McDonald’s Second Rebuttal
The invalidity of Don’s statement that I only responded to one of Don’s arguments is made clear by my following statements in the following article. If you look at the article that is provided by the aforementioned link you will find those thing that he said I did not respond to, responded to. So just what is it that I did not respond to? Now I will admit that I did not follow him off into his repetition, but I was under no obligation to do such. I answered his arguments as is clearly seen above, unless he can bring up arguments that I did not answer. If he can let him do so. There were two questions that I did not answer. I have no excuse other than I just did not see them, so I will answer them now.
Don answers my question about Christ being our “high Priest” on the following chart. I don’t know where he got the idea that “being changed” in Hebrews 7:12 was “present active indicative because it comes from the word μετάθεσις which is “metáthesis; gen. metathéseōs, fem. noun from metatíthēmi (G3346), to transfer. Transposition, a moving to another place” (The Complete Word Study Dictionary, e-Sword). There is nothing here about it being present active indicative. I checked The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised and nothing is said there about it being present active indicative, all that is said there is to check section 5, table e and part c. All it gives is the Singular, Plural and Dual endings of the 5 cases. None of this says anything about the word being present active indicative. Don’s only authority here is the English language, but since the New Testament was not originally written in English we cannot look to it for our authority. So down goes Don’s argument.
Also Christ was after the order of Melchizedec in as much as his priesthood was not like the Aaronic Priesthood. It had no genealogy! Yes Christ died to the Torah, and as such he took the Torah out of the way, nailing it to his cross. Those priests who still ministered according to the law were fallen from grace (Gal. 5:4) according to the Apostle Paul because no flesh could be justified by the works of the law (Gal. 2:16).
Don tells us that because he says that Hebrews 7:12 is “present active indicative” that Hebrews 8:13 means: “nigh unto passing.” In the McGuiggan-King Debate Jim McGuiggan handled this passage which can be seen on the following chart.
I’m sorry, but his definition does not stand. Jesus came as King of king and Lord of lords. He did not need to wait until A.D. 70 to become king over the kingdom, and the kingdom did not need to wait until A.D. 70 to have a king. Paul wrote “who hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear son” (Col. 1:13). The words “hath delivered” come from the word “ῥύομαι” “rhúomai; fut. rhúsomai, aor. pass” (The Complete Word Study Dictionary, e-Sword). The aorist shows action in past time, and the passive shows that the action is being done to you. Thus Paul said that at the time that he wrote this that people were being translated into the kingdom of Christ. How could that be if Christ was not King of kings? Matthew 12:20 is the fulfillment of Isa. 42:3, and Matthew 12:20 shows that Christ is the Messiah and would be shown to the Gentiles.
Don says: “Jerry says that if Paul preached the hope of Israel, they would have accepted his message.” Where did I say this? I don’t recall it, and I don’t find it in my article, so please point it out to me if you would.
Romans 11:7 has reference to the church not to fleshly Israel. While there were Jews in the church, the elect was also made up of Gentiles, and it is what Paul was talking about. Verses 25-27 show that the Gentiles were to be made one with the Jews (Eph. 2:16). They were not to be Old Covenant Israelites. They were to be the church (Spiritual Israel). Don does not seem to be able to understand that concept, but it is one that is essential to understanding the New Testament (Acts 8:23; Rom. 9:1-5).
Israel was promised the adoption and the resurrection. Israel was promised a lot of things, but everyone of Israel’s promises were based upon Israel’s obedience to God. When Israel continually disobeyed God she was cut off. A remnant was allowed to return, and faithful Jews became Christians and with Gentile Christians formed the church (the kingdom). However, fleshly Israel ended at the cross. Mosaic law ended at the cross. The Old Law ended at the cross.
He tells us that either I have badly misrepresented him because I have not read the literature or I purposely misrepresented him or he and his have not made themselves clear. Well, I have not misrepresented him at all. And he and his have made themselves very, very clear on the matter. What he doesn’t like is the implications of his doctrine. He wants to be able to teach what he wants to teach without having to deal with the consequences of what he is teaching.
To teach that the law of Moses had not been fulfilled at the cross would be to imply that Paul was wrong to urge Jews to not live under the Law. If the law was still in effect, as Don contends, then Paul was wrong to tell people that they should not live under it. By the fact that Paul told people that they had fallen from grace by trying to live under the law (Gal. 5:4; Rom. 7:1-4) we see that the law was no longer in effect. The consequence of Don’s position is that he teaches that Paul was in error.
He rightly states that the church and gospel was the fulfillment of Israel’s Old Testament promise, but he erred when he said that Israel’s salvation would come at the time of the resurrection. Israel’s salvation would come when Christ died on the cross(Heb 9:15). He tells us that Isa. 10:21 shows that God’s promises were always to the righteous remnant, and I agree to that in as much as these promises were made after Israel was told that they would be cut off as a nation. However, it never was God’s intention to keep Israel as a fleshly covenant nation. It was always his intention to use Israel to bring Christ into the world and have Christ bring the church (his kingdom) into existence.
Romans 11:1-7 shows that Israel was cut off and that the remnant was saved. The Gentiles were added to the remnant (those who were baptized at Pentecost—the faithful who had never bowed the knee to Baal) and they formed the church; the kingdom of Christ.
He brings up Romans 9:22-28 as though I mentioned nothing about it in my first rebuttal. I responded to it very explicitly. You can go to the following chart to see what I said on the matter, but I don’t have the space to go into it in this article. God was not going to remarry the remnant of Israel, the remnant of Israel was going to be saved by becoming Christians. The marriage between Christ and the church is not the same as the marriage between God and fleshly Israel. The remnant’s salvation would be a spiritual salvation and would only come when Christ died on the cross (Heb. 9:15).
Israel was not cast off at the cross. Israel was cast off when she went into captivity. The law of Moses was fulfilled at the cross. The law ended at the cross. As a religious law (as far as God was concerned) Judaism ended at the cross. Yes, Paul said he was an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham of the tribe of Benjamin, but one chapter before he wrote this he wrote “Brethren, my heart’s desire and hope for Israel is that they might be saved” (Rom. 10:1). If they were God’s chosen, why did Paul want them to be saved? If they were already in a covenant relationship with God why did he hope that they would be saved? As a nation Paul affirmed his ethnicity (an Israelite) just like I affirm that I am an American, but this does not mean that America is God’s nation.
If you look at the following chart you can see that verse 28 is a continuation of what Paul was quoting from Isaiah. Paul isn’t interjecting hi
s own thoughts there, he is quoting Isaiah the prophet. Look at the following chart to see what Robert L. Whiteside wrote.
Israel’s salvation, again, depends upon their obedience to the gospel of Christ. They had to obey the gospel and could not live in unbelief, otherwise they would be lost. Don wants to take verses 27 and 28 out of their context and make them apply to the A.D. 70 doctrine, but you can’t justifiably do that. Leaving them in context you see that Paul is saying that all men, Jew and Gentile alike are saved through Jesus Christ.
Then he goes to Isaiah 59 and talks about ACCUSATION, ACKNOWLEDGMENT, and ACTION and then he says: “This is the coming of the Lord Paul anticipated in Romans 11. In other words, Paul’s eschatology was the OT hope of Israel. This is the salvation of the righteous remnant in Israel.” A question comes to mind, “What was the hope of Israel” according to Don? If he says that the hope of Israel was the salvation of man through Jesus Christ our Lord, then I agree with him, but if he says that the hope of Israel was anything else then I wholeheartedly disagree with him.
Don tells us that Romans 9:28 tells us that “the consummation of the salvation of the righteous remnant that was to be completed shortly- Romans 9:28.” As the former chart shows, Rom. 9:28 is a quotation of Isa. 10:22,23 . There is nothing in Isa. 10:22 or 10:23 that shows that this will be done shortly. Don sees the word short and he automatically thinks that this means that it will be done shortly. The word “short” in Romans 9:28 comes from συντέμνω and can be seen on the following chart.
The word does not mean shortly under any circumstance, and Don’s contending that it does just goes to show just how far he has gone off into this heresy. He cannot even properly interpret scripture anymore.
He tells us that the judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood was to be in the first century. The book of Isaiah was a message to the Israelites who were going to be carried off into Babylonian Captivity. They were to be punished for their sins, and the remnant would return from captivity and rebuild the city, the walls and the temple—which they did under Ezra, Nehemiah and Zerubbabel. Israel was not going to be punished in A.D. 70 for the sins committed in Isaiah’s day. The destruction of Jerusalem was for the purpose of destroying the temple, and any chance of the Jews being able to trace their lineage back beyond that time.
Paul and Barnabas were not preaching Old Testament Law in Acts 13. They were preaching the Gospel of Christ which was different from the Law. Don seems to think that if Paul quoted from Isaiah or one of the prophets that he was preaching the Law. I guess he thinks that I preach the Law when I quote from one of the Old Testament Prophets today. I have preached whole sermons from Proverbs, Jeremiah, Isaiah, etc., but this does not mean that I am preaching the Law. No, no, no! I preach the gospel of Christ. I may make use of the Old Testament, but only in the sense that I use the principles in it or quote the prophecies and show where they were fulfilled. This does not mean that I am preaching the Law any more than it meant that Paul was preaching the Law. This is the lamest argument that Don has made yet. In Acts 13 Paul uses the Old Testament to lead up to the story of Christ. In Romans 11:26,27 Paul is showing that the only way that any Israelite can be saved is to obey the gospel of Christ, just like anyone else. Paul was not wrong because he was not positing anything in his future. Look at what Paul says in Romans 11:26-28 and see if Don is right.
Paul isn’t saying that Israel shall be saved in his future, he is saying that when this was written that Israel’s salvation was several years in the future. Funny how the Gentiles had salvation at that point, but the Jews, God’s chosen people would have to wait until A.D. 70 to have salvation! (?) No, Paul was showing that the Gentiles had been grafted in, and the Jews could be grafted in again if they continued not in unbelief. However, they had to believe or they would not be grafted in. However, God has always reserved those who have never bowed the knee to Baal and those were grafted back in. This grafting in was taking place right then.
In Romans 9:1-5 Paul talked about his kinsmen according to the flesh, who were Israelites. The adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the Law, the service of God, and the promises pertained to those Israelites. Those Israelites were of the fathers (the ancestors) and of whom concerning the flesh Christ came. Paul continues on discussing that not all of the Israelites are going to be the children of God. Just because they are Israelites in the flesh does not mean that they will be the children of God. The promise made to Abraham was two-fold (Gen. 12:1-3): (1) There was the land promise (12:1), and the promise of salvation (12:2,3). It was the promise of salvation that not only applied to the Jews, but also to the Gentiles (Isa. 2:2-4). So while the promise was made to Israel, it was not just for Israel. It was for all of mankind.
The hope of the resurrection is not only the hope of Israel, but it is the hope of all men (Act 26:6) “The Salvation of Man Throu
gh Jesus Christ Our Lord.” Was the promise of the resurrection made to the Jews? Yes it was! Was it made exclusively for the Jews? No, it wasn’t! Was it made as part of the Law? No, it wasn’t! It was a prophecy that was made during the time that the law was in effect. Don doesn’t seem to realize that a prophecy uttered during the Law of Moses doesn’t necessitate it being the Law of Moses. I have shown that Paul said that the law was nailed to the cross, and he counters that by saying that it was the guilt of the law. Paul didn’t say it was the guilt of the law, he said that it was the law and even uses the “new moons,” “feast days,” and “sabbath days” as proof that he was talking about the law itself. However, he never did respond to Paul’s statement in Galatians 5:4. There is no doubt that Paul was saying that if one tried to be justified by the law that he would be lost. Since this was written before A.D. 70 it can only be interpreted that Paul was saying that the law was no longer in effect.
All of his bantering around Isaiah 45, Hosea 2:1-2 and Jeremiah 3 do not show that the law of Moses was going to continue until the resurrection of the dead or that God would remarry Israel during the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. I did not change anything in Hosea 2:19. God was not going to remarry Israel as a whole. He said he would marry the remnant which he did when Christ died on the cross and the church was established on the day of Pentecost. Don wants to apply this marriage to all of Israel because of the word “all” in Romans 11:26. The word “all” does not mean every person, but every person that will believe.
Don thinks that Deuteronomy 26:8,17,19 shows that God married Israel at Sinai. But he didn’t deal with what Paul said in Galatians 3:17. I asked him, in my preliminary questions: “7. Do you believe that the Bible is all sufficient, and that it needs nothing to explain it for it is its own best commentary?” His answer was: “Answer: The Bible is definitely its own best commentary.” The question was “do you believe that the Bible is all sufficient, that it needs nothing to explain it and that it is its own best commentary. He only said it was its own best commentary. This may be where his problem lies. When one fails to hold to the all sufficiency of the word, that the word needs something other than itself to explain it then they come up with all of these far out doctrines. However, he did say that the Bible is its own best commentary. So we will go from there. Since he agrees that the Bible is its own best commentary and since Paul stated that Israel was already in a covenant relationship with God already having the promise before Sinai there should be no problem with what I said. As a matter of fact I brought up Gal. 3:17 in my first rebuttal and Don didn’t even bother to deal with it. Here is a question that the reader might want to ask himself: “Was Israel in a covenant relationship with God before Sinai?” “Yes or No!” According to Paul, the answer would be “Yes.” Here is another question: “What took place at Sinai?” Answer: God gave the first written law!
The first time you see the name Israel is in Gen 32:28. Then you find the first time the 12 tribes are mentioned in Gen 49:28. All of this was many, many years before Sinai. The promise was made in Genesis 12 to Abraham and Abraham kept God’s statutes (Gen. 26:5). This idea that the marriage to Israel waited until Sinai is absurd and anti-scriptural.
Ezekiel 16:1-16 does not teach what Don wants it to teach. It teaches a successive picture of God’s dealing with Israel from the time of Abraham until they went away into captivity. They went into Egyptian bondage and God brought them out and decked them with shoes (badger skins) and jewelry and Israel went whoring after other gods. However, the promise (covenant) was made with Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3. That is a Biblical fact!
Did God make a new covenant with Israel? Yes, he did! But not with Israel as a nation! He made this new covenant with all people. It came through the children of Israel, but then again so did Christ so according to that thinking I guess Christ was the savior of Israel as a nation. Funny about that when they found out that he wasn’t going to save them as a nation they killed him.
He says that “God undeniably married Israel at Sinai.” No, God gave the written law at Sinai, but Israel was already God’s people which is why God had Moses tell Pharaoh “Let my people go” (Ex. 5:1). Now if Israel was not already in a covenant relationship with God how could God say that Israel was HIS people? The Israel that God would make the new covenant with is Spiritual Israel—the church. Fleshly Israel, as a nation, ceased to be when she went into captivity. A remnant came out of captivity and rebuilt the wall, the city and the temple. However, when Christ died on the cross, the law and the temple worship ceased as far as God was concerned, which is shown by the veil in the temple being rent into two pieces.
There is nothing in Matthew 22 about the second coming of Christ. This was about Christ coming in the first place. Remember the Jews (those who were bidden to the wedding) rejected Christ and God had the the apostles turn to the Gentiles (those who were in the highways). The parable in Matthew 25 refers to the second coming of Christ, which is the only parable that can rightly refer to the wedding, and it refers to when the marriage is consummated. The betrothal took place on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 and it remains in that betrothed state until Christ returns from preparing a place (Jn. 14:1-3) for it and to take it with him. Is the church with Christ today? No! Therefore it is still waiting for the groom to appear to consummate the marriage.
In the first place I have shown from the context of each parable what each one is talking about. In the second place I have shown Matthew 22 is not discussing any prophecy of any marriage at all. It is one of two parables given by Christ and it uses the example of a marriage but it is not talking about a marriage. It is talking about the first coming of Christ. Matthew 13:47-51 is another parable given by Christ which does deal with the end of the world, but it does not use the marriage example, but rather a net that was cast into the sea. So according to Don’s logic the Second Coming is going to be a “Fishing Expedition.” Maybe they are going to eat fish at the marriage feast, who knows! But we don’t have to worry about that because according to Don that has already taken place. Too bad I was hoping for some catfish.
Does Don believe that this is talking about the judgment of the world? Does he believe that this happened in A.D. 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed? In Matthew 24:36-39 Jesus said that no one would know when he would return, that life would be going on as normal. In Matthew 25:13 Jesus said: “Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh” (Mat 25:13). Now the point is that Jesus gave signs for the destruction of Jerusalem in Matthew chapter 24, but when it came to his coming, he said it would be just like the days of Noah. People would be eating, and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage. No one would be expecting it. Peter said it would be “as a thief in the night” (2 Pet. 3:10). Yet they had plenty of warning about the temple’s destruction. They were told told what to look for. However, there are no signs to look for in regards to Christ’s return.
Don needs to go back to school and retake Logic 101 because he obviously didn’t get it the first time around. What gives him the idea that I think that the marriage doesn’t take place until the second coming? He has the idea that the betrothal is just an engagement, but it isn’t. It is a marriage, it just isn’t consummated by the physical act of sexual relations. When a couple was betrothed as Mary and Joseph were they were married, but they had to wait a specified amount of time before they could consummate that marriage. It was during that betrothal period that Mary was found with child and Joseph was minded to put her away privily (Mt. 1:19). However, to say that Mary and Joseph were not married was to say that Joseph could not put Mary away. The word for put away, here, is ἀπολύωand it means to divorce. So the church is betrothed to Christ, the consummation won’t take place until he returns to take it to heaven, but it is still his bride—his wife in every aspect. He says: “The betrothal was a legally binding matter but it was not consummated until the marriage feast, the coming of the groom.” Does he believe that Joseph was not present at the betrothal between Joseph and Mary? Such is absurd, and shows the lengths that Don and his will go to in order to hang on to their doctrine.
I asked him: “’What was the “new name” that was to be given by the mouth of the Lord in Isa. 62:2, and where is this new name found in the New Testament?’ Answer: Christian and Antioch.’” He admits that the new name was Christian, and that it was given in Antioch, but this was prior to A.D. 70. Yet he said, in his first affirmative: “The marriage (re-marriage) of God and Israel would be at the coming of the Lord, at the time of judgment and reward (Isaiah 62:2-11).” Yet Isaiah 62:2 prophecies about the new name that the mouth of the Lord would name. Now if the name Christian was this name and if this prophecy was showing that it would take place at the time of the judgment and reward then it should not have happened decades before. Yet that is exactly what happened. So it does destroy Don’s case.
Don says: “Jesus–citing Isaiah 62– said his coming in judgment would be in the first century (Matthew 16:27-28).” Please show me, where, in Matthew 16:27,28 Jesus was citing Isaiah 62: “For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom” (Mat 16:27-28). Where in that does he cite any part of Isaiah chapter 62? This is like his “shortly come to pass” argument. He just makes stuff up.
The problem with Christ sanctifying the church is that he sanctified it that he might present it to himself a glorious church. Notice what Paul says in Eph. 5:26-32 and how he shows the husband wife relationship to Christ and the church. Now Don says that Christ sanctified (past tense) the church by the washing of water by the word, but then he says that the sanctification was not the wedding but the preparation for the wedding. But in the same passage where Paul talks about Christ sanctifying the church he talks about the man loving his wife and says that he is speaking about Christ and the church. The man in Paul’s statement is Christ and the wife is the Church showing that Christ is married to the church just like the man is married to the wife. Notice that Paul doesn’t use the phrase a man and his intended, he uses the phrase a man and his wife, and then says “this is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.”
I saw no point in dealing with his syllogisms as the texts he uses are highly interpretative. I pointed out that Revelation was written to the seven churches in Asia and then those seven churches were listed, and there is no evidence that those churches were ever persecuted by Nero but the evidence that Domitian persecuted them is beyond dispute. He ridicules me for using commentaries and then uses a few of his own.
He tells us that Sodom refers to Jerusalem according to Ezekiel chapter 23, but the word doesn’t even appear in Ezekiel 23. Notice the chart where the word appears in the book of Ezekiel.
Then he says Isaiah 1:10 refers to Jerusalem as Sodom, but this isn’t exactly the case either. While it does notice what verse 9 says with verse 10: “Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah. Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah” (Isa 1:9-10). He says that they would have been as Sodom and as Gomorrah, then he says (rather sarcastically) hear ye rulers of Sodom…. Now Don says that Jerusalem is the only city that was ever called Sodom, but that isn’t true either. Let’s notice “Therefore as I live, saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, Surely Moab shall be as Sodom, and the children of Ammon as Gomorrah, even the breeding of nettles, and saltpits, and a perpetual desolation: the residue of my people shall spoil them, and the remnant of my people shall possess them” (Zep 2:9). You see that it says that Moab shall be as Sodom just as Isaiah says that Jerusalem would be as Sodom. Don says that this means that Jerusalem was spiritually called Sodom, so I guess this means that Moab was also spiritually called Sodom. I quoted from Johnson, and while he did deal with one quotation he failed to deal with the other, Johnson said: “Of the great city. This term is used eight times in Revelation. It is never used of Jerusalem. It is in contrast with the Holy City. As the Holy City is a symbol of the church, a wicked City would symbolize a false religion, or apostate church” (People’s New Testament with Notes, e-Sword). Notice the article which shows the eight times that the words are used in the book of revelation. In every case, except the last one, unless Revelation 11:8 is the exception, the “great city” refers to Babylon. In Revelation 21:10 the “great city” explicitly refers to the heavenly Jerusalem; heaven itself.
I wish Don would quit saying that I said things when I didn’t say them. I specifically said that the first time the song was sang it was sang at the beginning of Israel’s existence as a nation. The next time was when Spiritual Israel sang it and it became the song of the Lamb (Rev. 15:3).
The song of Moses was to be sung to the Israelites by Moses to be a witness against them that they were foretold that they would rebel against God (Deut. 31:21). The word “latter end” in Deut. 32:29 comes from: אֲחִרית ’aḥariyṯ:
“meaning the end, last time, latter time” (The Complete Word Study Dictionary, e-Sword). What Moses is saying is that he wishes that Israel would look at their latter end, or the destruction that they would be headed for and avoid their destruction. The “latter end” does not have reference to A.D. 70. It does not fit the context. It is something that has been added by the A.D. 70 proponent to prop up his flimsy position.
Question #1 for Jerry, did God call the gentiles to be his people in Moses’ day? It was always God’s intention to bring the Gentiles in and give them salvation. I don’t know if Moses ever stated this or not, but several of the prophets did. Don doesn’t understand my position if he thinks that I have to wait until 476. My position is that the Roman Concilia persecuted the seven churches in Asia Minor during the reign of Domitian.
Don tells us of the scholars that give an early date of John being on the Isle of Patmos. There were several people who bore the name of Theophylact but the earliest one was born around 695 A.D.,. There was an Arethas who was a student of Photius and was born about 860 A.D. with Photius being born about 813 A.D.,. There was another Arethas which is likely the one Don is referencing, but he lived in the 6th century. The Syriac Version of Revelation is a 5th century document and the translation itself does not put John on the Isle of Patmos before A.D. 70. The translator included this in the title which is no more authoritative than the breakdown of chapter and verses are. The only thing of an early date that he has is Epiphanius in Heresies 51:12,33 is from 314 to 400 A.D.,. He tells us that Aune says that there is no solid evidence that anyone was ever exiled to Patmos, but he offered the Syriac version which clearly states that John was exiled to Patmos by Nero, so one of them is definitely wrong, and I believe both are. All of these are much later than the early evidence that I gave in my first rebuttal. I stand by the early evidence especially since Don’s evidence contradicts itself and mine does not. He can bring up all the scriptures he wants, but if Revelation was written after A.D. 70 all his interpretation of those scriptures are inaccurate. So his criticizing me for giving external evidence for the late date of revelation is absurd. Until the date of Revelation of settled it makes no difference how many scriptures he brings up. I can bring up all the scriptures he does and make application to the late date, but he wouldn’t accept my interpretation of those passages, as is clearly seen by the fact that I take Johnson’s interpretation on Revelation 11:8 and he ridiculed me for doing that by saying that all I offered was commentaries and external evidence. Well all Don has offered is external evidence and his own interpretation, interpretation that is inconsistent with the overall evidence. When did Jerusalem ever persecute the seven churches of Asia? When did Nero persecute the seven churches of Asia? Now when did Domitian persecute the seven churches of Asia? When he answers these three questions he will be able to see the truth to this matter.
It is Don’s assumption that the wedding takes place during the judgment of Babylon. Looking at the following chart we can see what Barnes said about this. This has reference to the relationship of Christ and the church. It is not the judgment of man, nor the resurrection of the dead. It is the marriage of Christ to the church, Christ establishing the church which was done on the day of Pentecost of Acts 2. Don’s view that I believe that Christ’s coming for the wedding would be at the fall of Rome is fallacious. I don’t believe that the church will go to heaven until Christ returns to judge the world and we do not know when that will happen. Don has no idea what I believe or what position I hold.
Now here is what I actually said about 2 Thess. 2:17-20: “This wrath is not the destruction of Jerusalem, or of the temple, but is eterna
l situation as is brought out in verses 17-20. Eternal damnation is what Paul spoke of for the Jews who persecuted them, and eternal life was for those who were faithful.” According to Don, the New Testament has no direct application beyond A.D. 70. He can just shake hands with the New Hermeneutic advocates. No wonder the King family went off into complete universalism. They were just following the logical end of the doctrine.
Don must be reading from a different Bible than I am reading because he said that Paul was citing Jesus. Please look at the chart and see if Don is correct. I am sorry, but I don’t see the words of Jesus in those verses, do you? Me thinks Don is reading from something other than the Bible. No, me is quite sure of it! As a matter of fact, I don’t see where Paul quoted or even cited Jesus in any part of that chapter, but maybe Don can point it out to us. Now be sure and do that for us Don. This ought to be good!
He assumes that I hold to the Continuous Historious Method in which the book extends to the Catholic church, but I don’t. While the Catholic church never killed the Christians the Roman Concilia did (the soldiers for the Roman Emperor who was demanding Emperor worship) kill Christians.
Don needs to prove that the prophets that were killed in Revelation 16 were OT prophets. Summers wrote: “Once the Empire had made the blood of the martyrs run like water; now all the Empire can find to drink is blood—and they deserve it. God’s judgments are righteous” (Worthy Is The Lamb, p. 187). Remember the book was written to the seven churches in Asia Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea. It was not written to Jewish churches who would be well aware of Jewish history. These churches were mainly made up of Gentiles in Asia Minor who had little or no knowledge of Jewish history or any concern of any destruction of Jerusalem. The temple was nothing to these people; they had been taught that the law had been taken out of the way and that anyone who tried to be faithful to the law was guilty of spiritual adultry (Rom. 7:1-4; Gal. 5:4). This is what Don refuses to deal with. He wants everyone to believe that the Gentiles were living under Mosaic Law until A.D. 70, but Paul told Rome that to try to do so would put them in a state of spiritual adultery. He told the churches of Galatia that those who tried to be justified by the law were fallen from grace (Gal. 5:4). Paul told Peter (at Antioch) that no flesh could be justified by the works of the Law (Gal. 2:16) and chastized him severely for drawing a wall of division at Antioch when brethren came from Jerusalem. Yet Don would have you dismiss all of this in favor of his Preterist doctrine. Sorry, we just can’t do that.
Jesus spoke of Jerusalem because he spoke to people who would be affected by its downfall. Stephen spoke of Jerusalem because he spoke to people who would be affected by its downfall. Both spoke to Jews. Paul, however, spoke to Gentiles, so he didn’t bother them with speaking about the downfall of Jerusalem. In his letter to the Hebrews he spoke of Jerusalem’s downfall, but only because they would be affected by it. However, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Romans, etc, do not reference the downfall of the temple. Those people would be unaffected. However, even in his letter to the Hebrews Paul wrote that the Old Law had been done away, and the New Law had come into affect. Don admits that Christ was our High Priest before A.D. 70, but the only way this could happen was for the Old Law to be changed (Heb. 7:12-14) because Christ was not of the tribe of Levi. You could not have two priesthoods co-existing. Therefore, for Christ to become our High Priest, the Law had to be changed, it had to be taken out of the way. Paul says that Christ’s blood went backward and cleansed the sins of those under the first covenant (Heb. 9:15). How could that have happened unless the first law was out of the way and the second was now effective. Paul wrote “For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator” (Heb 9:16). Christ died, and when he died his testament became effective. When his new testament became effective the old testament became ineffective. Its that simple.
He tells us that Paul says that OT Israel will be punished for persecuting NT Christians according to 1 Thessalonians chapter 2, but verse 7-9 deal with Christ coming judgment upon those who know not God and obey not the gospel. That is anyone not just Jews. “And you who are troubled rest with us….” Yes, they are troubled, persecuted, but OT Israel is not persecuting them. OT Israel is persecuting Paul and the apostles, but where is the evidence that they went from church to church persecuting Christians. No, they went in trying to get Christians to be faithful to Judaism along with Christianity (Rom. 7:1-4).
Again I do not deny that Jesus promised that Jerusalem would be destroyed. However, this does not prove that the law of Moses was not nailed to the cross, nor does it prove that the book of Revelation was written before A.D. 70.
Don tells us that 2 Thessalonians 1:9 is a direct verbatim quote of Isaiah 2:19 in the LXX, but notice the following chart of both verses. Isaiah 2:19 is in the LXX (Septuagint-Greek) and 2 Thessalonians 1:9 is in the Koine Greek. Go to the chart and see if they are identical. See if 2 Thessalonians 1:9 is a verbatim quote of Isaiah 2:19. I think you will have to agree with me that it isn’t. Just look at the of the English versions and you will see that they don’t even say the same things. I thi
nk Don is imagining things again.
Question #2 for Jerry: Who was it that dwelt in the presence of God, but was to be cast out of His presence for persecuting the church? Answer: The Jews.
In dealing with Colossians 2:14 he argued that Colossians 2:17 says that the feast days “are a shadow of things to come.” See the chart to see the answer to Colossians 2:17. Also notice that the word “are” is “ἐστί estí; pres. act. indic. 3d person sing. of eimí (G1510), to be. He (she, it) is” (The Complete Word Study Dictionary, e-Sword)so it stands to reason that my response on the chart is accurate.
In dealing with what I said concerning the word “quickly” he simply said “False.” Then he said that “if the avenging of the martyrs in Revelation 6 is the avenging of the martyrs in Matthew 23 then the “Behold I come quickly is confined to Jesus’ generation.” If you look at the following article you will see all but two of the times that the word “quickly” is used in the New Testament, and each time it means with with rapidity, the exceptions are seen below. Looking at the word “tachos” you can see that while the word can mean shortly or soon in the phrase with the preposition “en”, used as an adverb, it is not normally used that way. The only two places where it is used that way as is seen on the following chart.
He says that there are seven occurrences of “en tachos” and that Revelation 22:12 is one of those cases, but he is wrong. All the verses are in an article I have written, which you can access by clicking on the former link. Now notice that the “en tachos” will always have G1722 G5034 or G5035, while tachos will either be G5034 or G035. There are only two instances in the NT where the G1722 appears with G5034 or 35 and I have a chart on that, they are both in Acts. Revelation 22:12 is G5035. Don needs to check his sources a little closer.
Question #3 for Jerry: Did Jesus come, in the lifetime of the first century Thessalonian church, and give them relief from their then on-going persecution? No!
So, question # 4 for Jerry: Do you preach that Christ’s coming is so near that you say, “Let the wicked remain wicked”? Answer: No, I preach that we are to fight wickedness. Your interpretation assumes that Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70, something you have not proven, and it assumes the second coming took place at the destruction of Jerusalem, something else you have not proven. What do you preach about the second coming? O, that’s right, you are like Hymenaeus and Philetus who preached that the resurrection is past already (2 Tim. 2:17,18).
Don said that Paul wrote: “I believe all things written in the law and the prophets, that there is about to be a resurrection of the dead.” Where did Paul ever say such a thing? Notice the following chart about what Paul did say.
He makes an argument about the power of Israel and distorts the facts. This argument can be found on a chart. His problem is that when I said Israel’s power is the gospel, I was saying that the power of salvation was the gospel. That is somet
hing that even he believes in. What Daniel was dealing with fleshly Israel as they were going into Babylonian captivity. However, what I was talking about was the gospel of Christ. Don has a penchant for taking what a person says out of context and making it say whatever he wants it to say, so it doesn’t surprise me to see him do God’s word that same way.
Question #5 for Jerry: Do you affirm that the gospel / church will one day be “completely shattered?” If so, give us scriptural proof. Answer: No. The church will never be shattered. The church, once established, will stand for as long as this world stands. Once the world ends, the church will be in heaven in eternity.
He says that my position is a hopeless contradiction of scripture, but it isn’t. My position is in perfect harmony with scripture. My position is in contradiction with his interpretation of scripture, but his position contradicts not only scripture, but itself. Any position that contradicts itself is a position that is false, according to the law of contradiction.
His position on Daniel 12 is outlandish as can be seen by the following chart. Don denies a literal resurrection of the dead body, but there is something that he might want to think about, and that is the death of Lazarus. When Jesus came to Bethany, Martha came to him and told him that if he had been there Lazarus would not have died. He told her that Lazarus would live again. The conversation goes on like this:
Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. (Joh 11:23)
Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. (Joh 11:24)
What resurrection was she talking about? Was she talking about the destruction of Jerusalem? Was she talking about the kind of resurrection that Don Preston is preaching? No! She was talking about the resurrection that Daniel prophecied about, the resurrection that Paul preached about in 1 Corinthians chapter 15. The resurrection of the dead body, that will be turned into a spiritual body. For a discussion of the fulfillment of the law look at the following chart.
Don thought I surrendered my proposition, but he needs to look at my chart on 1 Corinthians 15 before he gloats too much.
Don says that I made a number of affirmative arguments in my first rebuttal that he was under no obligation to answer. No, I made no affirmative arguments. When I make affirmative arguments he will know it. Those arguments were in response to his article, and he was obligated to answer each and everyone of them. The following chart is a list of each argument that he failed to deal with.
To see the questions for this article look at the following chart
Notice the chart on the martyrs of Revelation chapter six.
I believe that I have answered all of Don’s arguments, but if I missed any, if he will point them out I will get to them in my next. I have almost used up my allotted space so I will quit for now. I now invite you to read Don’s third affirmative.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald