Seventh Bowl of Wrath!" That means that FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE FIRST BOWL UNTIL THE OUTPOURING OF THE SEVENTH BOWL, NO ONE COULD ENTER THE CHURCH! Wouldn’t it be good to know where Terry places the outpouring of the first bowl, so that we could know how long that "pause of entrance into the naos" lasted? It does not really matter however, because for him to suggest that no man could enter the church for any period of time, is almost beyond the pale of belief. And where did Terry get the authority of evidence to suggest that man could enter the naos AGAIN, after the Seventh Bowl was poured out? The text does not say it, or even indicate it. That is pure theological invention.
: Did you catch it? Terry is admitting that there was at least a "pause of entrance into the naos until the outpouring of the Seventh Bowl of Wrath!" That means that FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE FIRST BOWL UNTIL THE OUTPOURING OF THE SEVENTH BOWL, NO ONE COULD ENTER THE CHURCH! Wouldn’t it be good to know where Terry places the outpouring of the first bowl, so that we could know how long that "pause of entrance into the naos" lasted? It does not really matter however, because for him to suggest that no man could enter the church for any period of time, is almost beyond the pale of belief. And where did Terry get the authority of evidence to suggest that man could enter the AGAIN, after the Seventh Bowl was poured out? The text does not say it, or even indicate it. That is pure theological invention.
Notice another severe problem. WHERE WAS THE TEMPLE, THE NAOS, OF REVELATION 11, 15 LOCATED? Well, it was "in heaven!" So, Terry wants to identify the naos of Revelation as the church. But, WAS THE CHURCH IN HEAVEN? Remember that Terry believes that saints, i.e. (the church) go to Abraham’s bosom and wait there until the second coming! Now, however, Terry’s argument is that the naos is the church, and people were entering the church (naos) from Pentecost forward. SO, PEOPLE WERE ENTERING HEAVEN FROM PENTECOST FORWARD! But not so, according to Terry’s MHP doctrine, because, again, no one could/can enter heaven until the end of time! See where Terry’s desperation and bad hermeneutic leads?
Finally, I could hardly believe what Terry wrote: <But now, the one atoning Sacrifice being provided in the precious blood of Christ, access to this holy God could no longer be denied; and so the moment the Victim expired on the altar, that thick veil which for so many ages had been the dread symbol of separation between God and guilty men was, without a hand touching it, mysteriously "rent in twain from top to bottom:" – "the Holy Spirit this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was NOW made manifest!" How emphatic the statement, "from top to bottom;" as if to say, Come boldly now to the Throne of Grace; the veil is clean gone; the Mercy Seat stands open to the gaze of sinners, and the way to it is sprinkled with the blood of Him – "who through the eternal Spirit hath offered Himself without spot to God"! Before, it was death to go in, now it is death to stay out. See more on this glorious subject at Heb 10:19-22. (from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary). These points are devastating to Don’s position. That is why he avoided answering my argument and chose to keep offering more affirmative material and demanding that I answer him some more. No, readers, I followed Don’s arguments when I was in the negative, and it was his turn to follow my arguments.>
Terry claims that this is devastating to my position. There is NOT ONE THING devastating about it, however, SINCE IT IS FALSE! Folks, IT IS TERRY THAT DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT MAN CAN ENTER THE MOST HOLY PLACE TODAY! It is he that claimed that man enters both Abraham’s bosom– and heaven, "in some sense." It is he that is citing a source that believes man does enter the MHP when they die, WHILE HE DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT! Terry, the theology of J, F and B is in direct contradiction to your theology, yet, you cite them as if you agreed with them! But you don’t! After all, you do believe– DON’T YOU – that when the Christian dies today, they go to Abraham’s bosom? And, I have fully responded to everything you have even attempted to say about this, and falsified your position. It is just obfuscatory verbiage to say otherwise.
You see, this entire issue of the Most Holy Place is totally destructive to Terry’s position, the position that I once believed. No matter how Terry twists and turns to avoid this problem, it is fatal to his view. My argument stands, and Terry’s arguments are invalidated and falsified.
No man could enter the MHP while the Old Covenant stood valid.
No man could enter the MHP, the naos where the Ark of the Covenant stood, in heaven, until the Wrath of God was finished.
The Wrath of God was finished in the judgment of Babylon, Old Covenant Jerusalem, in A.D. 70.
Therefore, the Old Covenant stood valid until the Wrath of God was finished in the judgment of Babylon, Old Covenant Jerusalem, in A.D. 70.
The power of this argument is devastating, and proves beyond a doubt that the Mosaic Covenant remained valid until A.D. 70.
JESUS AND THE PRIESTHOOD
Terry makes another rather remarkable, but false, claim. "Thirdly, the admission on his part that Jesus DID indeed receive the Melchizedecan Priesthood long before the destruction of Jerusalem is a nail in his coffin, for He has a High Priest who cannot give remission of sins for forty more years when He then ends the old covenant and fully installs the second covenant by coming back out of the MHP."
RESPONSE: I guess the only way Terry believes he can make a point is to totally ignore what I say, and what the scriptures say. Terry, let me repeat this one more time: Jesus died to the Mosaic Law, and entered into the realm where his priesthood was and is valid. You seem to think that even though Christ died to the Law and was no longer subject to it, that he could not be priest! His death to the Law and institution of the New, Different Priesthood, signaled that the Mosaic Covenant was now ready to vanish– JUST LIKE HEBREWS 8 SAYS! Your utter refusal to honor this Biblical fact is proof positive of your desperation and blindness to what the texts actually say.
Terry then rather energetically says: <On Hebrews 8:5– Don then made another ridiculous claim that "Terry wants us to believe that Christ could not serve in earth because the Jerusalem priests were just a bunch of bullies that would not let him in the Temple!" That is beyond laughable to one of the most incredible claims I have ever heard, especially coming from a gospel preacher.>
RESPONSE: Is it really ridiculous Terry? Really? You have stated repeatedly that the only reason that the sacrifices and cultus was continued was because of the failure or refusal of the Jews to acknowledge Christ! So, if they were continuing to honor Torah– as Hebrews 8:5 manifestly proves they were– then WOULD THEY HAVE ALLOWED CHRIST TO SERVE? What would be the BASIS of their refusal? Would it have been the Torah? Well you answer that for us yourself: <He could not be a priest on earth on two counts: 1) because the old law calls for LEVItical (sic) priests,> He also said this about this issue: <He is from the tribe of Judah (unauthorized for priesthood under the Law),> and, 2) because He was the priest that fulfills what the earthly copies could only copy in inferior typology.> THANK YOU, TERRY, FOR MAKING MY POINT!
: Is it really ridiculous Terry? Really? You have stated repeatedly that the o
nly reason that the sacrifices and cultus was continued was because of the failure or refusal of the Jews to acknowledge Christ! So, if they were continuing to honor Torah– as Hebrews 8:5 manifestly proves they were– then WOULD THEY HAVE ALLOWED CHRIST TO SERVE? What would be the BASIS of their refusal? Would it have been the Torah? Well you answer that for us yourself: <He could not be a priest on earth on two counts: 1) because the old law calls for LEVItical (sic) priests,> He also said this about this issue: <He is from the tribe of Judah (unauthorized for priesthood under the Law),> and, 2) because He was the priest that fulfills what the earthly copies could only copy in inferior typology.> THANK YOU, TERRY, FOR MAKING MY POINT!
Here is what Terry has argued.
The Torah– including the Laws about the Levitical priesthood, was invalidated at the Cross.
But, if the Torah-including the Laws about the Levitical priesthood– was invalidated at the Cross, WHY COULDN’T JESUS SERVE AS PRIEST ON THE EARTH? WHY?
Terry answers: If he were on earth, he could not be a priest, seeing there are priests who serve according to the Law. AMEN, AND AMEN!!
But, Terry tells us, THAT LAW OF THE PRIESTHOOD WAS NO LONGER VALID! So, why wouldn’t they allow Jesus to serve as priest? Because they were blindly and ignorantly continuing to honor an abrogated Law, says Terry! So, according to Terry, the prohibition against Jesus serving as priest was not- IN SPITE OF HEBREWS 8– because there were priests serving "according to the Law." It was (supposedly) because those priests did not recognize that Torah was abrogated, and they would have prohibited Jesus from serving! All his verbose objections to the contrary, WHAT I SAID IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE: "Terry wants us to believe that Christ could not serve on earth because the Jerusalem priests were just a bunch of bullies that would not let him in the Temple!"
Terry spends four pages trying, finally, to answer my argument on Romans 11. But, his increase in verbiage has not increased the soundness of his argument. My argument is both affirmative and negative in force.
What does Terry say that Romans 11:25-27 is about? He simply repeats the same argument, in expanded form, that he has made from the beginning.
1.) Romans 11:25-27 does not speak of a yet future–from Paul– coming of Christ to save Israel.
2.) Romans 11:25-27 quotes from Isaiah 59 which is a prediction of Christ’s FIRST COMING, to inaugurate the Gospel. Here is his quote: <The reason God’s mercy will always be opened to them and all is because that is the nature of His mercy, and such mercy had long been expressed in the promise to send Jesus to turn away ungodliness from Jacob (Isa.59:20) and in His promise to "take away their sins" (Jer.31:31f). Both of those things came true in Jesus’ ministry, death, resurrection, and offer of the gospel (good news) of these things.>
3.) The Gentiles had been called, and were being saved by faith in Christ.
4.) All Israel, that is, any Jew and every Jew that will ever be saved throughout time, will be saved in the same way as the Gentiles, i.e. by faith.
5.) Romans 11 has nothing therefore, to do with eschatology, or the end of the Old Covenant, or the full arrival/establishment of the New Covenant.
Then, Terry tells us that my argument baffled him: <I was baffled by Don’s arguments on this passage. He misused it to say that all Israel would be saved at the destruction of Jerusalem when Isa.59 and Jer.31:31f would be fulfilled. I could see no connection between Don’s arguments on the passage and the passage itself. He kept saying the quotation from the Old Testament in Isa.59 and Jer.31 using the future tense was proof that when Paul quoted it in Rom.11 it means it was still in the future, along with Paul’s statement that "all Israel WILL be saved". Thus, he concludes that this passage supports his case that "obligation to keep the Law of Moses ended at the destruction of Jerusalem", and the new covenant would then come into full force.>
RESPONSE: Let’s see if Preston misused Isaiah, Jeremiah and Romans.
: Let’s see if Preston misused Isaiah, Jeremiah and Romans.
1.) Paul cites three prophecies in Romans 11:25f– Isaiah 27, Isaiah 59, and Jeremiah 31.Terry has ignored my real argument, about the prophetic context that Paul cites WHICH PREDICTED ISRAEL’S SALVATION AT THE TIME OF ISRAEL’S JUDGMENT! There is nothing baffling about that. Nothing difficult about that…unless of course, you are bound to a traditional view that refuses to honor what the text actually says!
2.) Neither Isaiah 27 or Isaiah 59 have ANYTHING to do with Christ’s incarnation!
Here is Isaiah 27:9f. Note HOW and WHEN YHVH said He would remove Israel’s sin:
. Note and YHVH said He would remove Israel’s sin:
<<Has He struck Israel as He struck those who struck him? Or has He been slain according to the slaughter of those who were slain by Him? 8 In measure, by sending it away, You contended with it. He removes it by His rough wind In the day of the east wind. 9.) Therefore by this the iniquity of Jacob will be covered; And this is all the fruit of taking away his sin: When he makes all the stones of the altar Like chalk stones that are beaten to dust, Wooden images and incense altars shall not stand. 10 Yet the fortified city will be desolate, The habitation forsaken and left like a wilderness; There the calf will feed, and there it will lie down And consume its branches. 11 When its boughs are withered, they will be broken off; The women come and set them on fire. For it is a people of no understanding; Therefore He who made them will not have mercy on them, And He who formed them will show them no favor. So it shall be in that day: The great trumpet will be blown; They will come, who are about to perish in the land of Assyria, And they who are outcasts in the land of Egypt, And shall worship the LORD in the holy mount at Jerusalem.">
Terry can’t get the incarnation out of this text, and he can’t get the incarnation into this prophecy, without perverting it! Take note of some things, and by the way, I have to observe that although I called attention to Isaiah 27 several times TERRY DID NOT SAY ONE SINGLE WORD ABOUT IT! NOT ONE!
1.) God was going to slay Israel– Was that the incarnation of Jesus?
2.) God was going to remove Israel– Was that at the incarnation?
3.) The fortified cities would become desolate, because of the judgment of the people without understanding. Was that at the incarnation?
4.) The creator of Israel would have no mercy on them– Terry, it seems to me that Jesus came and EXTENDED MERCY to Israel in his incarnation, yet here, it predicts the time when no mercy would be extended! It would only be after Israel rejected the call into her New Covenant–as you have now admitted– that mercy would be withdrawn!
5.) No notice how God would remove Israel’s sin. Would it be throughout time, in the preaching of the Gospel? Read the inspired words: <Therefore by this the iniquity of Jacob will be covered; And this is all the fruit of taking away his sin: When he makes all the stones of the altar Like chalk stones that are beaten to dust.> Terry, did Jesus make the altars as chalk stones turned to dust at his incarnation?
6.) Notice finally that at that time: <The great trumpet will be blown; They will come, who are about to perish in the land of Assyria, And they who are outcasts in the land of Egypt, And shall worship the LORD in the holy mount at Jerusalem."
Now note that in Matthew 24, Jesus foretold the gathering of the elect– this is th
e remnant– and all but quotes Isaiah 27:13– "The Son of Man shall send forth his angels with the sound of the great trumpet, and they shall gather together the elect…"! And when would Matthew 24:29-31 be fulfilled? I believe Terry would tell us that it was in the A.D. 70 parousia of Christ!
So, here is the argument:
Paul anticipated the salvation of Israel in fulfillment of Isaiah 27 (Romans 11:25-27).
But, Isaiah 27 foretold the salvation of Israel at the time when Israel was destroyed–when God’s mercy to Israel was withdrawn.
Therefore, Paul anticipated the salvation of Israel at the time when Israel was destroyed–when God’s mercy to Israel was withdrawn. Of course, even Terry would admit that God’s mercy to Israel was withdrawn and judgment came on them in A.D. 70.
This means that since Romans 11 anticipated the fulfillment of Isaiah 27, that Romans 11 cannot be about the incarnation of Jesus, or the evangelism of Jews throughout the Christian age. Isaiah 27 foretold the salvation of Israel at the time of her judgment. This means that Romans 11 anticipated the salvation of Israel at the time of her judgment, and that means that GOD’S COVENANT WITH ISRAEL– THE TORAH– WOULD REMAIN VALID UNTIL THAT JUDGMENT! Terry’s argument is falsified on this alone, but that is not all.
NOW ISAIAH 59
Isaiah 59 breaks itself down into three headings very conveniently:
1.) ACCUSATION: YHVH’s accusation against Israel. What was the accusation? Three times He accused Israel of shedding innocent blood (Isaiah 59:3, 6, 7)! Did Jesus accuse Israel of his sin? Of course! Matthew 23:29ff is a direct commentary on Isaiah 59!
2.) ACKNOWLEDGMENT: Israel actually confesses her sin, although she does not repent of them (v. 9f). Notice that the prophet says Israel’s sin was being multiplied before YHVH (v. 12), which is an allusion to filling the measure of sin. Again, Jesus commented directly on this in Matthew 23.
3.) ACTION: Here is where it gets real troublesome for Terry’s doctrine! YHVH saw Israel’s sin, her multiplied sin, and it did not please Him. I am going to give the extended citation here, so that you can have it in front of you.
"So truth fails, And he who departs from evil makes himself a prey. Then the LORD saw it, and it displeased Him That there was no justice. 16 He saw that there was no man, And wondered that there was no intercessor; Therefore His own arm brought salvation for Him; And His own righteousness, it sustained Him. 17 For He put on righteousness as a breastplate, And a helmet of salvation on His head; He put on the garments of vengeance for clothing, And was clad with zeal as a cloak. 18 According to their deeds, accordingly He will repay, Fury to His adversaries, Recompense to His enemies; The coastlands He will fully repay. 19 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. 20 "The Redeemer will come to Zion, And to those who turn from transgression in Jacob," Says the LORD. 21 "As for Me," says the LORD, "this is My covenant with them: My Spirit who is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your descendants, nor from the mouth of your descendants’ descendants," says the LORD, "from this time and forevermore."
I could go on and on about this, but take note that Israel’s salvation is posited here as occurring at the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel FOR SHEDDING INNOCENT BLOOD!
Terry, when did Jesus say that Israel would be judged for shedding innocent blood? You know this, it is Matthew 23:29-39. That time of judgment, judgment for all the righteous blood shed on the earth, all the way back to Abel, would occur in the judgment of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
This salvation of Israel would occur when the Lord was displeased with Israel due to the fact that her sin was multiplied before Him. Jesus said that Israel would fill the measure of her sin in his generation, and be destroyed (in A.D. 70). Paul concurred (1 Thessalonians 2:15ff).
This salvation of Israel would be when God came and would recompense to His enemies! Terry, did Jesus do that in his first coming? Matthew 16:27-28 answers that! It would be at his coming in judgment, before all of that audience/generation died!
Neither Isaiah 27 or Isaiah 59 foretold the incarnation of Jesus and the establishment of the gospel system for evangelism of Jews throughout the Christian age! Isaiah 59 is about the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood. So, again, here is the argument:
Paul anticipated the coming of the Lord for the salvation of Israel in fulfillment of Isaiah 59.
Isaiah 59 foretold the salvation of Israel at the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood.
Therefore, the coming of the Lord anticipated by Paul in Romans 11:25-27 was the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood, i.e. A.D. 70.
Of course, I must observe that while I have given this argument several times, that Terry totally ignored it, simply repeating his falsified view that Romans 11 is not eschatological, has nothing to do with A.D. 70, and has nothing to do with the ending of the Torah! Yet, we have shown, conclusively, that the coming of the Lord foretold in Isaiah would be in fulfillment of His covenant with them! So, God’s covenant with Israel would remain valid until it was completely fulfilled, at the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood, i.e. A.D. 70.
It is little wonder that Terry has totally ignored the prophetic source and background of Romans 11. Yet, to ignore the prophetic background is to ignore the proper context for understanding the text, and to be doomed to faulty theology, as Terry’s position exemplifies. Now, let’s drive our point home a little more.
So, Preston honors and teaches the prophetic background and source of Romans 11, Terry Benton ignores that context. Preston honors and teaches that the prophetic context of Romans 11 foretold the coming of the Lord in salvation, when Israel was judged for shedding innocent blood. Terry Benton denies this, claiming that Isaiah and Romans has nothing to do with the judgment of Israel. SO, WHO IS IT THAT IS MISUSING ROMANS 11?
DANIEL 9 AND ROMANS 11
Let’s examine Romans 11 in the light of Daniel 9. We have already shown that Daniel 9 extends no further than A.D. 70, and that the blessings foretold there were not full realities until that time. See above. For brevity here is my argument– and again, it refutes and falsifies any and all of Terry’s arguments.
Seventy Weeks were determined to put away Israel’s sin (Daniel 9:24)– i.e. to bring in Israel’s salvation, when Jerusalem was destroyed.
Romans 11:25f anticipated the salvation of Israel when YHVH would remove Israel’s sin through judgment (Isaiah 27/ 59).
Therefore, Romans 11:25ff anticipated the fulfillment of the promise of Daniel 9:24f, the time of Israel’s salvation and the putting away of Israel’s sin, when Jerusalem was destroyed.
I HOPE THE READERS WILL CATCH THE POWER OF THIS!
The putting away of Israel’s sin–at the time of Israel’s salvation and judgment in Romans 11 is the time of the fulfillment of Daniel 9:24-27.
Daniel 9:24-27 confined the putting away of Israel’s sin to the Seventy Weeks, climaxing in the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
Therefore, IT MUST BE TRUE that the putting away of Israel’s sin– at the time of Israel’s salvation and judgment, in Romans 11– must be confined to th
e Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9, climaxing in the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70!
To falsify this argument, Terry would have to prove that the time of Israel’s salvation and the time of the putting away of Israel’s sin found in Isaiah (cited in Romans), and the time of Israel’s salvation and putting away of sin in Daniel are totally different. Yet, Isaiah 27/59 posit Israel’s salvation at the time of her judgment for shedding innocent blood. Daniel 9 confines the time of Israel’s salvation and the putting away of her sin to the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70– which of course, Jesus himself identified as the time of Israel’s judgment for shedding innocent blood!!
Or, to falsify this argument, it would have to be proven that the Seventy Weeks has not yet been fulfilled. Premillennialism anyone?
Neither one of these things can be proven.
That means that the putting away of Israel’s sin in Romans must be confined to the period of time climaxing in the judgment of Israel, for shedding innocent blood, in A.D. 70.
Now of course, since YHVH said that His covenant with Israel would remain valid until then, and be then brought to fulfillment, that Terry’s affirmative is falsified, definitively, irrefutably.
Terry complains that I did not introduce this text into the discussions until my second negative. Well, Terry, if you have the answer to the argument, you should be able to dispense with it no matter when I introduced it!
Terry tried to deal with the text by quoting page after page of a commentary and arguing:
1.) No matter what it says, we know, Terry says, that the Law was abolished at the Cross (Ephesians 2:14f). This assumes of course, that Terry’s interpretation of Ephesians is correct, but we have shown it to be false, since it says that it was "IN CHRIST" that the Law of Commandments was removed. Terry has consistently refused to address this irrefutable fact! It is "IN CHRIST" that the Law was removed for those "IN CHRIST." In Ephesians 2 alone, Paul uses the "in him," "in Christ," "in whom," etc. concept NO LESS THAN NINE TIMES!
Now, Terry would have to explain whether all of the things that belonged to those "in Christ" ALSO APPLIED TO THOSE NOT IN CHRIST! You know he would not so argue, not for a moment! Yet, it was "in Christ" that the Law of Commandments was abolished! So, if the blessings of "in Christ" applied only to those "in him" and not to those without, then it is also true that the abolishing of the Law of commandments that was "in him" also did not apply to those "not in him!" And this is precisely what Paul affirmed in Romans 10:4– "Christ is the end of the Law for those who believe."I have pointed out repeatedly that "in Christ" is the entire key to this discussion, yet, Terry has ignored this!
2.) I noted that Zechariah says that YHVH would break His covenant with the people "in the day" when they would eat the flesh of one another. How did Terry try to respond to this:
<While Don tries to bring the "eating of each other’s flesh" into the very moment of the "breaking of the covenant", I would see the eating of each other’s flesh as the EVENTUAL CONSEQUENCE (my emphasis, DKP), of Jesus "letting them alone" because they were blind leaders of the blind and both would eventually fall into the ditch (Matt.15:14)…. The EVENTUAL CONSEQUENCE (my emphasis, DKP) was that they would wind up eating each others flesh.>
Terry’s argument brings us back to an issue that I have tried, in presentation after presentation, to get Terry to give us some PROOF for his wild assertions. Yet, here we are, the debate is all but over, and Terry has not even tried to give any proof for his specious claims! TERRY’S CLAIM IS THAT PROVISIONS OF A COVENANT CAN REMAIN VALID AFTER THE ABROGATION OF THAT COVENANT! How in the name of reason or logic that this could be true, Terry has never even attempted to explain. It is more of his "personal authority" claims that are less than convincing.
We have already proven that covenant provisions are only valid while the covenant is still binding.
Now, note that THE CURSE OF JERUSALEM AND JUDAH EATING THEIR CHILDREN WAS A CURSE FOR VIOLATING THE MOSAIC COVENANT. (DEUTERONOMY 28:55-57).
That covenant would not be annulled by YHVH until the time when Jerusalem and Judah ate the flesh of their offspring.
So, the Mosaic Covenant, with its provisions of Wrath for violating the covenant, was not annulled until the time when Jerusalem and Judah ate the flesh of their sons and daughters, i.e. in A. D. 70.
Terry’s argument that the destruction of Jerusalem was the "eventual consequence" of Israel’s rebellion, means that although YHVH had abrogated the Covenant that pronounced Wrath on her, that He nonetheless applied the Covenant provisions of Wrath! Terry, is that justice? Is that fair, or logical? More, WHERE IS THE PROOF that we have asked for, and the readers deserve?
Terry says he cannot believe a gospel preacher would say some of the things that I have– although he has not supported any of his objections. Yet, we have here an issue in which Terry has made a claim. Then, although I have challenged him in virtually every presentation to give us so much as a SHRED OF EVIDENCE to support his unbelievable claim, he has not even tried! All we have is Terry’s authority, again. Here is the argument again:
Covenant provisions are only valid as long as the Covenant is valid and binding.
The Mosaic covenant provisions of Wrath, for violating the Covenant, was that Israel would eat the flesh of their children.
The Mosaic Covenant provisions of Wrath, for violating the Covenant, were applied in the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem.
Therefore, the Mosaic Covenant was still valid and binding in A.D. 70.
Terry cannot refute this argument, and it totally negates his entire paradigm. For all of Terry’s multi-page verbiage, demanding that I comment on every minutea of his expansive article, this single, irrefutable argument falsifies anything and everything he might say. He did not touch the fundamental issues involved. That is why he did not say one word about its application in Zechariah 11!
TWO LAWS AT ONE TIME
I noted that the argument on Zechariah proved beyond doubt that two laws were in effect at the same time. The gospel was being preached, calling Israel into the New Covenant. The preaching of the New Covenant into all the world was part of the fulfillment of the Old Covenant prophecies that was essential to fulfill that Old Covenant, and therefore ESSENTIAL for the passing of Torah. (Luke 24:44f– you really need to think about this critical fact, by the way!) Those who refused would be subject to the Mosaic Covenant provisions of Wrath–they would become "vessels of wrath," just as described by the Law (Hosea 8:10–>Romans 9:22). Thus, once again, fulfilling the Law, which was essential before it could pass! That is why I have argued– and all Terry has been able to do is ridicule– that there was a transitional period of time, in which the gospel was being preached, "to the Jew first."
He actually began his "response" to my argument by saying that, "Don admits two laws at the same time." Well, Terry, I "admit it" because that is what I have affirmed and proven! It is what the scriptures affirm– and you even now admit it! – at least a little:
<While he argues that this is workable because God had two laws at the same time for different people (Jews had Old Testament and Gentiles had other moral law), the problem he fails to address is that Je
ws were obligated to Jesus, the Messiah and Mediator of the New Testament (via Deut.18:15f; Acts 3:19f; Jno.12:48) at the same time that Don says that the Old Covenant was also still binding. So, this puts the same people obligated to two laws at once. He says the believers were released from obligation to the old, but that still puts unbelievers under obligation to Jesus and Moses at the same time.>
TERRY, DID YOU EVEN READ WHAT YOU HAD WRITTEN? DID YOU PURPOSELY MISREPRESENT WHAT I SAID? YOU HAVE ADMITTED THAT GOD DID INDEED HAVE TWO LAWS, FOR TWO PEOPLE, AT LEAST AT ONE TIME! Readers, do you see what Terry just admitted? DO YOU CATCH THAT?
If God could and did, have two laws in effect, for two different people, at the same time, there is no logical or scriptural basis upon which to deny that God could have two laws in effect for a time, as the gospel was being preached.
1.) The Torah could remain in effect while it was being completely fulfilled– exactly like Jesus said it would be!
2.) The gospel as it was being preached into all the world, was being established/confirmed as the fulfillment of Torah. And you must catch this: Terry has actually now admitted that Israel was to be cast out for rejecting the New Covenant! Well, if they were to be cast out for rejecting the New Covenant, didn’t they have to hear it first? Romans 10 says they did!
3.) Before the gospel was preached to the world, however, in those places where the gospel had not yet been preached, Torah was still in force, for it most assuredly would have been unjust, for YHVH to condemn them for not obeying the gospel when they had not heard it! Furthermore, in spite of Terry’s protestations, there were still shadows of good things that had to be fulfilled (Colossians 2:16f) so that the Law could pass.
4.) Note in this connection that I made an argument, several times, but, while it devastates Terry’s view, it fully establishes my view. Furthermore, YOU WILL NOTE THAT TERRY DID NOT MENTION MY ARGUMENT EVEN ONCE.
<The reader will note that Terry wants us to view all of these present and future tenses (2 Corinthians 3/Colossians/ Hebrews/ Ephesians, etc.) as if the writer viewed them from the perspective of the Old Law. Exactly! FOR THE TORAH WAS STILL STANDING! Terry’s argument founders because Christ had to come, "a second time..FOR the Law having a shadow of good things to come…" I have repeatedly pointed out the causal nature of "for" in Hebrews 10:1. TERRY HAS NOT EVEN ACKNOWLEDGED THAT I MADE THE POINT. Yet, Christ had to come BECAUSE the Law was, at that time, still a shadow. His second coming would complete that High Priestly praxis, and remember that Terry admitted that Christ had to fulfill the Torah in regard to Christ’s priestly sacrifice, and entrance into the MHP, for the Law to pass! Well, in the same way that Christ had to fulfill Torah in regard to those things, he had to come again, for salvation, "FOR, the Law being a shadow of good things about to come…" By ignoring and denying the "FOR" Terry is denying the emphatic statement of the text. Anyway, back to Colossians 2.
NOTICE AGAIN THE FUTURE TENSE: The Sabbaths were at that time a shadow of "good things about to come" FUTURE TENSE (Colossians 2:16)!
The author of Hebrews said, "there remains therefore a Sabbath rest (sabbatismos), for the children of God" (Hebrews 4:9-10)! Look at what this means.
The Law of commandments– even according to Terry’s misguided definition of these things, and his limited view of Matthew 5– had to be completely fulfilled before it could pass.
THE SABBATHS OF TORAH WERE PART OF THE LAW OF COMMANDMENTS! Do you catch that?
THOSE SABBATHS WERE (PRESENT TENSE) SHADOWS OF GOOD THINGS ABOUT TO COME (FUTURE TENSE– COLOSSIANS 2:16F).
THE TRUE SABBATH, FORESHADOWED BY THE SABBATHS OF TORAH, HAD NOT YET BEEN FULFILLED (HEBREWS 4:9F).
Therefore, the Torah had not yet passed when Hebrews was written, and would not pass until the True Sabbath–(you know, entrance into the Presence!!)— foreshadowed by the Sabbaths of Torah– was completely fulfilled.
If Terry’s view is correct, however, THE WRITER OF HEBREWS WAS WRONG TO SAY, "There remains a Sabbath rest"! According to Terry, all of the types and shadows of the law of commandments had already been fulfilled, already abrogated! Yet, Terry is irrefutably wrong, for THE HEBREW WRITER SAID THAT THE SABBATH SHADOWS HAD NOT YET BEEN FULFILLED! We know why Terry ignored this argument– and I could add much more, e.g. in regard to the fact that the Sabbath that remained WAS THE PRIVILEGE OF ENTRANCE INTO THE MHP! Since the Sabbath that remained was entrance into the MHP, and since the Sabbath had not yet arrived, this proves conclusively that the time of Reformation– THE TIME OF ENTRANCE INTO THE MHP– had not arrived, and thus, THE MOSAIC COVENANT REMAINED VALID AS A BARRIER BETWEEN GOD AND MAN! That is all I will say at this time, but this too falsifies Terry’s paradigm.
The fact that Colossians says the Sabbaths were then–present tense– a shadow of good things to come, and the fact that the Hebrews writer said that the true Sabbath STILL REMAINED, proves prima facie that the writers were viewing the present tenses from their present perspective. This completely destroys all of Terry’s obfuscatory verbiage about the aorist tenses, and honors the present and future tenses.
What did Terry say (And I commend him for FINALLY giving at least SOME answer to this, although his response is wrong): "The "rest" (Sabbath) spoken of in Hebrews 4 is based on the rest God entered after his creation (Gen.2) and is not based on the typology of the Sabbaths imposed by the Law of Moses. Therefore, we do not grant Don his argument that the Jewish Sabbaths had not yet been fulfilled in the substance in Christ."
A.) What was Terry’s scriptural support of this claim? Nothing! His presuppositional argument remains: Ephesians 2 says the Law was abolished (but of course, it says no such thing, DKP!), therefore, the Sabbath that remained in Hebrews cannot be any of the Sabbaths foreshadowed in the Torah, for that would prove that the Torah had not yet been fulfilled!
B.) Catch what Terry is trying to do! He tries to dichotomize the Sabbath of Creation from the Sabbath of Torah! When I read that, I must confess that my jaw dropped in amazement! Terry, why did YHVH give the Sabbath of Torah: "Six days you shall labor, but the seventh day you shall do no work at all, for in six days the Lord created, but the seventh day He rested." (Exodus 20:7). THE SABBATH OF TORAH, –THAT WAS A SHADOW OF GOOD THINGS TO COME– WAS BASED SQUARELY ON THE CREATION SABBATH! Your effort to dichotomize them reveals your desperation and falsifies your view!
C.) Hebrews 4 mentions the Sabbath of Creation, AND, also draws on Israel in the wilderness– when they observed Torah Sabbath. It mentions David and the coming of the Sabbath–but David observed Torah Sabbath. If there was a dichotomy between the Creation Sabbath and the Torah Sabbath, the author of Hebrews did not know of it! Again, THE CREATION SABBATH WAS THE SOURCE OF THE TORAH SABBATH, AND THIS DISMANTLES TERRY’S ARGUMENT.
D.) Terry’s desperation on this is patent to all. He tries to divorce the Sabbath of Torah from the Sabbath of Creation– WHEN SCRIPTURE LINKS THEM. This connection proves, therefore, that the Sabbaths of Colossians 2, and of course this brings Ephesians 2 into the discussion as well– had not yet been abolished. The Torah Sabbaths–thus Creation Sabbath– were, present tense, shadows of good things about to come. Therefore, the Sabbaths of Tora
h still remained as shadows, valid, unfulfilled. Terry’s affirmative is falsified.
4.) Paul says the Jews were– when he wrote– without excuse. Why? Was it because they did not know the gospel, or because Torah had passed? It was because the gospel had been preached to them in all the world, and BECAUSE THEY HAD REFUSED IT. That is why!
GALATIANS 4– TWO COVENANTS
Terry, again and again, misrepresents what I have said. He can’t make a point without doing so! He says: On Galatians 4— <Thirdly, Paul was not under two covenants at once. No one had a "right" or "obligation" to prefer the first covenant over the second. This is why I asked Don, and he did not answer, if all Jews were "obligated" to Jesus. If all Jews were obligated to Jesus, and they were (Jno.12:48), then they were obligated to His priesthood, sacrifice, and New Covenant. If they were obligated to Jesus in all these ways, then they could NOT also be obligated to the Old Covenant with priesthood and sacrifices at the same time.>
Now I hope you will pay very close attention here: I NEVER SAID THAT PAUL WAS UNDER TWO LAWS AT ONCE! It is a gross misrepresentation to suggest that I did! Why does Terry keep doing this, putting words into my mouth that I have not written or spoken?
Let me reiterate some of my points on Galatians 4, that Terry did not bother to address:
In Galatians 4:22f, and Paul’s inspired allegory it shows that Isaac and Ishmael–THE TWO COVENANTS!– dwelt in the same house together, while Ishmael persecuted Isaac. However, as a result of that persecution, Ishmael was to be cast out, and Paul said, "As it was then, so it is now…cast out the children of the bondwoman!" Terry, of course, wants us to believe that Paul’s situation was nothing like Abraham’s, because Terry has "Ishmael" cast out of the house BEFORE HE EVER PERSECUTED ISAAC! Terry, "Ishmael/Israel" was to be cast out FOR PERSECUTING THE CHILDREN OF PROMISE! You have them cast out at the Cross, BEFORE THEY EVER PERSECUTED A SINGLE CHRISTIAN!
Terry made a claim, seeking to negate my argument, but in doing so, actually establishes it: <In this text, they are cast out because they rejected the New Covenant and all that the Old had promised. "Casting out" the Old Covenant in the destruction of Jerusalem does not mean that God was holding people "obligated" to live by that covenant.> Actually, this is partially true! The trouble for Terry is that Paul said they would be cast out for persecuting the children of promise!
RESPONSE: Watch what Terry has just admitted:
: Watch what Terry has just admitted:
Israel was cast out "because they rejected the New Covenant." AMEN, AND AMEN, TERRY!
When was Israel offered that New Covenant? WAS IT BEFORE THE NEW COVENANT WAS EVEN ESTABLISHED, TERRY?
Terry, how could Israel be cast off at the CROSS FOR REJECTING THE NEW COVENANT, BEFORE ISRAEL HAD EVEN HEARD THE NEW COVENANT? Terry, what kind of God would reject and condemn Israel for rejecting something that they had never heard, before they had ever heard it, before it was ever confirmed by Jesus’ death?
As noted, Zechariah unequivocally demonstrates that the Mosaic Covenant would not be annulled until the time when Judah and Jerusalem ate the flesh of their children. Of course, the Gospel was being revealed and preached during that same time period, calling all men into it. So, the Mosaic Covenant was still in effect for Israel– "whosoever shall teach anyone to break the least of these commandments shall be called least in the kingdom"– while at the same time, the gospel was being preached to the Jews, calling them out of that covenant into the New! When that Old Covenant had been completely fulfilled (Luke 21:22), YHVH then took it out of the way, leaving only the New Covenant. You will note, I hope, that Terry did not acknowledge my argument on Matthew 5:19! To do so would be to admit total defeat.
So, not only did YHVH have the Sovereign right to have two laws in effect, for two different people, at the same time, BUT, He did precisely that! Yet, Terry calls this a dangerous doctrine! Well, again, Terry, your issue is with YHVH, not Preston!
The point is that Terry’s position has Israel cast out at the Cross. This means that Israel was cast out:
1.) Before the New Covenant was even confirmed by Jesus’ death.
2.) Before the New Covenant had even begun to be preached!
3.) Before the foundation of the New Temple was even laid!
4.) Before she was ever called to her new High Priesthood!
5.) Before she ever persecuted a single seed of promise!
Almost unbelievably, Terry tried the following argument, in response to my assertion that there was a transition from the Old to the New:
<First, the gospel HAD been preached to them. How many Jews heard on the day of Pentecost alone? How many were obligated then? ALL were obligated to Jesus then. Paul said they heard but were a disobedient and contrary people (Rom.10:17-21). To the Colossians he spoke of the gospel "which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven"(Col.1:23). …Pliny, not many years subsequently, in his famous letter to the emperor Trajan (B. X., Ep. 9:7 ), writes, ‘Many of every age, rank, and sex are being brought to trial; for the contagion of that superstition (Christianity) has spread over not only cities, but villages and the country.’" (from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary)
Terry, have you ever heard of the word ANACHRONISM? You take the situation described in Colossians and Romans–and in the time of Pliny (writing 80+ years after Pentecost, for goodness sake!!)-and impose it on Pentecost! What kind of logic is that? To say that the gospel had been preached to all the Jews in Rome and in Colossians does not say it had been preached to all Israel–thus leaving them without excuse– on Pentecost! Your position demands that on Pentecost, Peter told that audience that God had rejected them as God’s people, that His covenant with them was over–BECAUSE THEY HAD ALREADY REJECTED THE NEW COVENANT! Yet, Peter’s words on Pentecost were about the then current fulfillment of God’s promises to them: "This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel!" … "the promise is to you…" Peter’s message was not one of Israel’s termination and failure, it was one of invitation into her Messiah’s New World! It is incredibly sad that Terry turns that message of FULFILLMENT AND INVITATION into one of failure and termination!
Terry’s own words betray him, for if he truly believes that Israel was cast out FOR REJECTING THE NEW COVENANT, then as Paul shows in Romans 10, ISRAEL DID NOT REJECT THE NEW COVENANT UNTIL IT HAD BEEN PREACHED TO THEM IN ALL THE WORLD! Not just on Pentecost!
TERRY’S CLAIMS ABOUT MY "LOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS"
Terry claims that my theology is based on four false assumptions, and if he can falsify those assumptions, that my theology is wrong. Well, of course, if Terry could prove that my premises are wrong, then he would have a case. So, it is incumbent on me to show that A.) Terry makes false claims about my assumptions, and, B.) My "assumptions" are not assumptions at all, but doctrines and tenets based on solid exegesis and logic.
1.) Don’s (supposed) Error #1 is when he assumes that Matt.5:17 means the law cannot be abolished until every promise in the OT is fulfilled.
RESPONSE: Here is what I have proven:
A.) The Law prophesied, and the prophets are called "the Law." I proved this early on, and Terry never tried to deny it.
B.) I proved that the term "the Law" when used without a contextual qualifier, is comprehensive of the entirety of the Old Covenant. There is no contextual qualifier in Matthew 5:17f, therefore, when Jesus said "not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the law until it is all fulfilled" he was speaking of the entirety of Torah, not just the "law of commandments. This alone falsifies Terry’s claim.
C.) I have shown where Terry has taken FOUR DIFFERENT POSITIONS ON THE SAME VERSES! This demonstrates his desperation.
D.) I showed in my very first affirmatives that "the Law" predicted the resurrection (Acts 24:14). I made the argument therefore:
Not one jot or one tittle could pass from "the Law," until it was all fulfilled.
But, "the Law," foretold the resurrection (Acts 24:14).
Therefore, not one jot or one tittle could pass from "the Law" until the resurrection was fulfilled.
Terry could not touch this argument, so he tried repeatedly to redefine "the Law" in ways unknown to the scriptures. And of course, he never gave any proof whatsoever for his claims!
E.) I have shown that Terry has Jesus saying, "not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the Law until SOME OF THE LAW AND SOME OF THE PROPHECIES are fulfilled." Terry denies Jesus’ words, and radically alters them!
F.) I have shown, irrefutably, that the very scriptures that Terry has presented to prove that the Law was abolished at the Cross do not say what he claims! See my comments on Romans 7 / Ephesians 2 / Colossians 2, again. The texts that Terry says teach that the Law was abolished actually say that the Law was removed "in Christ" for those "in him."
G.) I have shown–and Terry has not touched the argument– that even the Law of Commandments– i.e. the shadows of Torah, including the Sabbaths, was still a shadow of good things about to come when Paul wrote Colossians. My argument, succinctly stated is:
Not one jot or tittle could pass from the Law until it was all fulfilled (Matthew 5:17-18).
Part of the Law that had to be fulfilled was the Sabbaths which were shadows of good things about to come (Colossians 2:16).
The Sabbath Rest had not yet come when Hebrews was written (Hebrews 4:9-10).
Therefore, the Law of Commandments had not yet been fulfilled and had not yet passed when Hebrews was written.
This proves definitively that all of his arguments about the past tenses (the tenuous aorist) are not solid. This proves that we must indeed honor the present and future tenses of all of the passages that I have adduced. What we must, in fact do, is to honor the "already-but-not yet" reality of the language of the New Testament. Terry wants to affirm the already, but ignore the "not yet." This is a false premise.
H.) I have proven that Daniel 9 posits the time of the fulfillment of all prophecy at the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. I have shown the beautiful harmony between Daniel, Matthew, Luke 21, and Revelation. Terry has not addressed this unity, simply claiming that Preston is so hung up on his aberrant view of eschatology that he reads it into every text. No, I simply honor the Biblical texts that tie the fulfillment of God’s Old Covenant promises to Israel, to the end of Torah.
I.) I have shown that Zechariah says God would not break His covenant with Israel until the time when they would eat the flesh of their own children. Terry wants us to believe that God broke His covenant with them before they had ever rejected the New Covenant, and WHEN THEY WERE AT PEACE, long before they ever ate each other’s flesh!
J.) I showed that Jesus said that anyone teaching to break one of the least of the Laws of Torah would be called least in the kingdom (Matthew 5:19). THIS WOULD BE TRUE UNTIL IT WAS ALL FULFILLED. Patently, it was not all fulfilled at the Cross, for, see point #G, the Sabbath shadows were still not fulfilled when Hebrews was written!
I presented much more of course, but, these facts alone show that my position on Matthew 5:17f is rock solid. There are no false assumptions on my part. I simply accept what Jesus said. Terry alters what Jesus said, denies what Jesus said. Jesus said none would pass until all was fulfilled, Terry says some would pass when some was fulfilled!
2.) Terry says that my logical error #2 is: <When he expands Luke 21:22 to include more than the context demands. Granted that "all things that are written" sounds all-inclusive, but a little thought would show that it is all things within a certain category.>
Here is the argument, in abbreviated form, that I have made:
Jesus said none of the Old Covenant could pass until it was all fulfilled.
Jesus said that all things that are written would be fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
Therefore, none of the Old Covenant could pass until it was all fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
Terry felt the force of this, so he offered up a desperate argument saying: <The days of vengeance would not fulfill the things written about the birth of the Messiah, His death and resurrection. Those days would not fulfill the "law of commandments contained in ordinances".
I responded by noting that in the very nature of the case, "all things that are written" had to refer to all remaining unfulfilled prophecy. I never argued that the Virgin Birth or Jesus’ passion would not be until A.D. 70, and anyone can see that Terry is just throwing a lot of dust into the air, to cloud the issue.
He admits that the language sounds all inclusive, and of course it is, so, the burden of proof is on him to show that "all things which are written" is not comprehensive! So, how does Terry attempt to negate the force of Luke 21:22? By walking into another trap! By the way, go back and read my comments on Daniel 9, in regard to Terry’s claim that Daniel 9 and the Seventy Weeks included the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises. This ties in beautifully with Luke 21, and proves definitively that Luke 21:22 is speaking about the fulfillment of all eschatological promises!
Here is what he said: <Thus, there are contextual limitations to "all things" in a given context. ‘All things that are written’ in the context of Luke 21:22,32 have to do with all things that pertained to the end of the Jewish Temple system, but not all things about the Messiah, His kingdom, final judgment, or the fulfillment of the righteous requirements of the Law, or the final putting down of death and Hades, or the final end of sin.>
NOTHING Terry has said–unless it is his comments about Daniel 9 and the Abrahamic promises– could more exemplify his ignorance of the relationship between eschatology, as it relates to the end of the Old Covenant world, than this! To him, A.D. 70 was nothing more than a sign that God was through with Israel 40 years earlier. However, as I have shown before, and Terry has not touched top, side, or bottom of the argument, THE END OF THE OLD COVENANT WORLD IS THE FOCUS OF BIBLICAL ESCHATOLOGY! Remember that Paul said, that he preached "nothing but the hope of Israel"?
Let me illustrate Terry’s error very quickly by taking the tenets he lists- that he denied are associated with the fall of Jerusalem.
A.) He says the fall of Jerusalem had nothing to do with "all things about the Messiah." Well, it has to do with Christ’s coming (Luke 21:25f).
B.) He says the fall of Jerusalem had nothing to do with His kingdom. Yet, Jesus said that in the fall of Jerusalem "know that the kingdom of heaven is nigh." Furthermore, in Revelation 11, in the context of the fall of the city where the Lord was slain, it says "the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our God and of His Chris
C.) He says that the fall of Jerusalem had nothing to do with final judgment. Yet, Peter said that Christ was ready to judge the living and the dead, the end of all things had drawn near, and the appointed time for the judgment had arrived (1 Peter 4:5, 7, 17).
D.) He says that the fall of Jerusalem had nothing to do with the fulfillment of the righteous requirements of the Law. Yet, Jesus did say all things that are written must be fulfilled. And, Daniel said that it would be in that event that everlasting righteousness would come in.
E.) He says the fall of Jerusalem had nothing to do with the final "putting down of death and Hades, or the final end of sin." Yet, Paul placed the end of Torah– the strength of sin– at the resurrection, which is the final putting down of death and Hades, and, Paul also said "The God of peace shall crush Satan under your feet shortly." (Romans 16:20).
So, every constituent tenet that Terry denies was associated with the fall of Jerusalem is directly posit there by the inspired text!
Let me develop these points a little deeper.
1.) The time of the resurrection is inextricably linked with the end of the Old Covenant age, "when the power of the holy people is completely shattered." Now catch this! Terry admitted, early on, that there was some kind of resurrection in A.D. 70, and even admitted that it was a resurrection to eternal life! More on this below.
Isaiah foretold the time of the kingdom, the rule of YHVH in Zion, the establishment of the Messianic Banquet, and the resurrection, at the time when the people that dwelt in the city of confusion that was in the midst of the land was destroyed (Isaiah 24:7f), and the people judged for "violating the everlasting covenant" (Isaiah 24:5). The "heaven and earth" would be destroyed (Isaiah 24:19f). But, YHVH would rule in Zion (24:20f), and establish the Messianic Banquet when He destroyed death (Isaiah 25:6f). And get this, this would be the time of ISRAEL’S SALVATION –which of course, as we have shown, Paul was still anticipating in Romans 11:25f!
What is so critical to see here, is that not only is the resurrection positively posited at the time when Israel would be judged for her violation of Torah, but, the resurrection is posited as the time of Israel’s salvation! The reader needs to know this: Terry does not believe, NOT FOR ONE SECOND, that eschatology is concerned with the consummation of Israel’s hope. He believes, as he has asserted throughout this debate, that God’s relationship with them was terminated at the Cross!
Furthermore, AND THIS IS CRITICAL, Isaiah 25 is the source of Paul’s resurrection doctrine in 1 Corinthians 15 as I have noted several times. Now, catch this, AGAIN:
A.) Paul said that his eschatology was nothing but the hope of Israel.
B.) As Paul presents his resurrection hope/doctrine, he says that the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 would be the fulfillment of Isaiah 25:8.
C.) But, the resurrection of Isaiah 25 would be the time of the judgment and destruction of "the people" who dwelt in "the city of confusion," in the midst of "the land." Wonder who that might be? Well, it was the people guilty of violating the everlasting covenant (24:5).
D.) The time of the resurrection foretold in Isaiah 25 would be the time of the salvation of Israel.
So, 1 Corinthians 15 is about the time of Israel’s salvation, and, it would occur when Israel was judged and destroyed!
So, for all of Terry’s pontifications that the end of the Old Covenant world had nothing to do with eschatology, that the destruction of Jerusalem was a sign of something that had already taken place years before, he is just flat wrong. He is in contradiction of the scriptures. He claims that Preston reads eschatology into the predictions of the judgment of Israel, and that I need to repent! The truth is that Terry reads eschatology OUT of the passages dealing with Israel and the end of her age. I have shown this repeatedly, and he has adamantly refused to address the issue. I know why, and all the readers of this debate know why! To admit that the time of Israel’s destruction was the time of the resurrection is to abandon the traditional amillennialism that Terry holds!
2.) The New Creation, the New Heaven and Earth, would only come when Israel was destroyed (Isaiah 65-66). I have made this argument several times, but you will look in vain for Terry’s response, because he has ignored it for six presentations!
Peter said that he and his readers were anticipating the arrival of the New Heavens and Earth foretold by the prophets (2 Peter 3:1-2. 13).
The New Creation foretold by the prophets would come when Israel was destroyed–when she had filled the measure of her sin (Isaiah 65:6-19).
Therefore, the New Creation of 2 Peter 3–and Revelation 21-22)- would come when Israel was destroyed–when she had filled the measure of her sin (i.e. in A.D. 70.) It is not hard to see why Terry totally ignored this argument, because no matter what else he might offer, it is nullified, falsified, and destroyed by this irrefutable argument.
NOTICE AGAIN THE DIRECT CORRELATION BETWEEN LUKE 21– HEBREWS 9– AND REVELATION
Luke 21– Luke predicted the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel. This would be the time of the KINGDOM and REDEMPTION (Luke 21:28-31). This would be when all things written– let’s use Terry’s argument, "all things written concerning vengeance on Israel," would be fulfilled.
Luke predicted the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel. This would be the time of the KINGDOM and REDEMPTION (Luke 21:28-31). This would be when all things written– let’s use Terry’s argument, "all things written concerning vengeance on Israel," would be fulfilled.
Hebrews 9:9-10– The end of the Old Covenant world–the time of the reformation– would be when man could enter the MHP, i.e. the time of salvation. This time of reward was coming in a very, very little while (Hebrews 10:35-37).
– The end of the Old Covenant world–the time of the reformation– would be when man could enter the MHP, i.e. the time of salvation. This time of reward was coming in a very, very little while (Hebrews 10:35-37).
Revelation: The time of the judgment of the city, "where the Lord was slain" (11:8), would be the time when "the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our God and of His Christ, and they shall reign forever and forever" (11:15ff). It would be the time when the dead would be judged and rewarded (11:17-18). When God’s wrath was consummated in the judgment of this city, man could enter the MHP (15:8–16:16f)!
: The time of the judgment of the city, "where the Lord was slain" (11:8), would be the time when "the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our God and of His Christ, and they shall reign forever and forever" (11:15ff). It would be the time when the dead would be judged and rewarded (11:17-18). When God’s wrath was consummated in the judgment of this city, man could enter the MHP (15:8–16:16f)!
See the correlation? It is beautiful, precise, and perfect, and proves beyond any chance of refutation, that God was not through with Israel until that time, the Old Covenant did not end before that time.
When Terry argues that all that happened in A.D. 70 was the end of the already negated Temple system, he is flying in the face of everything the Bible says about eschatology! To suggest that "all things that are written" refers to a relatively minor historical event, but that the "real" eschatology still awaits fulfillment is to ignore these Biblical facts.
So, there is no logical fallacy on Preston’s part on
3.) My supposed logical fallacy #3: <Error #3 is built on the first two errors. If you grant the first two errors and treat them as true exegesis of the text and context of Matt.5:17 and Luke 21:22, then you are prepared to swallow his theory that Isaiah 25:8 and Hosea 13:14 had to have been fulfilled by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, and therefore, you are ready to accept that the resurrection described in 1 Corinthians 15 that promises that "when this mortal shall have put on immortality then will be brought to pass the saying that is written, ‘O death where is your sting"- was fulfilled in the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem. Paul quotes Isa.25:8 and Hosea 13:14 and says those OT scriptures would be fulfilled in the resurrection. So, if you would accept Don’s first two errors, then you are ready to accept his third error that the resurrection had to have occurred when "all things" had to be fulfilled in the days of vengeance.>
This objection just shows how badly Terry uses logic, or doesn’t use it. For argument sake, I could respond like this:
Even though points #1 and #2 are my points, and established as true, I do not depend on them for the validity of #3! In other words, I am not dependent on Matthew 5 to prove that Paul’s eschatological hope was based on the O.T. because he emphatically tells us that this is true (Acts 24; 26; 28)! Also, I do not have to have point #2 about Luke 21, to know that the destruction of Jerusalem would be when the resurrection would occur (Terry even admits that "a" resurrection is tied to A.D. 70 in Daniel 12!). As just shown, Isaiah 25 posits the resurrection at the time of the judgment of Israel. Thus, even if I did not have Luke 21, I would have unequivocal proof that the resurrection is inseparably tied to the end of the Old Covenant age! Terry’s "logic" fails to consider this evidence.
So, although Matthew 5 and Luke 21 prove what I believe, I could make my argument on 1 Corinthians 15 without appealing to either one of these passages! Terry is simply confused to argue that I have a chain of logic built on these texts and that each step is dependent on the other.
Let me show you how easy this is from my earlier affirmatives.
Notice that Terry admits: <Paul quotes Isa.25:8 and Hosea 13:14 and says those OT scriptures would be fulfilled in the resurrection.>
Okay, now watch:
The resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 would be when Isaiah 25 was fulfilled (Terry Benton).
But, the resurrection of Isaiah 25 would be fulfilled when Israel was judged and destroyed (Isaiah 24-25), in the day of her salvation (Isaiah 25:9f).
Therefore, the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 would be fulfilled when Israel was judged and destroyed (Isaiah 24-25) in the day of her salvation (Isaiah 25:9).
Reader, you know as well as I do that Terry has NO PLACE WHATSOEVER in his theology or eschatology for anything remotely resembling this! His eschatology is about the end of the New Covenant age of Jesus Christ, not the time of the judgment of Israel for violating the Torah! His doctrine is therefore, prima facie falsified! But let’s look closer.
The resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 would be when Isaiah 25 was fulfilled (Terry Benton).
But, the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 would also be the end of the law that was the strength of sin (1 Corinthians 15:56).
The law that was the strength of sin was the Torah (Terry admitted this!).
Therefore, the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 would be in fulfillment of God’s O. T. promises to Israel, and at the end of the Torah, the Law that was the strength of sin!
See how perfectly all of this dovetails with Matthew 5 and Luke 21? Yet, I do not depend on Matthew 5 or Luke 21 to make the point! So…
A.) I have shown that Terry’s first two claims are false. Therefore, this claim (#3) is false!
B.) It is undeniable that the resurrection of 1 Corinthians would be the fulfillment of Isaiah and Hosea, as Terry now admits. So, Terry is now admitting that Paul’s eschatology is, after all, about the fulfillment of God’s Old Covenant promises made to Israel!
C.) I have just shown that Isaiah 25 is posited at the time of the judgment of Israel. So, here is the argument:
Paul’s prophecy of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 would be fulfilled when Isaiah 25:8 was fulfilled (1 Corinthians 15:55f).
But, Isaiah 25:8 would be fulfilled at the time of the salvation of Israel (Isaiah 25:9), when Israel was judged for violating the everlasting covenant (Isaiah 24:5-20).
Therefore, the prophecy of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 would be fulfilled when Israel was judged for violating the everlasting covenant. Terry cannot falsify this argument, for it is taken directly from the text.
Notice this also: NEITHER ISAIAH 25 OR HOSEA 13 DEALS WITH PHYSICAL DEATH!
The resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 would be when Isaiah 25 and Hosea 13 was fulfilled (Terry).
But, neither Isaiah 25 or Hosea 13 predicted deliverance from physical death!
Therefore, 1 Corinthians 15–anticipating the fulfillment of Isaiah 25 / Hosea 13, does not address or predict deliverance from physical death!
YOU JUST HAVE TO CATCH THE POWER OF THIS!
Does Hosea speak of death and deliverance from death? Sure does! What DEATH does it address: Read for yourself: "When Ephraim spoke, trembling, He exalted himself in Israel; But when he offended through Baal worship, HE DIED. (my emphasis) 2 Now they sin more and more, And have made for themselves molded images, Idols of their silver, according to their skill…!" I think it is pretty clear that physical death is not in view since these "dead men walking" were continuing to sin more and more!
The death addressed in Hosea (and Isaiah), is SIN DEATH, separation from God for violating Torah! This is the sin and death Paul mentions: "I was alive once, without the Law, but the commandment came, sin revived, and I died!" (Romans 7:7f). It is the SAME KIND OF DEATH Adam and Eve suffered the very day they ate the fruit "in the day you eat thereof, you will surely die!" It has nothing to do with physical death. It is alienation and separation from God!
So, the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 would be when Isaiah and Hosea were fulfilled.
But, Isaiah and Hosea foretold resurrection, not from biological death, but from alienation from God, i.e. sin death (Hosea 13:1).
Therefore, 1 Corinthians 15 foretold resurrection, not from biological death, but from alienation from God, i.e. sin death.
4.) My supposed logical fallacy #4 says Terry: <Was in combining Da.12 with 1 Cor.15 and asserting that both texts are speaking of the same kind of resurrection AND assuming that both kinds happened at the same time or were the same resurrection in AD 70. But, a spiritual resurrection is the focus of Dan.12 and is of the sort mentioned in John 5:24 and Rom.11:15, while the resurrection of 1 Cor.15 is of the same nature as Jesus’ literal resurrection from physical death, and the whole argument of 1 Cor.15 is based on that resurrection being the "first fruits" of all that will follow later.
Terry totally failed to prove that Daniel and Corinthians speak of two different resurrections! What proof did Terry give? He simply asserted the difference, and hoped we would not notice that he gave no proof!
Am I wrong to tie Daniel 12 to 1 Corinthians 15? Here are some parallels that I presented, that Terry decided it would be best not to address:
1.) Daniel 12 foretold the RESURRECTION. 1 Corinthians 15 foretold the RESURRECTION.
2.) Daniel 12 foretold the resurrection "out of the dust of th
e earth." Terry believes that 1 Corinthians 15 predicts the resurrection "out of the dust of the earth." Interestingly, Terry takes the language of Daniel metaphorically– and properly so– but insists that the language of 1 Corinthians 15 must be literal! He gives us no justification except to say "they are different." Proof, Terry, PROOF, not assumptions and assertions!
At this juncture, let me add just a few thoughts, building on what I have shown above:
Isaiah 24-26 predicts the eschatological resurrection– As Terry has admitted.
Isaiah 24-26 serves as the source of Paul’s eschatological doctrine in 1 Corinthians 15.
Isaiah foretold the resurrection when the city of confusion, dwelling in the midst of the land, was destroyed, because her people had violated the everlasting covenant.
Isaiah said the resurrection would be out of the dust of the earth (Isaiah 25:12–26:19).
Daniel 12 foretold the resurrection of those in the dust of the earth (Daniel 12:2).
The resurrection of Daniel 12 would be WHEN ISRAEL WAS DESTROYED, in A.D. 70, by Terry Benton’s own admission!
So, both Isaiah and Daniel foretold the resurrection.
Both Isaiah and Daniel posit the resurrection as the hope of Israel.
Both Isaiah and Daniel foretold the resurrection out of the "dust of the earth."
Both Isaiah and Daniel foretold the resurrection at the time of Israel’s destruction.
Both Isaiah and Daniel foretold the resurrection at the time of Israel’s salvation.
Now, Terry tells us that Daniel and Corinthians are two different resurrections, at two different times. THIS MEANS HOWEVER, THAT HE MUST BE ABLE TO DELINEATE BETWEEN THE RESURRECTION "OUT OF THE DUST" OF DANIEL, AND THE RESURRECTION "OUT OF THE DUST" IN ISAIAH! Yet, Daniel and Isaiah posited their predictions of resurrection at the same time– WHEN ISRAEL WAS DESTROYED!
The resurrection of Isaiah and Daniel are the same.
The resurrection of both Isaiah and Daniel would occur at the time of Israel’s salvation and destruction.
The resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 is the resurrection of Isaiah 24-26.
The resurrection of Isaiah 24-26 is the same as the resurrection of Daniel 12.
The resurrection of Daniel 12 occurred in A. D.70 (Terry Benton).
Therefore, the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 occurred in A.D. 70!
You will note of course that this argument totally negates Terry’s idiosyncratic, unprecedented "power of the holy people" argument. If Isaiah and Daniel speak of the same resurrection, and they do, then, it does not matter if you define the power of the holy people as the pagan perception that Israel was God’s chosen people! If you admit, as Terry does, that the power of the holy people was destroyed in A.D. 70, the fact that Isaiah 24-26 and Daniel (thus 1 Corinthians 15!!), spoke of the same resurrection proves beyond doubt that the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 occurred in A.D. 70! So, no matter which way Terry turns, he is met with the testimony of scripture that the end of the Old Covenant world and eschatology are inseparably connected, and occurred in A.D. 70.
3.) Daniel 12 foretold the resurrection to EVERLASTING LIFE. Corinthians foretold the resurrection to EVERLASTING LIFE. The readers will note that I asked Terry repeatedly to delineate between the everlasting life resurrection foretold by Daniel, and that foretold by Paul. Not a word!
4.) Daniel 12 foretold the resurrection at THE TIME OF THE END– Corinthians foretold the resurrection AT THE TIME OF THE END.
5.) Daniel 12 foretold the time when Daniel (and naturally, the prophets), would receive their reward (v. 9-13). The resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 is the time when Daniel (and naturally the prophets), would receive their reward (per Terry). Take note of the fact also that in Revelation 11:8f, at the destruction of the city where the Lord was slain, occurs the resurrection, the time of the dead that they should be judged, and the time when the prophets received their reward! So, the prophets– I am assuming Terry would include Daniel– would receive their reward at the resurrection that would occur at the time of the destruction of the city where the Lord was slain. Just like Daniel was told that Daniel–at the time of the resurrection, would receive his reward. Now, this would take place, not in obedience to the gospel as a living person– as Terry tried to explain the resurrection of Daniel 12–but, it would be Daniel’s reward, given to him after he died, but at the time of the end, when Jerusalem was completely destroyed!
6.) The resurrection promise of Daniel 12 was a promise made to Old Covenant Israel. The promise of 1 Corinthians 15 was a promise made to Old Covenant Israel (Isaiah 25/ Hosea 13). Terry has now admitted this, but refuses to acknowledge the significance of what this admission means!
7.) The resurrection of Daniel would be at the end of God’s dealings with Old Covenant Israel– at the fulfillment of His promises to them. The resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 would be at the climax of God’s promises to Old Covenant Israel (i.e "the end," when her promises would be fulfilled, and when "the Law that is the strength of sin" (the Torah– per Terry!) was removed. (v. 19f, 56f).
Here are seven direct and precise parallels. I presented these early on, yet Terry never even tried to address them. I said when I presented these parallels that Terry would not deal with them. I said "Instead, he will give us more of his, "they are not the same!" mantra without any contextual or exegetical justification." My prediction came true!
Now, I want to remind the readers of this debate that I argued in my first affirmative that the power of the holy people was the Torah, and YHVH’s distinctive covenant relationship with her. Terry realized that if this is true, his paradigm crumbles. So, in abject desperation, Terry argued that the power of the holy people was not the Torah. It was not God’s covenant relationship with Israel. It has nothing to do with Jerusalem, the perfection of beauty, the city of God (Ps. 50), nor the exclusive priesthood, or the sacrificial system, or even the holy Day of Atonement. No! Terry told us that Israel’s real power, what really mattered had nothing to do with her relationship with YHVH. Nothing to do with Torah! Nothing to do with her exclusive election in the eyes of God! Terry boldly claimed, in an "argument" that I have not been able to find ANYONE ELSE IN HISTORY who has ever made that argument! He claims that ISRAEL’S REAL POWER WAS THE PERCEPTION ON THE PART OF THE PAGAN NATIONS THAT SHE WAS GOD’S PEOPLE!
I have challenged Terry IN EVERY ONE OF MY PRESENTATIONS since he made this unprecedented claim to give us some evidence, some proof, for his idiosyncratic claim. What has he given us? A RESOUNDING, THUNDEROUS SILENCE!
Let me remind you again of the importance of this argument and issue:
The resurrection of the dead would occur when the power of the holy people was completely shattered (Daniel 12:2-7).
The power of the holy people was the Torah, and God’s relationship with Old Covenant Israel.
Therefore, the resurrection of the dead would occur when the Torah and God’s relationship with Old Covenant Israel was destroyed.
The resurrection of the dead would occur when the Torah and God’s relationship with Old Covenant Israel was destroyed.
But, the Torah and God’s covenant relationship with Old Covenant Israel was destroyed in A.D. 70, in the destruction of Jerusalem (when Torah was completely fulfilled, Luke 21:22).
Therefore, the resurrection of the dead occurred when Old Covenant Israel was destro
yed in A.D. 70.
These arguments stand as irrefutable. They prove that beyond any doubt, the Torah remained valid until the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Terry’s refusal to deal with this argument demonstrates that regardless of what he has offered otherwise, his proposition is falsified.
So, what I have done is to show that Terry’s claim that my "chain of assumptions" is not faulty. They are not assumptions at all. I have successfully proven that each of the points is rock solid, based on the inspired, direct statements of the text, and sound, valid, logical associations. Terry has not falsified anything.
MORE ON EPHESIANS 2
I must say something additional about Ephesians 2, because Terry so badly misses the point of the text. Terry offered this:
<First, we need to ask Don a very relevant and powerful question that should expose the weakness of his negative here. Since the house was "being built", does this mean that obligation was to Moses until Jesus quit building His house? Isn’t it still growing? Did it stop growing after the destruction of Jerusalem? If it continued to grow after the destruction of Jerusalem, then Don has no point.
Secondly, the passage clearly says that the house of Jesus Messiah had been "established". Therefore, no one was allowed, much less "obligated" to continue to ignore it. It was "established" and will ever continue to build (thus is ever being built as souls continue to be added to it). Therefore, Don did not touch the argument. It too still stands…. He said the church is not now growing and that the apostles had in mind a state of being, of fullness in Christ. Well, then they had that a long time before the destruction of Jerusalem. Paul told the church that you are "complete in Him" (Col.2:10). So, Don still loses the argument. It does not say that you WILL BE complete after the destruction of Jerusalem. He then said that the true tabernacle could not be established if it was still growing. The inspired writers say that it was BOTH established and growing. Don doesn’t like this because he knows that if it was established and people were already entering it before the destruction of Jerusalem, then it ruins his whole premise that obligation was to the entire system of Law until the destruction of Jerusalem when HE says that everything was fulfilled.>
Let me break down Terry’s points into a simple analysis.
1.) It is undeniable that the building was indeed– present tense– under construction. And, furthermore, as I have proven above, and as Terry has inadvertently admitted– Christ would not and could not reject Israel until Israel rejected the New Covenant.
2.) The house began to be built on Pentecost.
3.) Terry suggests that Israel was under no law at all from the Cross to Pentecost. Yet, at the same time, they could not be cast out until they had rejected the New Covenant!
4.) So, before they ever heard the offer of the New Covenant, in all the world, Israel was under no law at all, per Terry.
On the contrary, Israel was to observe the Law UNTIL IT WAS FULFILLED.
Israel was to observe the Law until the New Covenant was fully established– and remember that even Terry cannot argue that the New Covenant was fully delivered until well after Pentecost!
5.) The idea of the church being built has nothing to do with mere numerical additions to the body of Christ! Terry has totally ignored this point!
The building up of the body of Christ– the building of the Temple that was ongoing when Paul wrote, was the completion of the mystery of God- the realization of Jew/Gentile equality in Christ! It had to do with several things:
a.) The personal ministry of Paul. He emphatically said that it was his task to complete the mystery of God (Colossians 1:24-27). Now, since Paul said that the completion of the mystery of God was his personal task, and since the building up of the body of Christ, the Temple, was directly related to the mystery (Ephesians 2:15-21), you cannot get the "building up of the Temple" beyond the first century and the completion of Paul’s personal ministry!
b.) This has a direct impact on the interpretation of Romans 11:25f, but since I have not developed this earlier, I will not do so now.
c.) The building of the Temple was indeed related to the miraculous ministry of the Spirit, as I have already developed. Ephesians 4 is emphatic on this. So, the gifts of the Spirit were for the building of the Temple. But, the Temple is still growing and being built today (Terry Benton). Therefore, we should still have the gifts of the Spirit today!
6.) Amazing is it not, that Terry wants to argue out of both sides of his mouth. On the ONE HAND, he argues that the church was complete, and that the Christians were complete before A.D. 70. We have shown that these are proleptic statements anticipating the consummation, and, inadvertently, Terry even supports this! Why? Because he tells us ON THE OTHER HAND (in spite of his asservations to the contrary), that until the written word was fully developed, that the church was vulnerable and insufficient! Christ had not even been formed in her! So, per Terry, we have a completed, perfect church, (although of course, she had no elders, deacons, Gentile members, and still possessed the charismata!!) that was insufficiently supplied, vulnerable to weakness, and Christ had not yet been formed in her!
HEBREWS 9– THE TEXTUAL VARIANT
I must say that Terry wasted a whole lot of time on this! He offered Hebrews 9:11f as "proof" of the already present good things. He emphasized the past tense. I showed that there is a textual variant that shows that the writer said Christ had come as a priest of the good things that were still "about to come." Terry claims that I "hung my hat" on this variant, and so, since he quoted some authorities who have the same theological bias as him, and thus render the verse as he does, that this destroys my doctrine!
The problem for Terry is manifold: First, I DON’T HANG MY HAT ON THE VARIANT! I never said any such thing! I just noted that a variant exists and that it is tenuous therefore, to make a hard fast argument on it, as Terry has. My main point, the one Terry ignored, is that Hebrews 10:1f, for which there is no variant, does have the present tense, and is directly related to 9:11f! My argument is that the non-variant text should control the variant text, and that argument is solid. Terry’s desperate and false attempt to claim that the present tense of Hebrews 10 must be viewed from the perspective of the abrogated Law is false, because, as I have shown repeatedly–ignored by Terry– is that the author says Christ had to come a second time, FOR, the Law having, present tense, a shadow of good things about to come (future tense). Christ’s second coming was necessary because the Law was, present tense, a shadow of good things to come! ONLY IF CHRIST HAD COME THE SECOND TIME COULD THE PRESENT AND FUTURE TENSES OF HEBREWS 10:1f BE VIEWED FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF PAST FULFILLMENT! He had not yet fulfilled the Priestly atonement function of coming out of the Most Holy Place to bring salvation!
GALATIANS 3– NO LONGER UNDER A TUTOR
Terry claims that I said "not a word" about his argument on Galatians 3:24ff– "Paul said that "we are no longer under a tutor" which he has identified as "the law". He wrote Galatians early in his ministry, long before AD 70. My proposition says that "obligation to the Law of Moses ended at the cross". Don’s proposition says that obligation to the Law of Moses continued until AD 70. Who do we believe? The inspired message from Paul is that long before AD 70, he could safely say, "we are no longer under the law&qu
Well, the truth is that I thought I had! My apologies for not dealing with this. Pure oversight! However, I did fully address his arguments on Galatians 4 and Galatians 5 showing that he was distorting what Paul said, and ignoring the audience Paul was addressing! What I said on those texts is relevant here, so, building on that, I will only offer this.
Who is Paul addressing in Galatians 3? Was it unbelieving Jews, who had not yet heard the gospel? No! It was Jews, who had heard the gospel, and obeyed it, thus dying to the Law! Terry’s refusal to honor AUDIENCE RELEVANCE AND IDENTITY is exposed. To apply what Paul said to unbelievers is BAD HERMENEUTIC! His argument is nullified. I could say much more about Galatians 3, but since I did not address it before now, I must not.
TERRY’S ALL OR NONE PRINCIPLE
Terry’s bad hermeneutic is evident in his argument on Galatians 5. Paul was writing to Jewish Christians threatening to abandon Christ to return to the Law, or, at the very least, they were attempting to observe bind Torah on Christians, all Christians. Paul told these Christians that they had been set free from Torah through Christ (5:1) and should not therefore, seek to impose or serve Torah. He then applied the "all or none" principle.
The fact is that Paul was not addressing non-Christian Jews, and furthermore, Terry finally admitted this, although he then turns right around and tries to make it apply to non-Christian Jews anyway!: "It is true that Paul is not directly addressing non-Christian Jews. However, the point is that the truth he stated is very relevant. All people were obligated by Moses to get ready to listen to the greater Prophet who was to come (Deut.18:15f). They knew they were obligated to all the words God would put in His mouth and that he "shall speak to them ALL that I command Him" (v.18). Thus, the obligation placed upon them was to Hear Him (the Prophet, who was JESUS). Peter reminded the unbelieving Jews of their obligation by Moses to hear that greater prophet "in ALL THINGS, WHATEVER HE SAYS TO YOU" (Acts 3:22f). Thus, non-Christian Jews were under the obligation to HEAR that Prophet in all things or be destroyed."
RESPONSE: Terry just does not seem to get it!
: Terry just does not seem to get it!
When were the Jews to heed the words of the Prophet? BEFORE THEY EVER HEARD HIM? How could they?
When were they even given the choice of heeding his words? BEFORE THEY EVER HEARD HIM?
When were they given the choice of coming into the New Covenant? BEFORE THEY EVER HEARD IT?
Folks, remember that Terry himself has told us that the Jews were to be cast out FOR REJECTING THE NEW COVENANT. This means that they were to be cast out for not hearing the Prophet, right?
So, remember again what this means: Terry has Israel cut off at the Cross, and yet, they had not yet heard, fully, about the Prophet! Terry has Israel cut off at the Cross, before they heard about "the faith" i.e. the New Covenant!
Terry’s theology is one of ANACHRONISM, and impugns the JUSTICE, not to mention the MERCY, of God, for it has YHVH cutting Israel off from the promises of her New Covenant and her Messiah, BEFORE SHE WAS EVER TOLD OF THEM!
Did Israel begin to hear of her Messiah and the New Covenant on Pentecost? No one has denied that! Had the NATION heard of it yet, however? Clearly no. Had the NATION rejected it and him yet? Patently not!
So, Israel continued under Torah, until she had heard of and been invited into her New Covenant, and to her Messiah. It was then, and only then, after she had been given that invitation, and spurned it, that she was truly cast out for rejecting her New Covenant and her Messiah!
THE SPIRIT LEADS ALL OUT FROM UNDER THE LAW
Terry says that the Holy Spirit was guiding the Jews to come to Christ, and that if they did not heed the Spirit that they were condemned. And, he says Preston did not say one word about this. Well, Terry, I guess you were not paying attention!
I have argued SEVERAL TIMES that it was the Spirit guiding Israel into the New Covenant, THROUGH THE MIRACULOUS MINISTRY!
Paul teaches this in Galatians 3:1-5. But I have not developed this before, so won’t here.
I have however, shown that it was the miraculous ministry of the Spirit that was empowering, guiding and facilitating the transformation from the Old Covenant to the New! This is what Paul teaches in 2 Corinthians 3:16: "We all with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord. Therefore, since we have this ministry as we have received mercy, we do not lose heart."
The miraculous ministry of the Spirit bringing about the covenant transformation. You have to ask yourself the question: If the Old Covenant was already passed at the Cross, BEFORE THE SPIRIT WAS EVEN POURED OUT, how could the Spirit be the facilitator of that covenant transformation?
Paul emphatically says that the covenant transformation from the Old to the New Covenant was his personal ministry! See what he says in that text again! It is simply undeniable!
Now, if the covenant transformation from the Old to the New was through the miraculous ministry of the Spirit, and through Paul’s then on-going personal ministry, it is once again anachronistic of Terry to claim that the transformation had taken place at the Cross! And to say that I had not addressed the issue of the work of the Spirit in that transformation is simply another one of Terry’s many misrepresentations!
Terry claims, however, that, "2 Corinthians 3 Does Not Show a Phasing In Of The New Testament and a Phasing Out of the Old Still In Progress."
RESPONSE: Yes, it does! And simply citing A. Clarke does not negate it! Clark was not infallible. Paul was.
: Yes, it does! And simply citing A. Clarke does not negate it! Clark was not infallible. Paul was.
A.) Paul said that the Law "is passing away" present tense." (V. 11)
B.) Paul said that the passing of the Law was, when he wrote, his HOPE: "Therefore, since we have such hope…" The present tense reality was giving them hope of what was coming, not telling them of what had already occurred! Terry has to totally ignore the text to support his presuppositions.
C.) Terry wants to say that the veil over their face was the blindness to the fact that the Torah had already passed. No, it was the same blindness that Jesus confronted, in his personal ministry even before the Cross, the misunderstanding of the nature of the New Covenant and kingdom!
D.) But notice, just as I have been saying, that it was when the gospel was preached to them that THEY THEN BECAME OBLIGATED TO TURN FROM THE TORAH that was "nigh unto vanishing away!" They were being told that their beloved Old World was perishing. They were invited into the New Creation! And, again, just as I have been arguing, when they turned to Christ, THEY DIED TO TORAH– Paul does not say Torah had died!
E.) Paul DOES SAY that they were, at that time– NOT HAD BEEN!!– "being transformed, from glory to glory."
So, 2 Corinthians most assuredly does teach a transition from the Old Covenant to the New, and it is undeniable. No amount of denial, or verbiage can refute this.
Terry tries desperately to deny the force of 2 Corinthians 3 by claiming: "The weight of the evidence (though not 100% conclusive) is that "is done away" is most consistent with the context and with the other clearer passages such as Eph.2:15. This passage has no doubt or question-marks attached."
A.) Terry is simply wrong on this, as the Greek tenses cannot be ignored, except through prejudice and denying what Paul says.
B.) We have shown that Terry’s application of Ephesians 2 is in fact wrong! The point in Ephesians 2 is that Torah was removed for those "in Christ!" Terry distorts the text into saying what it does not say! We have shown this conclusively, repeatedly, yet, Terry has ignored it. Why? Well, to admit that Ephesians 2 is not about the objective removal of the Torah itself, but rather dying to Torah by entering Christ, is to be forced to abandon his doctrine!
C.) You cannot negate the present tenses of v. 10 without being forced to totally ignore the present tenses of v. 16f-4:1. Yet, to do that denies that the Spirit’s ministry was essential to covenant transformation, and that Paul’s ministry had anything to do with that transformation. Yet, the language of the text is too clear. Through the Spirit, the transformation from one covenant glory to the greater covenant glory was then ongoing, and Paul said, "SINCE WE HAVE THIS MINISTRY." That covenant transformation ministry was Paul’s, AND IT WAS NOT COMPLETE! So, once again, Terry is in denial of the text.
DO I HAVE TO ADDRESS EVERY SINGLE "ARGUMENT"
Terry calls on the readers to note whether I address every single minutiae of an argument that he brings up. What I have done is to address the major arguments, and the major principles contained in those major arguments. It is not necessary for me to discuss every single argument, no matter how much verbiage Terry expends on it. Here is how logic and debate works.
1.) If I present– as I have done– solid, sound, scriptural and valid arguments demonstrating the truthfulness of my affirmative position, then by the very nature of the case, Terry’s affirmative is falsified. It would not matter how many affirmative "arguments" he might make, unless he was able to falsify my affirmatives– and he didn’t falsify anything!– then his affirmative is falsified by the establishment of my affirmative.
2.) If I falsify, as I have done, any one of the major points that Terry presents, and yet Terry presented lets say 10 other texts that made the identical argument, then by falsifying the single argument, I have falsified all ten of his textual appeals. It does not matter how many times a false argument is repeated. If it is demonstrated to be false even once then all of the repetitions of it are dis-proven.
All that Terry has done, in many cases, is to REPEAT THE IDENTICAL CLAIM OVER AND OVER. He has asserted:
1.) That the Law was abolished at the Cross. I have shown that he has misused the texts to which he appealed. It was IN CHRIST that Torah was abolished, for those entering him. However, the Law itself was "nigh unto passing" and was "passing away" when the New Testament writers wrote. No amount of denial can change these facts, and we have shown that Terry’s claims about the Law becoming obsolete and "ready to vanish" in Jeremiah’s day are specious.
2.) That there could not have been a transitional period from the Old Covenant to the New. I have given emphatic scriptural testimony to the contrary. It is not a question of whether the death of Jesus "confirmed" the covenant. I have affirmed that. It is a question of whether the New Covenant world was complete on Pentecost. I have pressed Terry with a set of questions, and had he bothered to answer them, he would have admitted that there was indeed a time of transition.
3.) That because when the Gospel was preached to the Jews, that they were obligated to obey it, thus, heeding the voice of the prophet like Moses. I have never denied this! What I have argued is that Israel was bound to observe the Law until it was all fulfilled, just as Jesus said. But, that means they were not bound to the gospel until it was preached into all the world (Luke 24:44).
4.) He has asserted that Israel was cast off at the Cross. I have shown that Israel was to be cast out for persecuting the church. This is what Paul says, and, amazingly, Terry finally made the acknowledgment that Israel was cast out for rejecting the New Covenant! Well, they had not rejected the New Covenant before the Cross, for the simple reason that the New Covenant had not been preached to them prior to the Cross!
5.) He has asserted that because Christ was a priest after the order of Melchizedec, that this proves that the Torah had already been done away. I have shown that Christ died to Torah through his death, and that this signaled that the Torah itself was in the process of passing away.
I could go on and on repeating what Terry has repeated over and over. However, I think that the reader can see that simply repeating arguments do not prove them. I have shown, through careful exegetical demonstration, and emphatic statements, that Terry’s oft repeated arguments are unsound. The point is, I do not have to address every single argument that Terry has offered. If I undermine the foundation on which his doctrine is based, his entire house crumbles, and has done so.
THE LAW THAT IS THE STRENGTH OF SIN
In his last presentation, Terry claims to have "dismantled" my argument on 1 Corinthians 15:55-56. Once again, when I read his comments and claim, I was not only baffled, but stunned that he would make such a rash and unjustified claim. I guess that is a good debate tactic, claim victory in spite of the evidence, but, for thinking people, it will not work!
Here is the argument that I made:
The resurrection would be when "the Law" that was/is "the strength of sin" was/is removed (1 Corinthians 15:55-56).
But, "the Law" that was the strength of sin was the Law of Moses (Terry Benton admitted this!).
Therefore, the resurrection would be when the Law of Moses was/is removed.
Terry’s attempt to deflect the power of this argument by stating that the Law of Moses was merely "an example of every Christ-less law" does not help. When Paul used the term "the Law" without a qualifier (some 110 times), as he does in 1 Corinthians 15, he INVARIABLY referred to the Mosaic Law. It is incumbent on Terry, if he denies that Paul is using the term the Law as he normally does, to prove that assertion from the context. He never even tried to negate this fact!
You cannot admit that the Law that was the strength of sin was the Mosaic Law, without thereby admitting that the resurrection and the end of the Law are synchronous events.
You cannot admit that the Law that was the strength of sin was the Mosaic Law, without thereby admitting that the kind of promises that God made, and the binding nature of the Mosaic Law are inseparably bound together.
You cannot admit that the Law that was the strength of sin was the Mosaic Law, and yet affirm that the resurrection has not occurred, without affirming that the Mosaic Law remains in effect as the strength of sin today.
What is so interesting is that Terry kept telling us, several times, that he was going to deal with 1 Corinthians 15, and the law that was the strength of sin. Yet, he has now finished all of his presentations, and except to say that he dismantled my arguments, he said not another word about it! We have waited in vain for his arguments that we to explain away his extreme problem, but, we got nothing but silence.
Nonetheless, let me reiterate some things I have already said, in order to further falsify his affirmative.
1.) As I have noted, and Terry has admitted, the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 would be when Isaiah 25 and Hosea 13 would be fulfilled. Thus, the resurrection is posited as, prima facie, the hope of Old Testament Israel.
2.) Notice that since THE RESURRECTION WOULD BE THE FULFILLMENT OF GOD’S PROMISES TO OLD COVENANT ISRAEL, and would occur at "the end" that this is suggestive, if not conclusive, that the end in v
iew is not the end of an age unrelated to the promises made to Old Covenant Israel! Yet, that is precisely Terry’s view of 1 Corinthians 15. He believes that "the end" has nothing to do with the end of the Old Covenant age, because he does not believe– not really– that eschatology has anything to do with God’s promises to Old Covenant Israel. In Terry’s view, as I have noted several times, eschatology is about the end of the New Covenant age, the end of time, and that God had already terminated all relationship with Israel at the Cross. 1 Corinthians 15 falsifies that!
3.) Not only would the resurrection be at "the end" when God’s OT promises to Israel were fulfilled, but, the resurrection would be when the Old Covenant, Torah, "the strength of sin" was brought to an end! Thus, the fulfillment of the O. T. prophecies to Israel, the end of Torah, and resurrection go hand in hand!
4.) All of this agrees perfectly with what we have shown repeatedly, that the time of the resurrection would be when Israel was destroyed (Isaiah 24-26; 65-66), when the power of the holy people was completely shattered. Thus, Israel, covenant and eschatology go hand in hand!
5.) I showed conclusively early in this debate that if the law that is the strength of sin is still valid– as Terry Benton says it is– is that God’s covenant promises to Israel remain valid (Isaiah and Hosea are still unfulfilled!). It means that the Torah remains as the strength of sin, and thus, the gospel does not, has not, and cannot free us from the Torah!
6.) If the Torah is still the strength of sin, as Terry affirms, then Israel remains God’s chosen, covenant people, for Torah and Israel go inextricably hand in hand!
7.) Further, to build on what I just noted, Corinthians ties "the end" with the fulfillment of Israel’s promises, and the end of Torah. This is in perfect agreement with Jesus’ words in Matthew 5. The passing of the Law is tied to the fulfillment of the Law! Terry, however, wants us to believe that the passing of the Law has nothing to do with the fulfillment of prophecy, on the passing of the "Law of Commandments." Well, in Corinthians, the passing of Torah, the Law that is the strength of sin, is tied to the time of the fulfillment of the prophecies made to Old Covenant Israel. Thus, Terry’s Law of Commandments-versus- prophecy fulfillment argument is falsified.
1 Corinthians 15 definitively posits the fulfillment of prophecy, the abolishment of Torah, and eschatology at the end of the Old Covenant age of Israel, not at the end of the New Covenant of Jesus Christ! Terry’s theology is anachronistic, and demands the abolishment of the very Covenant that gives what Torah could never give, life and righteousness.
1 CORINTHIANS 15 AND TERRY’S TWO LAW PROBLEM
I can’t leave this section without commenting on one more thing. Terry castigated me for saying that God had two laws in effect for two people at the same time. Yet, according to Terry, CHRISTIANS ARE IN FACT UNDER TORAH AND THE GOSPEL!
1.) Terry believes that everyone today, because of sin, is under the Law that is the strength of sin. But, the Law that is the strength of sin is Torah, according to Terry!
I asked Terry repeatedly to tell us how a law that has been abolished, abrogated, nullified, can have any power, any strength. He would never answer, because he knows that if a law has been annulled, it has no strength! Yet, Terry Benton believes that Torah is still the strength of sin today!
2.) Yet, Terry then tries to tell us that Christians are under the gospel, forgiven. Well, if Christians are no longer under the law that is the strength of sin, then per Corinthians, they do not experience the sting of death, or the strength of the sin, thus, THEY ARE RESURRECTED!
3.) However, if Christians are still under the Law that is the strength of sin, and still experience the sting of death– as Terry says they do– then Torah is still in effect and still has power (is still valid and binding), on the lives of Christians who are supposedly under the gospel! Thus, again, Terry has Christians subject to Torah, since we are supposedly not delivered from the sting of death (sin), and are still subject to the Law that is the strength of sin! Two laws, one antithetical to the other, bound on Christians! And Terry says I have a problem with my view that God had two laws, for two different people, in effect at the same time! At least I have supported my view with scripture. Terry seemingly has not even seen that his doctrine demands that Christians, since they are still subject to the Law that is the strength of sin (Torah), as well as the gospel (that ostensibly provides the forgiveness of sin!). Two, competing, contrary Laws, for the same people!
I pointed all of this out in my affirmatives, but Terry clearly did not catch the force of it, or decided it would be best not to address it.
So, instead of dismantling my arguments on 1 Corinthians 15, Terry’s admissions support my affirmatives, and falsify his affirmatives. Terry’s attempts to respond to my arguments on 1 Corinthians 15 were futile. He did not dismantle my argument, and cannot do so.
TERRY’S SUPPOSEDLY DEVASTATING ARGUMENT ON PSALMS 110
I am somewhat amazed that Terry would bring up a brand new argument in his final presentation, and expect me not to address it. However, since he has done so, I am free to address it. Since he says it is "devastating to my position, I want to show that it actually supports my view, and falsifies Terry’s.
Here is what Terry had to say: "Remember that Psalm 110 predicted a priest after the order of Melchizedek, which implies that there would be an annulling of the former command to install Levitical priests. Don admits that Jesus became priest which made all Jews obligated to Him. But, if Jesus was installed as priest, then the former command for the Levitical priesthood was "annulled". There was no longer any OBLIGATION to install, recognize, or support the inferior priesthood when the greater priesthood was installed. Hebrews 7:18 is devastating to Don’s position, and that is why he has avoided it like the plague."
So, Terry is arguing that since Jesus was a high priest in fulfillment of Psalms 110, that this proves that the Old Law had passed. He says that Hebrews 7:18, combined with Psalms 110 is devastating to my view. No, because as I have noted, the present tense verbs denied by Terry prove my case. Even more, when we look closely at Psalms 110 we discover that it teaches exactly what I affirm– or more accurately, I teach exactly what Psalms 110 teaches! Follow along.
Psalms 110 shows that Messiah would be both king and priest.
He would be installed "at the right hand" sitting there until his enemies were made his footstool (Psalms 110:1-2).
What Terry fails to see is that the time at the right hand was the time of the CONSOLIDATION OF HIS AUTHORITY, of the putting down of his enemies, in order to fully establish his reign!
Psalms 110 presents the picture of Luke 19, and the man going away into the far country "there to receive a kingdom, and to return!" This is taken from the well known first century story of Archaelus, going to Rome upon Herod the Great’s death, there to receive the kingdom.
Without doubt, sitting at the right hand constitutes ruling– "rule thou in the midst of thine enemies." THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION! I affirm it!
What it does show however, is that the rule was not yet perfected, the kingdom was not yet fully complete, FOR HE HAD TO FINISH BRINGING HIS ENEMIES UNDER HIS FEET: "So it was, when he returned, having received the kingdom, he then commanded these servants, to whom he had given the money, to be called to him that he might kno
w how much every man had gained by trading….but bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:15-27). Here is the finalizing of the kingdom authority, the exercising of the kingdom sovereignty that he had received, to bring the kingdom fully under his authority!
This proves a period of transition beyond any possibility of dispute.
It confirms my argument on Daniel 7 that the time of the reception– finalization if you please– of the sovereignty would be at the time of THE JUDGMENT OF THE PERSECUTING POWER, not at the ascension.
It proves the proleptic nature of Matthew 28:18f.
It proves therefore, that the present tense verbs of Hebrews 7 must be accepted, not from a past tense perspective, but, as true present tenses. The priesthood and the kingship went hand in hand, and since the kingship was awaiting perfection and finalization, this verifies my view.
What would occur at the time of the parousia, when the newly installed king came? He would put down his enemies, and destroy them: "You shall send forth the rod of your strength out of Zion" (Psalms 110:1-2), and, "he shall execute kings in the day of his wrath. He shall judge among the nations, he shall fill the places with dead bodies…" (Psalms 110:5f)! See the perfect correlation with Luke 19? I think even Larry would agree that this has nothing to do with Christ’s incarnation! (If you want to know who the " kings"were, that would be destroyed, check out Acts 4:25-28).
In light of Luke 19, who was it that said, "We will not have this man to rule over us"? (And on this, check out Psalms 2–>Acts 4:25f)! It was ISRAEL, who heard the proclamation that her Messiah had come, was enthroned at the right hand, but was coming to rule and reign! But, they rejected that kingdom– NOT BEFORE PENTECOST, not before Jesus ascended to the Right Hand, but, after he had gone into the far country there to receive the kingdom! It was then, at the preaching of the New Covenant, inviting them into the rule of their Messiah, that they rebelled. But, upon his return, the king destroyed them, fully establishing and manifesting his rule and sovereignty! Remember that Terry has himself admitted that Israel was to be cast out FOR REJECTING THE NEW COVENANT. They were to be judged for saying, "We will not have this man to rule over us" as the New Covenant was preached!
So, at Christ’s parousia, he came in judgment of those who had now heard of his sovereignty, and his New Covenant offer, but rejected it, and persecuted his citizens. They had been invited to the wedding, but refused, persecuting the servants of the Master. So, He sent out his armies, killed those wicked servants and burned their city (Matthew 22:7). I don’t think we have a problem knowing to what and when this applied to!
Terry’s argument on Psalms 110 therefore backfires on him for it verifies and proves the phase in / phase out, initiation awaiting consummation, nature of Christ’s sovereignty/kingdom. Psalms 110 is NOT devastating to Preston’s paradigm, but, it DOES destroy Terry’s!
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
As we reach the conclusion of this exchange, let me say with Terry that it has been an honor and privilege. I commend Terry for at least attempting to address the issue in a thoughtful manner. I am sure that this exchange will do much good in the coming time, and from the emails I am getting, it is already doing a lot of good! I appreciate the fact that Terry has written by and large without rancor. While he has, at times, badly misrepresented what I actually said and believed, I do not ascribe this to dishonorable motives. Sometimes in debate, things are not clearly expressed, and consequently misunderstood. As a result, based on the mis-perception, responses are given that are inappropriate and mis-representative. This is not dishonesty or lack of honor, it is just bad communication!
With that said, let me summarize what has been accomplished in this debate.
1.) I offered Jesus’ emphatic words that none of the O. T. could pass until it was all fulfilled. Terry completely rewords Jesus’ statements to mean that "some of the Law will pass when some of it is fulfilled." Terry wound up taking four different positions on Matthew 5:17f to try to hold onto his doctrine. I cannot accept any longer a doctrine that is forced to so radically redefine and reject Jesus’ words.
2.) I have offered definitive arguments based on Daniel 9 showing that God’s covenant with Israel would remain in effect until the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Terry has either ignored what I offered, or, now, in desperation, he finally argues that Daniel 9 is about the fulfillment of all of the Abrahamic promises. I have shown that this admission actually proves my case beyond dispute.
3.) I have shown from Daniel 12 that God’s covenant with Israel– Israel’s power– would remain valid until Israel was destroyed. Terry desperately invented an argument– for which he gave us not so much as one jot or tittle of proof, that Israel’s power was the pagan nation’s perception that she was God’s people. I challenged him to give us one syllable of proof for this claim, but he simply ignored the challenge.
4.) I have shown that the strength of sin, the Torah, would remain valid until the resurrection, and that means that if the resurrection has not occurred, then the Torah, the Mosaic Law, remains valid today. Terry kept promising us that he was going to deal with this, but never did. Instead, he simply kept claiming that although the Torah was abolished at the Cross, that it remains valid as the strength of sin today. I have challenged him repeatedly to give us proof that an abrogated law still has condemning power, but, he never gave us that proof.
5.) I have shown, repeatedly, that eschatology and the end of the Old Covenant world are inter-related, inseparable. Terry has done nothing but chide and castigate me for this, although I have given specific, emphatic verses proving my case. His theology divorces eschatology from covenant. It divorces eschatology from Israel. It posits eschatology at the end of the age that the Bible says will never end. Both my affirmatives and negatives have established this truth beyond dispute however, and this fatally undermines Terry’s proposition.
6.) I have shown from Romans 11 that God’s covenant relationship with Israel would remain valid until the parousia foretold in Isaiah 27 and Isaiah 59. Terry’s feeble attempt to counter this by arguing that Isaiah predicted Christ’s incarnation is completely falsified by the irrefutable fact that Isaiah 27 and Isaiah 59 predicted the salvation of Israel at the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood. I challenged Terry repeatedly to address this indisputable reality, but all we got in return was the repetition of his "it’s the incarnation" claim. But, his silence and refusal to address this fact is totally destructive to his view.
7.) In spite of Terry’s claims to the contrary, I have shown that covenant provisions are only valid and applicable as long as the covenant upon which they are based is itself valid and applicable. Terry has admitted that the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 was the application of the provisions of Wrath found in the Mosaic Covenant. This single argument completely establishes my affirmative and falsifies Terry’s.
8.) I have shown that there was a transitional time in which the Old Covenant was "nigh unto passing" while the New Covenant world was being fully established. Terry has tried to focus on the tenuous aorist tenses found in scripture, while insisting that we ignore the present and future tenses that speak to the truth that the Law remained, at the time of the New Test
ament writing, a shadow of good things that were about to come. Terry has not, although he has been almost strident on this point, been able to offer a shred of evidence that falsifies my affirmative arguments.
9.) I have shown that in Isaiah, Acts and Hebrews, the writers were anticipating the arrival of the RESTORATION and the REFORMATION. I have shown that the restoration and the reformation were to come at the same time, i.e. AT THE PAROUSIA OF CHRIST, at the end of the Mosaic covenant period. All Terry could offer was the repetition of his mantra that the Law had already passed at the Cross, but that the Second Coming is unrelated to that event. His claim that even if the Greek words are synonymous, that this "proves nothing," were it not so serious, would be laughable.
10.) I have shown that Terry Benton’s position in regard to the entrance into the Most Holy Place, the presence of God, totally undermines his own theology. Terry has been so evasive, so obfuscatory in dealing with this, that I am sure the readers feel the same frustration as I do, in attempting to get him to deal candidly with this issue. Terry patently felt the power and the pressure of this argument, so, instead of dealing with it, he claimed that I misrepresented him. Yet, from my very first presentation, I stated what I felt Terry believed, and challenged him to correct it if I was wrong. HE NEVER OFFERED TO CORRECT OR DENY WHAT I SAID! In fact, he finally subtly admitted to what I had said, but then embarked on his charges that I misrepresented him. How could I have misrepresented him if he finally admitted, although subtly, that I was right?
The fact is that if man today, still does not get to go directly to heaven when he dies, then the Old Covenant is still in effect!
11.) I have offered one syllogistic argument after another, based on the solid testimony of scriptures, in support of my affirmative, and in denial of Terry’s position. I have challenged Terry to take EVEN ONE of my syllogisms and demonstrate how it was improperly formulated, invalid, or wrong. The readers of this debate know that TERRY DID NOT EVEN TRY to falsify even one of my syllogisms! On the other hand, when Terry finally attempted to offer a syllogistic argument, I showed where it was invalid, redundant, and false, being guilty of violating the Law of Excluded Middle.
12.) I showed, definitively, that Zechariah 11 posited the time when YHVH would break His covenant with the people as the time when they, because of covenant violation, would eat one another’s flesh. This argument stands because all Terry could do was repeat his false mantra that the Law was removed at the Cross. Yet, the Law could not be abolished at the Cross, yet, the provisions of wrath applied 40 years later!
When Terry began his affirmatives, I have countered by showing the false assumptions underlying his arguments.
1.) I have shown conclusively that his appeals to Romans 7, Ephesians 2, Colossians 2, to prove that the Law had passed at the Cross were misguided and false. Paul said that it was "in Christ" that men had DIED TO THE LAW. Not once did he say definitively that the Law itself had died or been annulled. Terry’s simple repetition of claims cannot mitigate the fact that in Ephesians 2 alone, Paul uses that dramatic and important term "in Christ" or corollaries, no less than NINE TIMES! I pointed out that if Terry applies what Paul says about the blessings "in Christ" to the Law objectively passing then he must at the same time, apply all of the other "in Christ" statements to those outside of Christ as well! In other words, if the Law passed for those outside of Christ, then all of the other "in Christ" blessings also apply to those outside of Christ! He has never addressed this argument, and cannot do so! Terry has tried desperately to avoid the clear cut, emphatic power of this "in Christ" reality, but he has failed to counter its devastating impact on his theology.
2.) I have proven that there was in fact a transitional period of time, in which the Old Covenant was being fulfilled, and passing away, and the New Covenant world was being established. Terry’s desperate attempts to destroy and deny the present and future tenses of multiple passages is truly sad. His adamant arguments depending almost solely on the tenuous use of the aorist tenses, should be a red flag to anyone and everyone.
3.) I have shown that the New Temple was under construction in the New Testament times. THIS WAS NOT MERE NUMERICAL GROWTH, but, movement toward the perfect man, the completion of the mystery of God. This involved the miraculous work of the Spirit, to bring about the Covenantal transformation. It also involved the distinctive and personal ministry of Paul. Thus, if the church is still "growing today" IN THE SAME SENSE THAT IT WAS GROWING IN EPHESIANS 2, 4, ETC., then the mystery of God has not been completed, Paul’s ministry has not been completed, and the gifts of the Spirit should still be present and operative. Terry has not addressed these issues.
4.) Terry has tried to argue that since Christ died to confirm the New Covenant, and since the Spirit called men into the New Covenant, that therefore, the Old Covenant had passed away at the Cross. I countered by showing that A.) I do not deny that Christ’s death "confirmed" the New Covenant. Nor do I deny that the Spirit called men into the New Covenant. What I showed however, is that Paul asserts that Israel was to keep the Law until it was fulfilled, and that part of the fulfillment was the preaching of the New Covenant to all the world.
5.) I proved that God could not cast Israel off until she had rejected the New Covenant, and, TERRY AGREED THAT ISRAEL WOULD BE CAST OUT FOR REJECTING THE NEW COVENANT! Terry’s admission is fatal to his view, because according to his own theology, the New Covenant was not preached before the Cross! If Israel was cast out for rejecting the New Covenant, and the New Covenant was not preached before the Cross, THEN ISRAEL WAS NOT CAST OUT AT THE CROSS!
6.) Terry offered the Transfiguration as a supposedly devastating affirmative. Yet, I showed that the Transfiguration actually refutes Terry’s view! Peter says that that Transfiguration was a vision, not of the incarnation as Terry claims, but of the parousia! Thus, the Transfiguration was a vision of the parousia of Christ (not his incarnation). But, the Transfiguration was a vision of the end of Torah. Thus, the end of Torah would come at the Transfiguration.
7.) I have shown that all of Terry’s arguments in regard to the New Temple, Priesthood, Covenant, Sacrifice, etc. are all built on his one specious, falsified assumption: that the Law passed at the Cross. I have shown that there was indeed a process of establishment, empowered by the charismata, awaiting perfection at the parousia. Terry’s abject refusal to honor the "already but not yet" statements of scripture simply shows that he is unwilling to accept what the scriptures affirm over and over: the work of Christ had begun, but was not completed, and would not be completed until the parousia which was coming in a very, very little while.
8.) I have examined Terry’s claim concerning Psalms 110 and shown that it teaches the transitional period, the time of the consolidation of Christ’s authority, in perfect harmony with Luke 19. This establishes my proposition, but falsifies Terry’s.
THE ISSUES HERE ARE NOT:
1.) Did Christ confirm the New Covenant through his death: I affirm that.
2.) It is not whether that New Covenant was to be preached to all men: I affirm that.
3.) It is not whether Israel was to come into her New Covenant through the Spirit’s call: I affirm that!
4.) It is not whether Israel would be cut off for not accepting the call into the New Covenant: I affirm that!
5.) It is not whether Christ
had become a priest after the order of Melchizedec, signaling the impending end of the Levitical priesthood: I affirm that!
6.) It is not whether the New Temple, the better sacrifice, etc. had been established and offered: I affirm that!
7.) It is not whether those coming into Christ died to the Law: I affirm that!
8.) It is not whether Gentiles were to observe Torah. I NEVER affirmed that!
9.) It is not whether Christians entering Christ were obligated to keep Torah. I do not affirm that!
THE ISSUES HERE ARE:
1.) Whether all, not just SOME, but ALL, of the Old Testament had to fulfilled for it to pass: and Jesus said it did. I accept that.
2.) When the inspired text posits the fulfillment of all of Israel’s prophetic hopes: at the end of her covenant age in A.D. 70.
3.) Whether Paul taught that the Law was completely fulfilled and abolished at the Cross: and he didn’t!
4.) Whether God could cast off Israel before Israel had rejected the proclaimed New Covenant: and He could not, and did not! And Terry himself has actually (inadvertently of course) admitted this.
5.) Whether the provisions of the Mosaic Covenant could be applied to Israel even after the time when the Torah was supposedly abolished. I deny that the covenant provisions could be, or would be, applied after the time when Terry claims that the Law was abolished.
6.) Whether the end of the Old Covenant and eschatology are inextricably linked: and they are, as we have proven.
9.) Whether God’s Old Covenant promises to Israel would remain valid until the end of the Seventy Weeks, until the time when the power of the holy people was completely shattered, until the time of the end. And they would and did!
10.) Whether Torah, that was the strength of sin was removed, at the time of the end, in fulfillment of God’s Old Covenant promises to Israel. Terry says it wasn’t, thus, Torah remains valid even today as the strength of sin. Preston accepts the inspired word that the Law that was the strength of sin, Torah, was indeed completely fulfilled, when Jesus said it would be, and when Daniel foretold: "When the power of the holy people is completely shattered, all of these things shall be fulfilled."
11.) The issue here has been, and remains: Were the Jews–outside of Christ– to keep observing the Law until it was completely fulfilled. Were they to keep observing the Law until they heard about the New Covenant? Jesus said they were (Matthew 5:19), and I have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that they were.
Let me say again how much I appreciate Terry’s courage and convictions, his willingness to engage in these discussions. With a few exceptions, Terry has manifested a good decorum, and this is appreciated. I join with him in inviting the readers to carefully examine both sides of the evidence. The truth is all that matters!
I once held to the views–at least most of them– that Terry now espouses. However, it was the testimony of the scriptures that forced me to reject the traditions of my fathers, as painful as that was. Our legacy in the Restoration Movement has always been one of open discussion, challenging and inviting anyone and everyone to simply prove their case by the Word. That is what we have sought to do in this exchange. I appreciate the owners and admins of this site for making this forum available for such open discussions. May our Lord be glorified, and each of us challenged and benefitted by these discussions.
For His Truth, and In His Grace,
Don K. Preston
In every conceivable way, I have proven my affirmatives, and falsified Terry’s proposition.
Don K. Preston