His arguments being “valid” does not prove that they are sound. There is a vast difference between validity and soundness. For example, in classical logic, the following argument is valid.
The argument is valid because it is in the correct form, but the validity of the argument does not constitute soundness. He claims that I did not respond to his arguments, and says that I even admitted such. I never made any such admission I clearly stated that I answered each of his arguments, but what I didn’t do is to follow his repetition. All I have to do is to respond to it once, and the answer will apply to it every time he repeats it. If he would just answer half of what I write I would be happy but, he skips over 99.9/10 % of my article and then claims that he answered the bulk of what I wrote.
I fail to see how my statement concerning what Jesus said is an admission on my part, all I said was that Jesus told the Father that he had finished the work he was sent to do. However, he hadn’t actually completed every step. He had, however, set things in motion to where all would be fulfilled. Before he died, everything was set in motion to be fulfilled when Christ died on the cross. In other words the law would be fulfilled when Christ died on the cross. Don’s problem is that he wants the resurrection to be the law of Moses. I produced three charts in my third rebuttal showing the weakness of this position, and Don completely ignored them. So let me present them again. Notice the chart on the serious consequences of Don’s position.
Also notice the chart of syllogisms that destroy his position. Notice also the chart on the resurrection. He wrote: “He agrees that Jesus had to actually die to fulfill the law. Yet, he wants us to believe that Jesus did not have to literally accomplish the “all things” of Torah for the law to pass.” Again, my statement is not an admission of anything because I believe that the law of Moses was fulfilled by the death of Christ. However, Don has not proven that the resurrection was an integral part of the law of Moses. I have given charts and arguments to show that it wasn’t.
He can claim all he wants that I ignored his chart on genetai, but a look at the following chart shows that I didn’t.
I have maintained, all along, that the song sang in Revelation 15 was the song from Exodus 15, not Duet. 32. So how have I converted to Don’s position? Look at Deut. 32:19-21 to see that Moses is not talking about something that was going to happen several centuries (A.D. 70) down the road. He is talking about their apostasy from God. In 31:29,30 he tells them “For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands” (Deu 31:29). Don says “Fact: The Song applied to the time AFTER MOSES’ DEATH, when Israel would fill the measure of her sin (31:29-30) and “evil will befall you in the last days” (31:29).” They would become evil after he died, but this would not be centuries later.
This is similar to Paul’s statement to the Ephesian elders “For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock” (Act 20:29). Surely Paul wasn’t saying that this was going to happen many years after he departed. No, he was stating that some time after he departed that grievous wolves would come into the church, not sparing the flock. Similarly Moses wasn’t stating something that would happen centuries down the road, but some thing that would happen some time after he died. It would happen during the life time of the people to whom he spoke. Don says that the song applied to “when Israel would fill the measure of her sin (31:29-30) and ‘evil will befall you in the last days.’” So either Moses was not going to die until the fall of Jerusalem, or the latter days, was something that would happen in those people’s life time.
Deuteronomy 32:7 says: “Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee.” Then verse 8 says: “When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.” It doesn’t say that the song will apply to many generations. It tells the children of Israel to remember the days of old.
Is he not speaking to the generation of that day? If not, then Moses was saying that he would not die until A.D. 70. No, it directly applied to the people of Moses’ day (which is what is meant by the statement “of Moses’ day” in my 3rd rebuttal. The people that Moses was talking to needed to look at the days of old, and consider the years of many generations (that had already past). How do we know that he was talking about generations from those people’s past? Look at verse 8: “When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam. Notice Barnes on this verse:
This had to be talking about previous generations, not generations that would come centuries after these people died. Again Don accuses me of changing my position, but I have changed nothing. He says that if the song applied to those in Moses’ day then the gentiles were converted in Moses’ day, but this doesn’t hold because all the song says is that one day the Gentiles will be preferred to the Jews. However, when you take into consideration that this song applied directly to the Israelites of Moses’ day and the latter end would be something that they were to look forward to, we can see that Don’s interpretation is erroneous.
The part about the Gentiles being favored above the Jews was nothing more than a parent telling a child that unless he changed his ways he would some day end up in prison. No time line was given in the song of Deuteronomy 32, it was simply a statement of fact. The Israelites would become evil, they would be destroyed (their latter end would be when they were taken into captivity,) and one day God would prefer the Gentiles. This should be something that every Israelite would take notice of. They should have asked themselves: “Are we really going to get so evil that some day the Gentiles will be preferred to us?” If this was something that would happen when the Gentiles were received into the kingdom, then the prophecy ended at the Cornelius conversion (some thirty years before A.D. 70) because that is when the Gentiles were preferred to the Jews, not A.D. 70.
Now take a look at THE THREE SONGS. If you look at the three songs, Exodus 15 and Revelation 15 resemble each other, but Deuteronomy 32 has no resemblance whatsoever with Revelation 15. So what does this tell us? It tells us that Deuteronomy 32 is not the song that was sung in Revelation 15. (1) Exodus has nothing to say about Israel’s latter end and neither does Revelation 15. Deuteronomy 32 however, does deal with this. (2) The song in Exodus 15 is a song of triumph. The song in Revelation 15 is also a song of triumph. However, the song in Deuteronomy 32 is a song of condemnation.
Paul was not stating that God would not take vengeance on Israel until his time. Romans 12:19 is not saying that Deut. 32:35 was a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, Paul simply quoted it to let the church at Rome know that (as was true in the past, so it would be in the future) that vengeance belonged to God. The context of Rom. 12:19 is not about the fall of Jerusalem. Paul told Rome to live peaceably with all men and if their enemy hungered that they were to give them food. Surely Paul was not saying that the Christians were to give food to the Roman army that would destroy Jerusalem! No, Paul was merely telling those saints in Rome not to get into it with any of those who did them wrong because vengeance belonged to God, past, present and future.
Don says that the Song of Moses was the law, and the law of Moses was fulfilled when the Gentiles were converted, but this would mean that the law of Moses, and the song of Moses was fulfilled prior to A.D. 70. His response is: “Jerry misrepresents me by claiming that I said the Law would pass when the Gentiles were converted. My point was that the law could not pass until (among other things) the Gentiles were converted. I did not argue that Torah would pass at that juncture.” Let’s see, what was it, exactly, that he said: “I argued that the Song foretold the conversion of the Gentiles in Israel’s last days. Since the Song is an integral part of the Mosaic Covenant, this means that Torah would remain valid until the conversion of the Gentiles” (http://maeft.wordpress.com/2011/07/27/prestons-third-affirmative/). Now, if language means anything at all, there is only one conclusion that can be reached from Don’s statement: “the law of Moses would remain valid until the Gentiles were converted! Now notice the meaning of the word “until”: “Until UNTIL’, prep. [un and till. See Till.] 1. To; used of time. He and his sons were priests of the tribe of Dan, until the day of the captivity. Judg 18” (Webster’s Dictionary, e-Sword). This shows us that Jonathan and Manasseh were priests to (KJV) the tribe of Dan until they were brought into captivity. To say that the torah would remain valid until the conversion of the Gentiles is like saying that Jonathan and Manasseh were priests until they went into captivity.
He tells us that anyone who is not interested in distorting his argument would know that he was saying that the torah foretold the conversion of the Gentiles, and that the Gentiles were not converted at the cross. The Gentiles were not under the torah, so their not being converted at the cross would not keep the torah from passing at the cross. The Gentiles were under Patriarchal law, and it continued until they were converted which was recorded in Acts 10. Jesus gave the parable of the tares and in it he said: “Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn” (Mat 13:30). Was Jesus saying that the wheat and the tares were
to grow together and the harvest had nothing to do with their not being together any more? No! Neither did Don mean that the Torah would remain valid until the conversion of the Gentiles and then continue on until A.D. 70. If the word “until” in his statement didn’t mean it would stop at that time, then how do we know that his statement: “Not one jot or one tittle would pass from “the law” until it was “fully accomplished (genetai)’” meant that the passing of the jot and tittle from the law could not happen until the law was fulfilled? He cannot have it both ways.
Next he continues to bring up an argument I have answered every time he has brought it up. He wants to know why the gospel was given to the Jews first. I have answered this in every article: “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 be the first to receive the gospel” (McDonald’s Third Rebuttal).
The resurrection will be the hope of Israel as well as to all men if it comes to pass 100,000 years from now because at the resurrection is where man will be judged. He rightly says that I have denied that the resurrection was a Covenantal promise because a Covenantal promise is something that was made only for a specific Covenant. I deny that it was a promise made only for that Covenant. Job knew of the resurrection, but he was not under the Mosaic Covenant. I brought this up in my last rebuttal and the following chart shows how he answered it.
If the resurrection was a Mosaic Covenantal promise, then Job would never enjoy it because Job was not under the Mosaic Covenant. Don’s trick of trying to say that it was carried over into the Law of Moses is moot. Because it was carried over shows that it was not intrinsic to the law of Moses and Don is the one who said that “the resurrection was an intrinsic part of ‘the Mosaic law’” (Preston’s Third Affirmative). Notice the meaning of the word “intrinsic.” Look at the meaning of the word “integral.” Look at the meaning of the meaning of the word indigenous. So how could it be integral, or intrinsic when both of those are synonymous to indigenous which means “innate, or inborn”? If it was an integral part of the Mosaic Law then it was innate or inborn to the Mosaic law. If it was innate or inborn to the Mosaic law, then it couldn’t have existed before Mosaic law. When we say that something is indigenous to a country, we are saying that it is native to that country. So if Don says that the resurrection was integral to the law of Moses, he is saying that it was indigenous to the law of Moses, and therefore it did not exist before the law of Moses. But we know that it did, thus it was not integral to the Law of Moses.
How could God make the resurrection integral to the Law of Moses when in order for it to be integral it had to be indigenous and it could not be indigenous if it was not born or innate to that law. The word “innate” means Native, and the word Native has the following meaning. So once again, I ask, how could the resurrection be integral to the Mosaic law without being native or born to the Mosaic Law?
I do not have Israel cut off and not receiving her promised resurrection any more than he has Job cut off and not receiving his promised resurrection. Those who lived faithfully under the Mosaic law will receive the benefits of the promise of the resurrection when they are resurrected. If the resurrection was to happen when the law of Moses was removed, then we, today have no hope of the resurrection because it has already taken place. Why? Because our hope is in the resurrection. Notice that Paul wrote of “one hope:” “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling”(Eph 4:4). What is that one hope? “And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust”(Act 24:15). Now if that resurrection has already taken place then it has been realized, and if it has been realized then we don’t have the one hope and Ephesians 4:4 has no application to us. The one hope of our calling is the resurrection, and without
that hope we have nothing. We have no hope of God, no hope of heaven, no hope of eternal life.
I made arguments on 1 Corinthians 15 and Don refuses to deal with them. Notice his statement: “Let me reiterate my argument on 1 Corinthians 15 that proves the resurrection belonged to Israel’s last days. Don’t miss this!” If this is true, then we don’t have any resurrection to look forward to. If we can’t look forward to the resurrection then we cannot look forward to a judgment. Yet Paul wrote “for it is appointed unto man, once to die, then after that the judgment” (1 Cor. 9:27). If Don is correct we have no reason to look forward to the judgment because it has already taken place. So what happens to us after we die? We are not going to be judged because that has already taken place, according to Don, therefore 1 Cor. 9:27 has no application to us.
So the did dead come out of their graves in A.D. 70? I asked this, and Don did not answer! No! He says that the resurrection was the resurrection of the spiritual life lost in Adam. He says that the resurrection was not a resurrection of the body from its grave. His view of the resurrection is like Harold Camping’s later view of the judgment; a spiritual one, not a literal one. He says that he answered me on Martha, but he didn’t. I asked if Martha understood the resurrection to be one of a literal resurrection where the body comes out of the grave. His answer? He says that it was the same resurrection that was taught in Daniel 12, but he says that the resurrection of Daniel 12 was a spiritual resurrection. Martha obviously didn’t see it that way because when Jesus said that Lazarus would rise again she said that she knew that he would rise again on the last day: “Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live” (Joh 11:23-25). What did Jesus do? He promised her that Lazarus would rise again. She said that she knew that he would rise again on the last day, but Jesus told her that he was the resurrection and the life. In other words he would make Lazarus rise before that time. What did he do? He made Lazarus rise before that time.
If the resurrection happened in A.D. 70 then the judgment happened in A.D. 70. Now notice Paul’s words: “Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power” (1Co 15:24). What is the end? If you look at the context you see that the end is the end of the world. Now, if the end came in A.D. 70 then Christ delivered up the kingdom to God and the church no longer exists on earth and he is no longer the head.
If the resurrection and judgment happened in A.D. 70 we no longer need to repent because repentance was to prepare people for the judgment and resurrection. Notice the following chart.
If the resurrection and judgment have already taken place then we are not to partake of the Lord’s Supper because Paul told the church in Corinth: “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come” (1Co 11:26).
If the end of the world has already come then we have no authority to spread the great commission because Jesus said “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I command you and lo I am with you even to the end of the world”(Mt. 28:19,20). Don says that the “end of the world” is the end of the Jewish age, which he says happened in A.D. 70.
Now, let’s see: If the judgment and resurrection have already happened then (1) when men die they will not face the judgment (Heb. 9:27); (2) the one hope of Eph. 4:4 has no application to us; (3) Christ is no longer the head of the church and it no longer exists on earth because it has been handed back to God (1 Cor. 15:24); (4) we no longer need to repent (Acts 17:30,31); (5) we no longer have the right to partake of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:26); (6) we no longer have authority to spread the great commission (Mt. 28:19,20); (7) baptism is no longer essential (Mt. 28:19,20). Did I leave anything out?
“JERRY, IS THE LAW OF MOSES STILL BINDING TODAY AS ‘THE LAW THAT IS THE STRENGTH OF SIN? YES OR NO? DO NOT EVADE THIS QUESTION!” Answer: No!
In every article I have written I have pointed out that Paul used Christ’s resurrection to show what kind of resurrection of the dead that man would experience. If Christ is preached that he rose from the dead why did some say that there was no resurrection: Question #1. What kind of resurrection did Christ have? Don says: “I affirm that Christ’s physical resurrection was a sign of the greater, spiritual resurrection (Matthew 16; John 20:20-21).” So is he saying that Christ’s resurrection was a token of a spiritual resurrection? Where did he get this from? Mt. 16:21 and John 20:20-21 both speak of Christ’s physical resurrection. But Don says that this physical resurrection signified a greater, spiritual resurrection. So the “spiritual resurrection” was “greater” than Christ’s resurrection. If this is the case then our hope isn’t in Christ’s resurrection, but rather in the greater resurrection; Don’s spiritual resurrection.
Paul, however, used the resurrection of Christ to show what kind of resurrection we would have. John wrote: “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is” (1Jn 3:2). When will Christ appear? When the resurrection happens. What will we look like? John didn’t know, but he said that we would be like him for we would see him as he is. Here is another problem for Don. If the resurrection has already happened then why don’t see Christ as he is?
I never claimed that Don denied the resurrection, what I said was that Don’s position denies that Christ was not raised because he thinks the resurrection was a spiritual resurrection and Paul uses Christ’s physical resurrection to show that there would be a physical resurrection. In other words, it is the logical conclusion of Don’s position. If he affirms that Christ physically rose from the dead, then he must affirm a physical resurrection for all men because Paul used the physical resurrection of Christ as an example of the general resurrection.
He wrote: “I accept the Biblical testimony that the resurrection was to overcome the death of Adam– which was not biological death.” I can’t believe he wrote that! Does he really think that Adam’s sin did not bring physical biological death into the world? Does he think that things died before the first sin? Adam’s and Eve’s first sin brought into physical death as well as spiritual death. They began to die that day. The reason they were expelled from Eden is so they wouldn’t partake of the tree of life and live forever (Gen. 3:22-24). Was this a physical life or a spiritual one? Now I understand why Don thinks that Paul was saying that death would not be overcome until the resurrection which he says happened in A.D. 70. But this presents another problem. If spiritual death was overcome once for all when the law of Moses was eradicated which Don says happened in A.D. 70, then we don’t have to worry about spiritual death because it has been overcome and we can consider it our friend. When Paul said “O death where is thy victory” he was not talking about spiritual death, he was talking about physical death because physical death (under the law) was their worst enemy. Once the law was taken out of the way, physical death was no longer a threat. There was no salvation attached to the law of Moses, and physical death was their enemy. But when Christ died, his blood was retroactive and it took care of the sins of those under the Old Covenant as well as New. Now, physical death is not our enemy, but can be looked forward to (Phil. 1:21-23). Was Paul referencing physical or spiritual death?
“If it be preached that Christ rose from the dead, why say some of you that there is no resurrection of the dead?” (1 Cor. 15:12). Paul said they were saying that there was no resurrection, Don says they didn’t, so who do we believe? We believe Paul!
Why didn’t Paul say, “If the dead are not raised, you will not come out of the ground? Why does he simply deal with sin?” Very simple Don: They argued that the resurrection would not happen. You can argue all you want, but they were not arguing that the resurrection would happen. They believed that Christ rose, but they denied that they would rise. Paul uses the argument that if there is no resurrection then Christ was not raised. And if Christ was not raised, then they were yet in their sins. He didn’t say if there is no resurrection ye are yet in your sins. He said, if Christ is not raised, ye are yet in your sins, now notice what Paul said.
Don has misquoted everyone of those scriptures. Paul didn’t say that if there is no resurrection of the dead then they were in their sins. He did not say that if there is no resurrection of the dead then they which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. He said that if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ was not raised, and if Christ was not raised, then their preaching was in vain and they were yet in their sins, and those who are fallen asleep in Christ have perished, if Christ was not raised. However, if Christ was raised, then there will be a resurrection.
What certain group were they denying would be resurrected? Paul shows clearly that they were denying a general resurrection, and he shows that they accepted Christ’s resurrection so they must accept the general resurrection. If they deny the general resurrection they would logically have to deny the resurrection of Christ, which means that their preaching was in vain, their faith was in vain, they were yet in their sins and those who had died in Christ had perished. Paul did not deal with any other “certain group.” This is something that Don made up to get out of the dilemma in which he found himself.
The death we have victory over is physical death. It is no longer a threat to us. When we become a Christian, we are able to look forward to physical death just as Paul did in Philippians chapter 1 where he said “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better” (Php 1:21-23)
If spiritual death is what we have victory over, and if that victory came to pass in A.D. 70, then we don’t have to ever worry about spiritual death again, because the threat of spiritual death is gone. If the second coming brought victory over spiritual death, and the second coming happened in A.D. 70 then, we will never have to worry about spiritual death again because we are victorious. I agree that in the judgment those who are faithful will never have to worry about spiritual death again because in the judgment those who are faithful will never have to suffer spiritual death (separation from God). However, if man can still die spiritually then we have not been victorious over spiritual death.
Now our victory over physical death does not mean that we will never die, but that we don’t have to worry about death because we can use death as a means of getting to be with the Lord. Under Mosaic law physical death was the one strangle-hold that Satan had over man because Mosaic law offered no salvation. However, under Christ’s law, we have salvation and we don’t have to worry about physical death any more, however we do have to worry about spiritual death. Unless you hold to the “once saved always saved” doctrine.
I have no problem with Isaiah or Hosea because they both teach that when the Messiah would come he would be victorious over death. His death and resurrection would nullify the hold that death had over man. I have not abandoned anything. I am not affirming that the resurrection has passed.
We now notice his Chart– WEDDING. He makes much to do out of his chart on the wedding and chides me for not answering which city was burned in the parable. Well, the city that was burned was the one that belonged to the ones who refused to come to the wedding. However, in my chart I pointed out that the parable of Matthew 22 is a continuation of the parables of Matthew 21. Those parables were about Jews not accepting the gospel, so their right was taken from them and given to the Gentiles. I quoted Bullinger who stated not to make too many parallels to the parable, and this is exactly what Don has done.
Matthew 8:11 is not the same parable as the one in Matthew 22. In Matthew chapter 8 Jesus is discussing the fact that because the Jews would become hardened and reject him, that the Gentiles would come and be able to go to heaven. The kingdom is heaven, in Matthew 8, while Matthew 22 discusses the kingdom here on earth. There is no date when this would happen in Matthew 8. It just says that the children of the east would come and sit down with Abraham. Where are they going to do that, in the church?
Notice what he said about Galatians 4:22: “I have noted repeatedly that in Galatians 4:22 Paul says Torah and Israel would be cast out for persecuting the church,” but this is what Gal. 4:22 actually says: “For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a free woman” (Gal 4:22). Now where does Gal. 4:22 say “Torah and Israel would be cast out for persecuting the church? He says that I have not offered on syllable of response on his arguments on Gal. 4:22 and but such is not the case because I have dealt with the book of Galatians several times and have shown that Paul clearly stated (Gal. 5:4, and you can check Gal. 2:16 also) that the law of Moses was no longer in effect. Now he can say that this isn’t dealing with the argument, but it is the same way he dealt with my argument on Martha’s belief on the resurrection. Notice the following chart to see the truth on this matter.
Now, in Gal. 4:30 Paul quotes Moses who said “cast out the bondwoman and her son. Paul then says (v:31) that the church is not the children of the bondwoman, but of the free. All this shows is that spiritually, they were not of the bondwoman (which would be Gentiles in the flesh), but of the free woman (Spiritual Israel). It says nothing about the law and Israel being cast out for persecuting the church.
In Romans 11:25-27 Paul quotes Isa. 27:9 to show that the Christ would come from Zion and convert the Jews who were living during his time, but the Gentiles would also come in (Eph. 2:15,16) and be joined as one body. This would be the church and they would have remission of sins which is what God’s promises always were. Nothing is said in Isaiah 25:8-10 about the resurrection, it simply shows that the time will come when God will take away the rebuke of his people. Nothing is said about Isaiah 25:8-10 in Romans 11 and nothing is said about the resurrection in Romans 11. “Therefore, God’s covenant with Israel remains valid– or failed. Which is it, Jerry?” Answer: God’s covenant with fleshly Israel was fulfilled at the cross. It neither failed nor remains valid.
What I said was is that the resurrection was not “the Law of Moses.” I never said that it was not prophesied in the law, nor did I ever say that is was of (from) the law. However, it was not an integral part of the law. It was a promise made under the law. Don would have to try real hard to misunderstand that it was worded so clearly.
Show where I ever said “SOME OF TORAH PASSED BUT SOME OF TORAH REMAINS.” When Christ died on the cross all the law was fulfilled. Not every promise made while the law was in effect was fulfilled when Christ died on the cross. There was the promise of the church (Isa. 2:2-4) yet it was not fulfilled until the day of Pentecost of Acts 2. The promise of salvation coming to the Gentiles was not fulfilled until Acts 10, but these were not the law of Moses, they were promises made while the law of Moses was in effect. Again, Don would have to be trying real hard to misunderstand that.
Don said “Jesus said he came to fulfill the law and the prophets. He did not come to fulfill the law divorced from the prophets.” Actually Jesus said “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil” (Mat 5:17). However, the reference “law or the prophets” means that Jesus came to fulfill the law, and he came to fulfill the prophecies that the prophets made. However, his coming was in fulfillment of Gen. 3:16, which was long before the law of Moses.
Jesus did not say that prophecy was “the law” as Don contends? Let us notice. His statement that Jesus said the law prophesied comes from Mt. 11:13, not 12. Jesus said: “For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John” (Mat 11:13). The word “prophesied” comes from προφητεύω prophēteuōprof-ate-yoo’-o” and means “From G4396; to foretell events, divine, speak under inspiration, exercise the prophetic office: – prophesy” (Strong’s Greek Dictionary, e-Sword). So “prophesied” here does not necessarily refer to foretelling divine events. It also refers to speaking under inspiration. The context here shows that the law and prophets taught until John. When John came along they were taught a different doctrine. Notice Luke 16:16: “The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it” (Luk 16:16). John preached the kingdom of God, but before that the law and the prophets were preached or taught. The context does not refer to foretelling divine events, but rather speaking under inspiration.
In Romans 3:9,10 Paul was not quoting prophecy, he was quoting what the Psalms said about Israel, that all were under sin, and that there was none righteous, no not one. These came from Psalm 14:1-3 and 53:1-3. Again it showed that both Jew and Gentile were under sin. The context is showing that this remained until Christ died on the cross. At which time the law of Moses was taken out of the way and nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14-16). Some 10 years later the gospel was given to the Gentiles (Acts chapter 10).
1 Cor. 14:21 is not saying that the law prophesied of miraculous tongues. The quotation is from Isaiah 28:11,12: “For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. “ Look at what McGarvey wrote concerning 1 Cor. 14:21)..
Paul wasn’t using Isaiah to show that he was prophesying of miraculous tongues, but simply that as they recognized that in Isaiah’s day that God used a foreign tongue to teach them, they (of Paul’s day) were to understand that God was using miraculous tongues to teach them.
“The High Priest’s actions on the Day of Atonement were typological of Christ’s Priestly actions. (Chart– Jesus and Judah)” Now notice my chart on the same subject. Notice my chart on the Old Testament as “cultus” and the chart on the judgment/reformation. Notice also my chart on The Most Holy Place, along with the chart on “For” and the chart on “echo.” I also have a chart on Abraham’s bosom that you might want to look at.
Notice my 2nd chart on the Most Holy Place and it will be clearly seen that I, at no time or place, have stated what Don says I have. Notice Don’s misapplication of Hebrews chapter 9. Also notice his misapplication of Rev. 11:15 & 15:8.
Don writes: “GIVE US JUST ONE SCRIPTURE IN WHICH THE INSPIRED WRITER CLEARLY TAUGHT THAT THE RESURRECTION PROMISE WAS NOT “THE LAW.” JUST ONE, JERRY!” But Don is in the affirmative and is supposed to give scripture which clearly teaches that the resurrection promise was “the law.”
The sabbath was “the law,” but the sabbath was not the resurrection, but was a shadow of the resurrection. If the resurrection was “the law” because part of the law foreshadowed the resurrection, then the law of Christ was “the law” because the law foreshadowed the law of Christ (Heb. 10:1-4). If this is the case, then the law of Christ was fulfilled and done away when Jerusalem fell in A.D. 70 per Don. Thus ROE’s position is the correct position and Don is in error.
Don writes: “He assures us (with no proof) that if Isaiah referred to Paul’s day, it could have no application to Babylon’s invasion.” Does Don believe in Dual fulfillment of prophecy? If yes, what about Dual fulfillment of Isa. 7:14?
Don writes: “Remember: Jerry’s eschatology accuses Paul of being a false prophet. Remember my argument on 2 Thessalonians 1. Chart Relief.” My belief makes no such application, I merely showed that Paul wasn’t discussing what Don said he was. He calls my disagreeing with his application calling Paul a false prophet, but my statement makes no such accusation. I merely call Don a false teacher for misapplying Paul. Notice my chart in response to Don’s “relief” chart.
“JERRY, WAS ISRAEL’S ARMY COMPLETELY SHATTERED IN AD 70? Yes, or No?” No, Israel had no army in A.D. 70 to be shattered. Don’s position on the shattering of the power of the Holy people being in A.D. 70 is faulty.
“Jerry is now arguing that Israel will be “the holy people” until the end of the (ENDLESS) Christian age, when her army will be shattered!” Jerry argues no such thing. Jerry argues that Israel’s power ended when she ended up in Babylonian captivity just as Daniel said it would.
Jesus did not say, Mt. 23:35, that all the blood of martyrs would be judged in his day. He simply showed that they were guilty of all the blood of the martyrs in their being guilty of the blood of Christ.
Look at my chart on Don’s “Precisely” argument and see if my argument is his. I don’t think so.
“WHEN WOULD THAT “BRIEF (NOT LONG) WORK” BE FINISHED? DO NOT DODGE THIS QUESTION!” The work was cut short when Israel went away into Babylonian captivity. In Romans 9:28 Paul was quoting Isaiah concerning Israel being carried away into captivity and the remnant being able to come back. When did the remnant return? I guess Don thinks that it didn’t return until A.D. 70. My, my, Don has Isaiah making a prophecy to people that it will never affect. Jesus said that no one had the knowledge of when Christ would come again, not even himself, but the Father only. When Paul wrote Heb. 10:37 he only knew that Christ would return, but he did not know when. Notice my chart.
I have not poisoned anyone’s minds, nor have I poisoned the well. ROE has taken the logical position that Don’s position demands, but Don isn’t willing to go there. Practical atheism is believing in God, but not practicing Godliness.
Don doesn’t understand that just because he doesn’t hold to a view that this does not mean that his position implies the view. His position is as follows: “He says the Song was sung in John’s day by spiritual Israel. It was sung by the righteous remnant (The 144K- Revelation14 :1f)– that was in the process of being restored / saved, but they were awaiting the consummation of their salvation at the harvest– THE FULFILLMENT OF ISRAEL’S FESTAL SABBATHS!” (http://maeft.wordpress.com/2011/07/27/prestons-third-affirmative/ ). Now he says that this wasn’t talking just about the remnant that had been saved, because there was an innumerable host (???), but John said that it was the 144K that sang the song. I said it was spiritual Israel (the church) and Don took issue with that statement. So how else was I to take it?
BUT, THE GREAT TRIBULATION OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE FALL OF JERUSALEM IN AD 70– JMcD AGREES! Where did I ever agree that the “Great Tribulation” occurred prior to the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
The following chart shows what I really said concerning who revelation was written to.
“Unless and until Israel’s promises were fulfilled the Gentiles could not receive salvation. Jerry has not touched this.” This is false, go back and read what I did say about this “http://www.maeft.org/gentilessalvation.pdf “ Also notice: “promisestoremnantfulfilled.”
Notice his following (Chart– Pet-Rev) and my response. “Note: Jerry totally ignored my argument on the anaphoric article that demands that the time for the resurrection had arrived. Chart- Anaphoric. Notice my chart in response.Now notice my response to his chart on the wicked remaining.
Don ridicules my using historians and commentaries on the date of Revelation, when looking at the following article, it is seen that this is exactly what he did. Now notice my response to Don’s final argument. Now notice Don’s chart GENTILES AND TORAH and my response. Notice his chart on GENTILES– NECESSARY and my response. Also his chart on MATTHEW 23- LUKE 18– REVELATION and my response. Look at his chart on LXX-2 THESSALONIANS 1 as well as my response.
Notice what Preston said in his second affirmative: (http://maeft.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/prestons-second-affirmative/ ). Now he wants to come back, after I have made up two charts showing the fallacy of his statement and show that Paul was quoting Isaiah 2:10; 2:19; 2:21 in verse 9. He quotes Beale, Carson and Wannamaker in showing that Paul was quoting Isaiah 2:10, but that is not the statement Don made. Remember he said “2 Thessalonians 2:9 is a verbatim quotation of the LXX of Isaiah 2:19.”
Now, I would like to see where 2 Thessalonians quotes the LXX in Isaiah 2:19 VERBATIM. I would like to see where 2 Thessalonians 1:9 q
uotes Isaiah 2:10,19,21 at all either in the Greek or the English.
Look at the chart on Vincent. He does not say that Paul is quoting Isaiah, he says that the precise phrase used here is also found in the LXX in Isaiah 2:10, 2:19, and 2:21. This does not mean that Paul is quoting Isaiah. All it means is that Paul is using the exact phrase “glory of his power” that is used in the LXX in those three verses. Paul uses this phrase (that Isaiah used) in a different discussion all together. Here he uses it to discuss the second coming of Christ while Isaiah uses it to discuss the pending doom upon Israel. Isaiah said to hide in the rocks, but Paul makes no such statement. When you get right down to it, the three people that Don mentioned did not say Paul quoted Isaiah. They said he reproduced the three words that were used by Isaiah in three verses. Paul did not get the LXX down and look at it, he got what he wrote directly from the Holy Spirit.
He also made a chart on ROMANS 7 and I have responded. Look at his chart on 2 THESSALONIANS’ 1- RELIEF and my response. He tried to bolster his response on HYMENAEAUS but my response shows that his objection is faulty. Look at his chart on SUFFERING IN PETER and my response. Look at his chart on SODOM and my response. Also note his chart on SODOM #2 as well as my response. Look at his chart on WHERE THE LORD WAS SLAIN and my response. He made up a chart on THAT GREAT CITY and I have responded. Look at his chart on ROME AND THE WEDDING and then note my response. Look at LET THE WICKED REMAIN WICKED and my response. Look at EN TACHEI and my response. Finally his SUMMARY and my first response, now look at part two
I have dealt with every one of Don’s arguments and objections. Now he has a short rejoinder and I will be in the affirmative. We will see if he can follow me as closely as I followed him.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald