Jerry McDonald’s Third Negative
When Jesus died on the cross, he fulfilled the law, but that did not mean that everything would happen immediately. Jesus told the Father “I have glorified thee on earth, I have finished the work that thou gavest me to do” (Jno. 17:4). Had Jesus finished everything, literally by that time? No, because he had not yet died on the cross, but he had set things in motion that would put him on the cross and would cause his work to be finished. In the same manner when Christ died on the cross, he set things in order that would fulfill everything. Thus when he died on the cross the law was fulfilled. He says that I ignored his argument which he lays out in the following chart. However a look at the following chart will show that I did not ignore anything.
But while we are on the topic of ignoring people’s arguments, I made the following statement on the next chart and Don ignored it. I wonder why? I think the reason is clear. Martha understood the resurrection of the dead to be a literal bodily resurrection. Jesus, obviously, understood this when he told Martha that Lazarus wouldn’t have to wait until the resurrection of the dead to be raised. I would say that whatever Jesus understood something to be is what that would be.
The following chart shows what I said about the song, originally, and it is all that I said. Don wants to act as if I have changed my position, but I haven’t. I maintain that the song in the first instance was sang by Israel at the beginning of their coming out of bondage, and the second song was sang by Spiritual Israel, during their persecution. Notice what I said about this song in my first affirmative. So I have said the same thing in both rebuttals. Don has no response so he accuses me of changing positions. Israel’s latter end in the song in Deut. 32:20 was not A.D. 70, but was Israel’s end in their apostasy from God. I would quote commentaries, but then Don would complain about me quoting from uninspired men (which he does frequently with impunity). The song that was sang in John’s day was not about the same thing. This song was a song that was sang in John’s vision was not literally sang by the saints, it was part of a vision of the persecution what the early Christians were going through. Notice the chart concerning Ray Summers on the 144,000. Don needs to understand that this was not written to fleshly Israel, but to the “seven churches which are in Asia” (Rev. 1:4). Those seven churches are named: “unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea” (Rev. 1:11). When one looks at these verses, one can see that Revelation was not written to the children of fleshly Israel. While the last two chapters still apply to people today, all of this was directly applicable to those saints in those seven churches.
So for Don to make the statement, he made, only shows that (a) he either is not reading what I write, or (b) he is purposely trying to misdirect the reader from reading what I said by claiming that I have abandoned my claim. I have pointed that the song was sang in Moses’ day, and was led by Joshua, the son of Nun. This was about Israel and her life after Egyptian bondage. However, the other is sang by SPIRITUAL Israel in reference to the persecutions they underwent. How does that constitute a contradiction?
Don completely ignored everything I have said about the resurrection in this debate. He won’t deal with it because he can’t. Paul condemned the church in Corinth for not believing in the resurrection of the dead. Paul states that if there was no resurrection of the dead, then Christ had not been raised. Don denies the resurrection of the dead. He defines the resurrection as: “the restoration o
f the life lost in Adam.” He can’t say that he means “physical” life because he does not believe that the dead literally rose in A.D. 70. He understands the resurrection as a spiritual resurrection so the implication is that Christ never rose from the dead (1 Cor. 15:13). Therefore his position denies the resurrection of the dead. Martha understood that the resurrection of the dead would be when people actually rose from the dead, but Don does not understand it as such. He believes that the Law of Moses was still in effect until the resurrection, which he says happened in A.D. 70. He believes that the “power of the Holy people was the Torah” even though Paul denied that the Torah had any power. Notice the following chart on which we find arguments to show the fallacy of Don’s position.
Don asked the following question in his second affirmative: “Question #1 for Jerry, did God call the gentiles to be his people in Moses’ day?” My response was: “It was always God’s intention to bring the Gentiles in and give them salvation. I don’t know if Moses ever stated this or not, but several of the prophets did.” I clearly stated that it was always God’s intention to bring the Gentiles in, and this is what Paul was discussing in Rom. 10:19-21. Don uses the statement “I don’t know if Moses ever stated this or not” and claims it was an act of desperation. I don’t see what was so desperate about it, since I had already stated that it was always God’s intentions to bring the Gentiles in. However, Deuteronomy is not referring to A.D. 70 since the Gentiles came in before A.D. 70. If Don is saying that the Torah was to remain valid until the conversion of the Gentiles, then it became invalid before A.D. 70. It wasn’t the Torah that the Gentiles were under. They were under Patriarchal law. The Law of Moses was given only to Jews. While there were Gentile converts to it; they lived as Jews. However, the Gentile people (as a whole) were not bound by Mosaic Law. For Don to pick on my statement and call it an act of desperation is an act of desperation, and if that’s all he has, he has nothing. However, for him to say that the song of Revelation 14 and the song of Deuteronomy 32:19-21 are the same songs, is erroneous. There were actually three songs sang in Revelation. The first was a “new song” (Rev. 5:9). The second was the new song in Rev. 14. Then in Revelation 15 they sang the song of Moses, which was the song sang in Exodus 15, and it became the song of the Lamb, but no where do they sing the song of Deuteronomy 32:19-21.
Don’s next statement is another act of desperation: “I noted that Jerry claimed that had Jesus and Paul truly preached the hope of Israel that they would have been accepted. Jerry denied saying this, and challenged me to produce it. Well, Jerry said: ‘If Jesus’ intent was to come and marry Israel and Judah, why did the Israelites want him dead?’” Here is the actual statement: “Jerry says that if Paul preached the hope of Israel, they would have accepted his message. Well, the remnant of Israel did accept it!” Now what I said was “If Jesus’ intent was to come and marry Israel and Judah, why did the Israelites want him dead?” Where did I say that the Israelites accepted Paul’s preaching the hope of Israel? I never said it, read what I did say!
He continues: “Unbelievably, Jerry says resurrection was not Israel’s salvation.” Here is exactly what I said: “The hope of the resurrection is not only the hope of Israel, but it is the hope of all men (Act 26:6) “The Salvation of Man Through Jesus Christ Our Lord.” Was the promise of the resurrection made to the Jews? Yes it was! Was it made exclusively for the Jews? No, it wasn’t! Was it made as part of the Law? No, it wasn’t! It was a prophecy that was made during the time that the law was in effect.” No where did I state or even imply that the resurrection was not Israel’s salvation. I said that the resurrection was promised to the Jews, but also to all men. It wasn’t part of the law of Moses (If it was part of the Law of Moses it would have applied solely to the Jews), but a prophecy that was made during the time the law was in effect. I also stated: “Romans 11:7 has reference to the church not to fleshly Israel. While there were Jews in the church, the elect was also made up of Gentiles, and it is what Paul was talking about. Verses 25-27 show that the Gentiles were to be made one with the Jews (Eph. 2:16).” If this is the statement he is talking about he is wrong again. I said that Romans 11:27 has reference to the church, not fleshly Israel. Israel’s salvation was the same as the Gentile’s salvation—Jesus Christ our Lord. His resurrection from the dead is essential for both Jew and Gentile to have salvation. Don denies that Jesus rose from the dead because he teaches that there is no, literal, resurrection of the dead. Thus it is Don who denies that the resurrection is Israel’s salvation because he denies the resurrection of the dead.
He brings up a Chart to show that Paul was speaking of the same thing that Isaiah was speaking of. Notice my chart in response. Also notice Isaiah 25:6-9. Then Paul says: “(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them” (Rom 11:8-9). Paul is not quoting Isaiah 25:6-9 in Romans 11:8,9, he is referencing Isaiah 29:10: “For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered.” Does Don even bother to check these scriptures before writing?
Matthew 8:11-13 is speaking of the judgment, but it does not say when the judgment will come. Don sees a passage on the judgment and he automatically thinks “A.D. 70.” Jesus said “And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Mat 8:11-12). For a look at the context of these verses look at the following chart. Jesus is simply saying that in the resurrection, people like the Centurion will be saved while the children of the kingdom are lost; because of their lack of faith. Don sees a verse that deals with the judgment and A.D. 70 automatically pops into his mind regardless of the context.
Israel’s salvation was Jesus Christ. His resurrection made it possible for us to have salvation. In the general resurrection we will all be raised to judgment and those who are righteous will be saved, but those who are unrighteous will be lost. So the resurrection is not salvation or condemnation. The resurrection is the event where all men will be judged whether good or bad (2 Cor. 510).
Thayer says it means to dispatch briefly, execute or finish quickly, or speedily. It is a brief dispatch, and a quick (fast) execution. Don wants to use the word “shortly” because he wants it to mean “soon,” and this is not what Paul was saying. Paul was quoting Isaiah where he prophecied about a remnant being saved. Paul says that Isaiah said that God would finish the work and cut it short (as opposed to letting it continue) and perform a short (brief) work on the earth. Putting Dungan’s rule of substitution into play let us substitute “soon” for short and see what it looks like: “For he will finish the work, and cut it ‘soon’ in righteousness: because a ‘soon’ work will the Lord make upon the earth” (Rom 9:28). Does the word “soon” sound proper here? Look at the word “shortly.” “For he will finish the work and cut it ‘shortly’ in righteousness: because a ‘shortly’ work will the Lord make upon the earth.” Nope, that doesn’t work either. So let us look at the words “off short” and “brief.” “For he will finish the work and cut it ‘off short,’ in righteousness, and a ‘brief’ work upon the earth.” In other words, rather than let this continue it will be cut short, like a meeting is cut short because of a certain circumstance.
Don’s quotation of Thayer is like everything else he quotes, only half-way. Notice the following chart. Now I am not advocating that every word needs to be quoted when quoting a source, but the way that Don butchers his sources, it is always good to go back and see what was really said. Thayer did not say that it was translated “shortly” or “soon,” (which is what Don means by shortly). It is translated as short, cut off short, briefly, or something of that nature, but I have not found where it is to be translated as shortly in the sense of it being soon. He brings up different translations so translating, but he can find a translation that will translate things any way he pleases, but notice how he criticizes me for sticking with the KJV.
He wants us to look at what Barnes wrote, but a look at the next chart reveals that Barnes does not take Don’s position. Yes, he quoted Duet. 32:21 to show that the gospel was to go to the Gentiles. However, Don’s usage of this is totally opposite of what Barnes’ was.
Now here is the “Achilles Heel” of Don’s position. He explicitly asked: “Jerry, have you never read Isaiah 25:6-9 (the source of Paul’s resurrection hope in 1 Corinthians 15:54f)?” Now why is this so
deadly to Don? Because Don claims that Isaiah 25:6-9 refers to the time of A.D. 70, and he says that the source of 1 Cor. 15:54f is Isaiah 25:6-9. 1 Corinthians chapter 15 is discussing the resurrection. (a) 1 Cor. 15:1-8 is dealing specifically with the preaching of the resurrection, how that Christ died and rose again, and was seen by others after his resurrection. (b) In 1 Cor. 15:9-11 Paul defends his apostleship. © In 1 Cor. 15:12-23 Paul deals with the false doctrine that there is no resurrection. (side note* he is not talking about any spiritual resurrection, but of a literal, bodily, resurrection from the dead). (d) the rest of the chapter deals with things of the final judgment of man and Christ’s return.
Now, the problem that Don has is this: “If Isaiah 25:6-9 is the source of Paul’s information on the resurrection in 1 Corinthians chapter 15 (specifically verses 54 and following), and if 1 Corinthians 15 is dealing with a literal, bodily resurrection where the dead will rise, then Isaiah 25:6-9 must be dealing with a literal, bodily resurrection where the dead will rise. And if that is true then Don only has two alternatives: (1) Either the literal, bodily resurrection has not yet happened (because this would happen when Christ would return), or (2) the literal, bodily resurrection took place at the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, and all the dead rose up out of their graves, Christ returned and literally judged the world, and all has been fulfilled. If this is the case, then the church no longer exists, baptism is no longer valid, we are no longer authorized to partake of the Lord’s Supper. Our lives today, are meaningless because we have no hope of salvation. That is the “Achilles Heel” of Don’s position. He only has these alternatives. Question: Did all that were in the grave, literally rise in A.D. 70? I asked this question in my second rebuttal and Don left it unanswered. So, without equivocation, without hesitation, answer the question. He won’t answer it now any more than he would answer it last time. He won’t answer it because it destroys his position.
He wants everyone to think that Paul was talking about some spiritual resurrection of the spiritual life lost in Adam, but that is not what Paul was talking about. Let me demonstrate with the following chart.
Paul was talking about Christ literally being raised from the dead. Now if he is saying that Paul was dealing with some kind of spiritual resurrection, then he is forced to say that Christ never actually rose from the dead, that he is still in the grave. This does two things: either (a) it says that Christ’s body is still in Joseph’s tomb, which flies in the face of the apostle Peter who clearly stated that Christ had been literally raised up and his body was not in the tomb as David’s body was (Acts 2:29-32), thus denying the inspiration of the Bible. Could this be why he answered the preliminary question on the all-sufficency of the Bible in the way he did: “7. Do you believe that the Bible is all sufficient, and that it needs nothing to explain it for it is its own best commentary? Answer: The Bible is definitely its own best commentary.” The question was “Do you believe that the Bible is all sufficient, and it needs nothing to explain it for it is its own best commentary?” He didn’t answer as to whether or not he believes that the bible is all sufficient. Maybe he doesn’t believe that it is. If it isn’t all sufficient, then it isn’t inspired.
You know, he charged “riverofeden‘s” position to be atheism, while RoE never took the position that God does not exist. He took the position that since the second coming has already occurred (his and Don’s position for RoE is an advocate of the A.D. 70 doctrine—just taken to its logical conclusion), then all of man has been judged and nothing applies to us today. However, he refuses to answer as to whether or not the Bible is all sufficient. If it is not all sufficient, then it is not inspired. If it is not inspired then we have no hope of salvation, we are without God. Ergo Don’s position is “atheism.”
Or (b) he denies that Christ literally rose from the dead, which in effect has the same implication, except that denial of the resurrection of Christ means that all today are still in their sins and have no hope of eternal life. Either way Don’s position is heresy.
He says that the second song was not sang by spiritual Israel, but by the 144 thousand, those who were saved from Israel. If the 144 thousand has reference only to the literal remnant of Israel, what hope does his position have for anyone now living since no Jew can trace his genealogy beyond A.D. 70? His position implies that only those (the 144 thousand) who lived before A.D. 70 have any hope. This is the position that RoE takes and Don calls his position atheism. This is Don’s position, he just won’t admit to it, so I guess by his own admission, he teaches atheism.
Heb. 10:37 is a quote from Hab. 2:3: “
For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry,” “For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry” (Heb 10:37). What is Paul talking about? If you read the context of this you see that Paul is using Habakkuk’s statement to show that the church is to have faith, and not waver. He shows that as Habakkuk told Israel to have faith and wait, then the church is to have faith and wait. He was not applying the prophecy to anything, he just uses the statement to encourage the church to have faith. If you look at chapter 11 you see that Paul then teaches the church about faith. They were not to lose faith in God. Is this basically not the same thing as what Peter said when he wrote what he wrote in 2Pe 3:1-4?
He then tells them that the day of the Lord will come. He doesn’t say when, but that it will come. One of the problems that people have is waiting for the coming of the Lord. Most get impatient, and start setting dates; which is why premillenialists try to set the date for Christ’s return in the future, and the transmillenialists try to set it in the past (AD 70). Don is just as guilty as the dispensationalist who tries to set the date in the future. Don just sets it in the past. Instead of having faith and waiting for Christ to return in his own time (we need to remember that God is not on our clock—as far as he is concerned “one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as one day”) people start getting impatient, and this can lead to a failure to live faithfully. Christ will come when God is ready for him to come. So just as Israel was to have faith about the messiah, we are to have faith about the second coming.
He falsely accuses me of misrepresenting his position, but I have misrepresented nothing. Notice the following chart for my response. His “consistent argument” is faulty because the coming of the Lord in Isaiah 59:21 is not the second coming of Christ or the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Isaiah tells Israel that their sins (not the sins of their children, cf Ezk. 18:20) have separated between them and their God. Their sins of having defiled hands, fingers of iniquity, lying lips, (Isa. 59:4,5), and having hands that shed innocent blood (Isa. 59:7) will be punished. It has nothing to say about what will be done during the Christian age, but the punishment that fleshly Israel would suffer because of the sins that they had committed in their day.
Just as Israel had shed innocent blood, so the Jews of Jesus’ day have shed innocent blood. The same punishment of shedding innocent blood (from the time of Abel to Zechariah) will be applied to them for what they have done, not what Isaiah said their forefathers had done. Remember, the son is not punished for the sins of the father, but for his own sins. The Jews of Jesus’ day had followed right in the footsteps of their forefathers. Thus Don’s argument is not valid because the major and minor premises have nothing to do with each other except in comparison.
Don brings up Isa. 27:9-13 and argues that the consitutent elements of it teach that all this would happen in AD 70, but notice what happens if his position is correct: (1) If Don’s position is correct then the altar was not destroyed until A.D. 70, but both the Bible and history tells us that it was destroyed by Babylon (the literal kingdom of Babylon). (2) If Don’s position is correct then the city was not forsaken until A.D. 70, but both the Bible and history teach us that Jerusalem was forsaken by the Jews when they went into Babylonian Captivity. (3) If Don’s position is correct then God had no mercy on the people he created until A.D. 70, but again both the Bible and history teach us that God did have mercy on his people when they were in Babylonian captivity. (4) If Don’s position is correct then the remnant was not saved UNTIL A.D. 70, but once again both the Bible and history teaches that a remnant did come out of captivity, go back to Jerusalem, rebuild the walls and the temple. Their soul salvation came when Christ died on the cross (Heb. 9:15). But Don’s position is that they had NO salvation until A.D. 70, some 35 years after Christ died on the cross.
Look at the following chart to see what Thomas Warren wrote concerning implication. In short this says that if a doctrine implies a false doctrine, the doctrine itself cannot be true, it must be false because truth will never imply false doctrine. Don’s doctrine implies false doctrine. (1) It teaches that the altar was not destroyed until A.D. 70, so I guess the book of Ezra is in error when it says records what it does in Ezra 3:2. How could they have built it (in Jerusalem) if it had never been destroyed? (2) It teaches that God’s people didn’t forsake Jerusalem until A.D. 70. How could God’s people have returned to Jerusalem if they hadn’t forsaken it? Maybe Ezra is wrong in verse 1 as well. (3) It teaches that God had no mercy for his people until A.D. 70, and it teaches that the remnant was not saved until A.D. 70.? But I guess maybe Ezra is wrong (Ezra 3:1-4). All of these are false doctrines as can be seen from both the Bible and history.
Here is what I said about Isaiah 59: “A question comes to mind, “What was the hope of Israel” according to Don? If he says that the hope of Israel was the salvation of man through Jesus Christ our Lord, then I agree with him, but if he says that the hope of Israel was anything else then I wholeheartedly disagree with him.” Don refuses to answer my question because he does not believe that the hope of Israel was the salvation of man through Jesus Christ our Lord. He believes that the hope of Israel was the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. In other words the remnant wasn’t saved until A.D. 70, and it wasn’t the act of Christ dying on the cross and being resurrected that saved them, but God bringing judgment upon the city of Jerusalem that saved them. My question is a valid question, but Don’ won’t answer it.
He makes a giant leap from Isaiah 27:1,2 to Romans 16:20 and says Leviathan in Isa. 27:1,2 is in reference to satan in Rom. 16:20. Where did he get this idea? There is nothing in Paul’s letter to indicate that he is quoting Isaiah. Paul is telling the church in Rome to mark false teachers for they that are such serve their own belly, not our Lord Jesus Christ (vs 17,18). He tells them that their obedience is come before all men, (v. 19), and then he says that God will bruise Satan for their sakes (v.20). Verses 1-16 and 21-27 are his salutations to Rome. So just where did he even imply that he was quoting the prophet Isaiah? Don just makes stuff up, and he has the audacity to accuse me of not dealing with text. Look at the following chart which deals with Don’s chart. The next chart deals with commentaries on Rom. 16:20.
If you look at the context, you will see that there is nothing here about the judgment, the resurrection, or any quote from Isaiah. Shepherd. Whiteside, Wacaster, and McClish all have the right idea. Don has to have this refer to the judgment so he can continue to propagate his false doctrine. He stretches scriptures, pulls them out of their contexts (as he has done with Rom. 16:20), and misapplies them wherever he wants to. There is no rime or reason to his application of certain scriptures, but as long as he can force a square peg into a round hole, he is satisfied because in his mind he is teaching the truth, and it matters not what the scriptures have to say. His doctrine, in his mind, is correct regardless.
Don has consistently argued that the doctrine of the resurrection is the Law of Moses because of the things prophesied during the time the Law of Moses was in effect. According to that idea then the doctrine of the resurrection was actually Patriarchal Law because Job spoke about it before Moses’ law was ever written (Job. 14:12-14).
So according to this the resurrection was Patriarchal law. No, I don’t think so. The doctrine of the resurrection is one that has always been taught, and it has always taught that the resurrection would be a literal, bodily resurrection of the body from the grave, and it would happen when the heavens would be no more. It would be at an appointed time, when all that are in the grave would rise again. This is not some spiritual resurrection, but a literal resurrection of bodies that had died.
He makes a wild leap from Isa. 27:10-13 to Romans 11:26,27 to the avenging the blood of all the martyrs to fulfillment in A.D. 70 and makes the incarnation and passion of Christ all about Israel shedding innocent blood. Romans 11:26,27 simply shows that the Gentiles were grafted in and when he says that “all Israel shall be saved” he was not saying that every person of the remnant of Israel would be saved, but rather that salvation was open to all of the remnant. Don’s argument isn’t that different from ROE, (who Don claims preaches atheism) who claims that the salvation was for Israel and only for Israel. The difference between Don Preston and ROE is that ROE is consistent in his beliefs and Don Preston isn’t. Preston wants to lay claim to salvation, but at the same time teaching that Christ’s incarnation and passion was all about Israel being judged for shedding innocent blood.
Notice his chart on Isa. 27:13 and the Olivet Discourse, and notice my chart in response. Also regarding his statement on Romans 11:8 and Isaiah 59, (1) I have already pointed out that Romans 11:8 is referencing Isaiah 29:1
0 not Isaiah 59. (2) I pointed out that Isaiah 59 is not discussing A.D. 70, but the sins that Israel was committing right then. (3) Therefore the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 had nothing to do with either of those passages, and it certainly was not the second coming of Christ in judgment on the world. In A.D. 70 God only came in judgment upon Jerusalem, this does not constitute Christ returning to judge the world.
Yes I do take the position that Romans 11:26,27 does not refer to the second coming of Christ. I take the position that it refers to salvation coming to the Jews and to all men. This happened before Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70. The church came into its established state (whether Don wants to call it an infant or whatever) it was still established on the day of Pentecost of Acts chapter 2, it wasn’t able to become mature until the Bible was completed (Eph. 4:11-13). Those Jews were baptized for the remission of their sins (Acts 2:38) and they were saved from their past sins that day, not some 35 years later. Don’s position makes them having to wait until A.D. 70 to have their sins washed away. No wonder he thinks that the Law of Moses was still in effect until A.D. 70. However, Paul declared “Ye who are justified by the law, ye are fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4). Paul also told Peter that “no flesh is justified by the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 2:16). Notice that he said both of these things prior to A.D. 70., but Don denies what Paul taught by inspiration. So who will we believe? As Peter and the apostles said “we ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).
He brings up the fact that I apply Mt. 24:31 to A.D. 70, but he doesn’t show why I teach that verses 36ff don’t apply to A.D. 70. (1) Jesus was answering two questions, not one “Tell us, when shall these things be?” (the first question) “and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?” (the second question). What did they mean by “when these things shall be?” Jesus had told them “See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” He had them look at the city and told them that when the city falls not one stone shall be left that has not been thrown down. They asked when this would happen, and then they asked what the sign of his coming would be at the end of the world. They equated the destruction with the end of time, but Jesus gives them signs to look for concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, but of the end of time he said “of that day and hour knoweth no man, not even the angels in heaven, but my Father only” (v.36). He proceeds to tell them that things will continue on as normal (concerning his second coming) until he comes again. Peter tells us that this will happen as a thief in the night (2 Pet.3:10). It will be at a time when no one expects it.
I do not deny Jesus’ words in Mt. 24:31ff, what I deny is Don’s application of Jesus’ words. He wants the entire chapter to refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, but Jesus himself gave signs to look for concerning the destruction of the city. In verse 34 he said that the present generation would not pass until those things, that he spoke of in his answer of the first question, would happen. He said in verse 35 that those things would pass away, but his word would not pass away. In other words, his word is true. However, in verse 36 he says “but of that day and hour knoweth no man.” What day and hour is he talking about? He is now turning his attention to the second question. He has given signs regarding the destruction of the city, but of his second coming there would be no signs at all. Everything would be just like it was in the days of Noah before the flood. They were eating, drinking, marrying and giving in marriage and knew not until the flood came. That is the way it will be with the second coming. Life will be going on as usual, and it will suddenly happen. There are no signs, no passages of scripture to look to which will give us a hint as to when this is going to be. Only the Father has that knowledge. Once again, I do not deny Jesus’ words, I believe them and embrace them. I am not the one who has changed position on the second coming. I am not the one who has to manipulate scripture to get what I believe. I am not the one who has to claim that 2 Thess. 1:9 is a verbatim quote of Isaiah 2:19 in the LXX. Don, thou art the man who has done that.
Then he tried to show that because I said that because the judgment was pictured in the feast of trumpets that I was contradicting myself. No, I was not! The passover feast was a shadow of the Lord’s Supper, and the Lord’s Supper was established out of the passover. So, does this mean that the Lord’s Supper was a part of the Law of Moses? Come on Don, you can do better than that, surely you can! There were many things in the Old Law that were shadows of things in the New. They were shadows, not the thing themselves (Heb. 10:1-4). The blood of bulls and of goats were a shadow of the blood of Christ. Does this mean that preaching on the blood of Jesus Christ is preaching the law of Moses? See how absurd his position is?
He says that I admitted that Col. 2:16,17 show that the feast days had not been accomplished, that they were about to come. For him to make such an accusation shows either (a) that he has not read my remarks regarding this, or (b) he is purposely misconstruing what I did say. Either way he is wrong. Look at the following chart and you will see exactly what I said rega
Notice his chart on D-E-A-D and my chart in response. I never said that the promises were dead. I said that the law, that the promises were made under is dead (again, if the promise of the resurrection was part of the Law of Moses, then it was given solely to the Jews. What part of the Law of Moses was ever given to anyone other than the Jews?). This is what Paul said in Romans 7:1-4. Don has never even attempted to deal with Romans 7, Galatians 5:4 or anything else on the law being dead except Col. 2:16,17. His only response there is because the present infinitive is used this means that it was about to happen, but a look at the previous chart will dispel that theory for ever more. Look at the next chart for a discussion on the present active indicative and infinitive.
The promises were not fulfilled until the Old Covenant was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14-17). When that happened then the New Covenant could come in and the promises made under the Old Covenant could be fulfilled. Israel lost out on being God’s people a long time before this. When they were taken into Babylonian captivity they lost their standing with God and only a remnant would return. It was out of that remnant that the church began, so I guess according to Don’s philosophy the church was part of the Old Testament. That being the case then the church ceased to exist after Jerusalem was destroyed, according to Don’s position.
Why was it necessary to preach to the Jews first? Because they had been God’s chosen people, and they had been God’s chosen people because they were more receptive to God. God made the promise to them that they would receive the gospel.
Don is making 1 Cor. 15:53-58 harder to understand than it needs to be. Paul discusses the corruptible putting on incorruption, and the mortal putting on immortality. When this happens, then the saying that is written can be brought to pass. What is that saying? Read Isaiah 25:8: “He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for the LORD hath spoken it” (Isa 25:8). Paul only quotes part of Isaiah 25:8 “death is swallowed up in victory.” Then he asks two questions: (1) O grave where is thy sting, and (2) O death where is thy victory. Then he says (1) the sting of death is sin, and (2) the strength of sin is the law. Those two rhetorical questions are not part of Isaiah 25:8, but they are a quotation of Hosea 13:14. The sting of death is sin, which is what Rom. 6:23 tells us, and the strength of sin is the law. Why the Law? Because the law of Moses had no salvation attached to it, all it did was to let them know that they had sin in their lives. “But NOW,” he says, “thanks be to God for his unspeakable gift.” What is that unspeakable gift? God gives us victory through Jesus Christ our Lord. In other words, we don’t have to worry about death any more because the law has been done away and death has no more dominion over us. We now have victory through Christ our Lord. According to Don’s position they would not have victory until Jerusalem fell, but Paul says that they had it at the time he was writing.
Notice, if the resurrection was part of the Old Law, and if the resurrection was about people coming out of literal graves, then the Law of Moses is still in effect, according to Don’s argument. The following syllogisms will take care of many of the repetitious arguments that Don has made in his third affirmative. He seems to be of the opinion that if he repeats something enough that what he states will become true.
Don says the resurrection was an inherent part of the Law of Moses. A. Job knew of the resurrection before Mosaic law (Job 14:12-14), (B) Martha told Jesus that Lazarus would rise from the dead on the day of the resurrection (John 11:20-25). Now if the dead did not rise out of their graves at the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, then the resurrection didn’t happen during the destruction of Jerusalem, in A.D. 70. Notice the following chart to show the absurdity of this position.
Well…so much for Don’s position of the Resurrection being
an inherent part of the Law of Moses. Notice the meaning of “inherent:” (http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/inherent).
So unless Don can argue that the word “inherent” (notice definition #4) does not have the aforementioned meanings then he is going to have to either argue that Job lived and died under the Law of Moses, or he going to have to admit that the resurrection is not an inherent part of the Law of Moses. Don seems to think that if something under the law of Moses was a shadow of something under the law of Christ then the anti-type itself was a part of the Law of Moses. This would mean that (a) the law of Christ was part of the Law of Moses, (b) the Lord’s Supper is part of the Law of Moses because both of those things were shadowed under the law of Moses. The law of Moses was a shadow of the law of Christ. The passover feast was a shadow of the Lord’s Supper. Don writes: “resurrection, AN INTRINSIC ELEMENT OF GOD’S COVENANT PROMISES MADE TO ISRAEL” (Preston’s Third Affirmative). Notice that he used the word “intrinsic.” Now notice the definition of the word “intrinsic:” (http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/intrinsic ).
So according to Don the resurrection was situated within and belongs solely to the Law of Moses. Thus there is no resurrection under the Christian dispensation, and there was no resurrection under the Patriarchal Dispensation; only under the Mosaic Dispensation. Therefore, since the Law of Moses has been fulfilled (even according to Don) we have no hope of the resurrection because we are not under the Law of Moses. If we have no hope of the resurrection, then we have no hope of heaven. Thus we are all lost.
I never said that the resurrection was an inherent element of the Festal Sabbaths. I said that Festal Sabbaths were shadows of the Resurrection. If that makes the resurrection an inherent part of the Festal Sabbaths then the blood sacrifice of Christ was an inherent part of the blood sacrifices of bulls and goats. The problem with that is that the blood of bulls and of goats cannot take away sin (Heb. 10:4), and the blood of Christ can take away sin (1 Jn. 1:7). So does Don think that the blood of Christ is an inherent part of the blood of bulls and goats? Yes or No! Regarding his argument on the festive Sabbaths let us change “Sabbaths” with “blood of bulls and goats” and see if he will accept it:
“The blood of bulls and goats were fundamentally part of GOD’S COVENANT WITH ISRAEL, right Don?
The blood of Christ was inextricably part of the blood of bulls and goats.
Thus, the blood of Christ was a fundamental element of ‘The Law’ and God’s covenant with Israel.
IF THE BLOOD OF CHRIST WAS NOT PART OF THE LAW OF MOSES, THEN NEITHER WAS THE BLOOD OF BULLS AND GOATS.”
Will Don accept this argument? If not, he cannot accept his argument.
Don makes a false statement concerning Romans 7:1-4. Paul said “ye have become dead to the law so that ye could be married to another.” Another what? Another law! If they were dead to the law, it is because the law was taken out of the way. A wife is dead to her marriage relationship when her husband dies. If he is still alive she cannot be considered dead to that relationship. This is what Paul was talking about when he used the marriage law to explain the law of Moses and their relationship to it. If the law of Moses was still alive they could not be married to another. Don overlooks those facts in Romans 7:1-4.
What did Jesus mean in Matthew 5:17,18? (Notice the chart). If you look at the context of this statement Jesus was saying that Jesus was not arguing that the resurrection would take place before the law could pass away. He was saying that the Old system would be fulfilled when it had served its purpose.
One concern we have with Jewish history is knowing our roots. The promise of the resurrection and/or salvation was not ind
igenous to Mosaic law. Both were promised under Patriarchal law. Another concern is as Paul sated in Romans 15:4, we can use the OT scriptures to learn from and be admonished by. However, OT law was done away with at the cross.
Notice the chart on the LXX.
His 2ndchart on the Great City, then my previous chart.
His 3rdchart on the Great City, then my previous chart.
His 4thchart on the Great City, now notice my previous chart.
I asked Don some questions in my last article that Don has not responded to, and I would like for him to do so now. Also there were several arguments that Don did not respond to and they are listed on a chart. So it would be good if he could respond.
I have a question for Don: “Did Jesus teach a literal bodily resurrection from the dead”?
Here is another: Did Martha understand the resurrection to be a literal bodily resurrection from the dead?”
I now invite you to read Don’s final affirmative.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald