Don K. Preston’s Third Negative
Bless Olan’s heart! He just gets worse and worse!
Olan is simply “preaching” not exegeting. He is not debating; he is pontificating.
Oh, well, such is the situation. So, let me proceed.
REVELATION 11
Another case of Olan falsely claiming I misrepresented him.
I asked him to SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFY the city “where the Lord was slain.” He responded: “We know from other scriptures that the Lord was slain at Jerusalem. But this text does not say so. It uses symbolic language.” (My emphasis).
Olan undeniably contrasted the identity of Jerusalem in other texts, with the city in Revelation 11.
I noted that Olan patently did not SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFY the city. But what does he claim? Read this: “My reply was that Bible statements tell us He was crucified outside Jerusalem. We don’t have to guess about it.”
This is unmitigated obfuscation. Olan does not seem to have the courage to tell us “specifically” (in conformity to the rules that he signed to answer the questions candidly, without obfuscation or evasion) if the city “where the Lord was slain” in Revelation is Jerusalem or some other city. He says on one hand that other texts tell us Jesus was slain outside Jerusalem, but Revelation 11 “does not say so. It uses symbolic language.”
Reader, do you know why Olan refuses to honor his own word, and answer my question without evasion? Let me explain.
If the city of Revelation 11:8 is identified as Jerusalem (as the text clearly shows) then the resurrection, the rewarding of the dead, occurs at that time (Revelation 11:15-18)– and Olan’s eschatology is falsified– AND HE KNOWS IT!
But, if Olan takes the traditional church of Christ view that Revelation 11:8 speaks of Rome, then guess what? The resurrection and judgment took place at the fall of Rome– and Olan becomes a preterist, advocating the resurrection at the fall of Rome! See why he refused to honor his own promise to answer my questions without evasion? Either way he goes, he is entrapped, and falsified. So, he blasts me, claiming that I need to think about my obligation in this debate.
Olan, you are the one that has failed, utterly, absolutely, to honor the rules that you signed your name to.
PAUL’S ONE HOPE
Olan says a lot about Paul’s “one hope” but Olan denies Paul’s definition of that “one hope.”
I stated that 1 Corinthians 15 is about the fulfillment of God’s OT promises made to Israel. Olan says “NO! Preston is wrong, Paul preached the gospel!” He thus denies Paul, because I proved beyond dispute in my third affirmative: “For Paul, the preaching of the gospel was the proclamation of the fulfillment of God’s Old Covenant promises made to Israel (Acts 13:32f).” (Ignored)
CATCH THE POWER OF THIS, FOLKS!
Hicks denies Paul’s emphatic statements in this regard. Since this is such a critical issue– and since Olan ignored the huge majority of my other arguments, let me drive this home, proving how desperate and false Olan’s theology really is.
In my first affirmative, I presented the following (and more) irrefutable documentation from Paul himself.
Acts 26:21f: “Therefore, having obtained help from God, to this day I stand, witnessing both to small and great, saying no other things than those which the prophets and Moses said would come.”
Since Paul said his gospel hope was NOTHING but what was found in the Law of Moses then Olan is dead wrong to deny this.
Acts 28:20f– Paul said he was on trial for the hope of Israel. Bless Paul’s heart, he did not have Olan to tell him he was not on trial for the hope of Israel, he was on trial for preaching the gospel! Olan’s claim contradicts Paul. Olan is wrong.
Romans 16:25-26– Paul said that the gospel he preached was taken directly from the Old Covenant prophets. Olan says, “No, Paul, your gospel is not from the OT prophets!” Olan is wrong.
In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul emphatically says that the resurrection would be when Isaiah 25 and Hosea 13 would be fulfilled: “Then shall be brought to pass the saying, “Death is swallowed up in victory…”.
So Preston is not the one pontificating here. Preston accepts Paul’s inspired, emphatic words that the one gospel hope that he preached was NOTHING BUT THE HOPE OF ISRAEL FOUND IN THE OLD COVENANT PROPHETS. Olan is wrong.
Olan has not touched this because HE KNOWS that if he admits to Paul’s undeniable statements, then he is falsified. So, rather than have that “open mind” that he spoke of, he closes his heart and his mind to Paul’s emphatic, undeniable statements, and just continues to call Preston a false teacher.
Olan says the readers want Bible proof. AMEN, AND I HAVE GIVEN IT. Olan has given us nothing.
MATTHEW 24- SUPPOSED CONTRASTS-AGAIN
Olan claims that I ignored his (supposed) contrasts between the two comings in Matthew 24. BLATANT FALSEHOOD- AND OLAN KNOWS IT! I RESPONDED TO EVERY POINT!
#1 Signs Versus No Signs
My response– Totally Ignored–
Olan ASSUMES-offering no proof- that the disciples asked about the end of the literal world.
In direct response to Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of the temple, they asked about THE END OF THE AGE.
Olan, WHAT AGE DID THAT TEMPLE REPRESENT, that caused them to link that destruction with the end of the age? Did the temple represent the Christian age? Of course, he refused to answer.
The disciples asked about ONE COMING- not two. Not a word of response.
The disciples asked about signs of the end of the age. Jesus gave those signs (v. 14f). If Jesus gave all the signs that he intended to give, he did not have to repeat those signs, or give more signs, in vss. 36f! IGNORED.
Further, the disciples asked for a sign of the end of the age. Jesus said when the gospel had been preached into all the world “then comes the end” (Matthew 24:14). The completion of the Mission would be a sign of “the end of the age.” The gospel was preached into all the world in the first century, thus, the end of the age was in the first century.
Olan’s argument entraps him. He says there are no signs of the end. However, he appealed to 2 Thessalonians 2 for a future coming. OLAN, 2 Thessalonians 2 gives TWO MAJOR SIGNS– the apostasy and the Man of Sin! IGNORED.
#2- As A Thief
He just repeats his argument about the Lord coming as a thief as if I had said nothing. Here again is my response.
Read Revelation 3:1-3: “And to the angel of the church in Sardis, “Be watchful, …If you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you.”
Jesus was speaking to the Sardisian church. He told them that if they did not watch, “I will come on you as a thief,” and they would not know the hour of that coming! Note the personal pronoun, Olan!
Jesus was speaking of a first century coming as a thief, and they could not know the hour! They could undeniably know the generation– but not the specific time. If the Sardisians could know Christ was coming, in their generation-but not know the hour– as a thief on those who refused to watch, then why could that not be true of Matthew 24? Ignored.
Note 1 Thessalonians 5: “Concerning the times and the seasons, brethren, you have no need that I should write to you. For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night. For when they say, “Peace and safety!” then sudden destruction comes upon them, as labor pains upon a pregnant woman.”
Note Paul’s contrast between “them” or “they” and his “you.” The Lord’s coming as a thief would be on the unbelievers– not on the believers! Paul says “you know the times and the seasons!” Completely ignored.
Did you notice Olan’s insistence that we honor Jesus’ use of the personal pronoun in John 14? Hey, Olan, are we supposed to honor the personal pronouns in Thessalonians? What about in John 14 where Jesus said “I will receive YOU”– those living apostles?
Paul said that Day would be as a woman in travail! Olan, does a pregnant woman know the generation of delivery– but not the day or hour? IGNORED, OF COURSE.
Olan says there is a contrast in purpose between the “comings.” He says: “The purpose of Jerusalem’s calamity was vengeance. The purpose of the second coming is to be to reward the servants of the Lord. (Rev. 22:12).”
This is incredible! Olan cannot type without entrapping himself! Olan, have you ever read 2 Thessalonians 1? Paul says at Christ’s coming he would take “vengeance” on the (Jewish) persecutors of the Thessalonians!
Hey, Olan, in Revelation 22:12, Jesus said, “Behold, I come quickly” (Revelation 22:12) but, of course, you deny those words.
Olan claims, “When Jesus returns He will take His people up with Him. At the Jerusalem event no one was taken up.”
Olan ignores the indisputable fact that Matthew 24:31 is the “gathering of the elect.” He likewise has ignored my twice noted argument that Matthew 24:31- the sounding of the Trumpet for the gathering- is from Isaiah 27. But, Isaiah 27 is the time of the end of the millennium resurrection– at Jerusalem’s destruction!
Linguistically, Olan totally misses the point of “we shall meet him.” The word translated as “meet” is apantesis. In my book We Shall Meet Him In The Air, I show from Scripture, history, Josephus, and the Lexicons that when used with parousia, as in 1 Thessalonians 4, it is a technical term. It refers to a dignitary traveling to a city. The citizens go out to meet him, AND ESCORT BACK TO THE CITY– HIS DESTINATION!
The visitor does not take the citizens away with him! He goes with them to their city! This agrees perfectly with John 14 / Revelation 21, of the New Jerusalem coming down, FOR GOD TO DWELL WITH MAN. It is not a removal of man from the earth.
Olan ignores the fact that Paul was writing to living Christians, and says, “we who are alive (not those who will one day be alive) and remain until the coming of the Lord” (v. 15, 17).
There are those pesky personal pronouns again, Olan! Are we supposed to ignore them?
Olan claims another contrast: “When it was over at Jerusalem the same world still remained. But when the Lord returns the physical world will end.”
Pure pontification, with no proof. Olan has not and cannot prove that 2 Peter 3 speaks of the end of the physical world ending.
Matthew 24 does not predict it, since the end of the age there is tied inextricably to the destruction of the temple– not the end of the Christian age.
According to Paul in Romans 13:12f, AFTER THE ARRIVAL OF “THE DAY” Christians are to live lives of holiness. Likewise, as I noted (Naturally ignored) in Revelation 21-22 after the “end” we have evangelism and life continuing!
THAT DAY AND HOUR
Olan totally ignored the indisputable fact that Jesus was speaking of the coming judgment, and utilized the vernacular of the Feast of Trumpets that typified the Judgment. Just as they knew the general time, but not the day or the hour of the Feast, they could know the generation, but not the day or hour of the Judgment. This is the cultural language Jesus used. All Olan can do is scoff at it, but offer no evidence.
Zechariah 14– DEFINITIVE REFUTATION– IGNORED
YOU MUST CATCH THE POWER OF THIS!
Olan admits that Zechariah 14 applied to Jesus’ AD 70 parousia. Now watch.
Zechariah said that Day, the Lord’s coming against Jerusalem (v. 1-5) was to be a Day “known to the Lord” (v. 7)! In other words, it was the Day known only to the Lord!
So, Zechariah, predicting the AD 70 parousia– Hicks agreeing– said that Day was known only to the Lord! Now, if Zechariah could say the Lord’s coming in AD 70 was a time known only to the Lord, then surely, Jesus, who clearly draws from Zechariah in Matthew 24, could likewise refer to his coming in AD 70 as the day and hour known only to the Lord! If not, why not, Olan?
Olan knows he did not tell the truth when he said I ignored his supposed contrasts. I addressed (refuted) EVERY ONE OF THEM, in detail, with scripture.
A UNITED DISCOURSE
I noted (IGNORED, NATURALLY)– that the Wedding motif falsifies Olan’s claims of two comings in Matthew 24.
Briefly now:
The Coming of Christ in Matthew 25:1-14 is for the Wedding– the Second Coming– Hicks.
But, the time of the Wedding would be at the destruction of Jerusalem– Matthew 22:1-10.
Therefore, the Second Coming of Christ of Matthew 25 was in AD 70- and the Olivet Discourse does not speak of two comings.
OLAN IS WRONG, BUT OF COURSE, HE WILL IGNORE THIS TOO.
More…
The Wedding of the Son is at the destruction of “Babylon” at the avenging of the martyrs (Revelation 19:1-8).
But, the Wedding of the Son, at the avenging of the martyrs, would be at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70– Matthew 22:1-10.
Now, Olan, if these are not the same Weddings, give us some proof!
Oh, here is a question for you, Olan: Please, SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFY THE CITY CALLED BABYLON, IN REVELATION (16-19). Is it:
1.) Rome?
2.) The Roman Catholic Church?
3.) Old Covenant Jerusalem?
4.) Some other city? If so, please, Olan, tell us specifically! Won’t you?
OLAN’S POINTS– AGAIN
Nothing could more graphically demonstrate Olan’s unmitigated desperation– or his bankrupt theology– than his abject refusal to respond to hardly anything I offered in response to his four points. So, what does he do? He just repeats them, and in what little response he does give to my negatives, makes some astoundingly bad arguments. But mostly, he ignored my responses.
So, let me take note, again, of his points, and offer more negative response. Not that he will pay any attention to it, but, for those who truly have open minds, it will hopefully be helpful.
HIS RETURN WILL BE IN PERSON.
Olan tried to distort John 14 into a prediction of a removal of the church from the earth. I noted from the text of John 14:19-23. “A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me.. … Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, “Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?” Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.” Ignored.
The purpose of Jesus’ parousia was not to reveal Jesus as a man, but, as the King of kings and Lord of lords, the One True God (1 Timothy 6:15; Titus 2:14f). Irrefutable, but, totally ignored.
Acts 1- In Like Manner– The Greek term “in like manner” (hon tropon) is used of a metaphorical likeness, not a precise likeness, in virtually all of its occurrences (cf, Matthew 23:37– “as a mother hen gathers her chicks).
Olan says my observation on “hon tropon” is ridiculous. No, it is his confusing “response” that is ridiculous.
He claims that hon tropon “does not mean a likeness, metaphorical or otherwise.” Really, Olan? So, in like manner does not mean a likeness? Really, Olan? This is unmitigated desperation.
He refers to Matthew 23:37 and says: “It does not mean an appearance in the likeness of a chicken.”
This kind of illogical “argument” is actually not worthy of response. I made no such argument as Olan is claiming– he is perverting my argument. I noted that hon tropon is used to describe a metaphoric “likeness” not a precise “in like manner.” That argument is irrefutable, in spite of Olan’s desperation.
Jesus said his coming would be “in the glory of the Father” meaning as the Father had come (Matthew 16:27-28) and he said it would be in his generation (v. 28). He also said that in the judgment, he would act in the same way (hetoimos– John 5:19f) that he had seen the Father judge before. Jesus had never seen the Father come, literally, physically, in a fleshly body. Ignored.
I noted that Peter, in order to refute the scoffers who were denying the parousia, appealed to the Transfiguration as a vison of Christ’s Second Coming (2 Peter 1:16f). So follow me:
The Transfiguration was a vision of the Second Coming– 2 Peter 1:16f.
As a vision of the parousia, what was seen at the Transfiguration? Not the “end of time” or the destruction of literal creation.
What was seen WAS THE END OF THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS. Peter wanted to erect three tabernacles, positing Jesus as equal to Moses and Elijah. The Voice, said “This is my beloved Son… hear ye him!” The Greek is in the emphatic mode, meaning “Him hear!” Moses and Elijah fade, leaving Jesus in his Transfigured glory.
So, the Transfiguration was a vision of the Second Coming. But, the Transfiguration was a vision of the end of the Law and the Prophets! Peter– in 2 Peter 3– was still looking for the parousia which was envisioned on the Mount. Therefore, clearly, the Law and the Prophets had not yet passed when Peter wrote!
Olan emphasizes “in like manner.”But what was there about Jesus’ appearance in Acts 1– in his mortal body– that even closely resembled his Transfiguration glory? There is no “in like manner” comparison! IGNORED.
In regard to the destruction of Satan, at the end of the millennium, Paul said: “The God of peace shall crush Satan under your feet shortly” (Romans 16:20). Olan denies those explicit words, making “shortly” mean 2000 years and counting! IGNORED.
1 THESSALONIANS. 4:13F– THE LORD HIMSELF
Paul said that his eschatology of 1 Thessalonians 4 was but a reminder of what the Lord had said (V. 15). Matthew 24:29-34 contains every element found in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18.
This is critical: Olan admits that Matthew 24:29-34 refers to Jesus’ AD 70 parousia! With that in mind, note the following:
Matthew 24:30– They shall see (opthanomai) the Son of Man coming. Olan claims, in regard to Hebrews 9:28, that this word demands “being visible.” Well then, per his “argument” “Christ himself” was visible at his AD 70 parousia! Olan has entrapped himself, again.
In Matthew 24 Christ comes on the clouds– in Thessalonians he comes on the clouds.
In Matthew he comes with the angels– in Thessalonians he comes with the angels.
In Matthew he comes with the sound of the Trumpet– in Thessalonians he comes with the Trumpet.
In Matthew he comes to gather the saints- In Thessalonians he gathers the saints. (Note: Matthew 24:31 is a direct referent to Isaiah 27:13 the gathering of the “dead” at the sound of the Trump– when Jerusalem and the Temple would be destroyed! Thus, Jesus emphatically posited the resurrection of Isaiah 25-27 for his generation.)
In Matthew they would see (opthanomai) the Son of Man– In Thessalonians Christ himself would be revealed from heaven. Olan says Thessalonians is when Jesus would be seen (opthanomai).
In Matthew 24 Jesus would come in the first century generation– In Thessalonians, Paul said, “we who are alive (not “those who will be alive”) and remain until the coming (parousia) of the Lord.” Olan denies Paul was speaking of his generation– those who were alive when he wrote.
This is precise parallelism, with the same temporal delimitations. Thessalonians is but a reminder of what Jesus had already taught. Olan admits that Matthew 24 refers to Christ’s AD 70 parousia. Yet, Olan makes Thessalonians refer to a radically different kind of parousia, at the end of a different age. This is a hermeneutical disaster, and Olan has given no evidence for his claims.
HIS RETURN WILL BE VISIBLE TO ALL
Revelation 1:7
This parousia is patently against those who had pierced him- the Jews– who would look upon him and mourn. This is 2 Thessalonians 1 reiterated!
This is a quote of Zechariah 12:10. This same verse is cited in Matthew 24:30 to speak of what Olan admits refers to Jesus’ AD 70 coming.
Matthew 24:30 is ophontai; Revelation 1:7 is the same word.
Note: Matthew 24:30– “all the tribes of the earth shall mourn”– AD 70 per Olan–> Revelation 1:7– “all the tribes of the earth shall mourn”! Identical language-and time!
This is Jesus’ coming in vindication of his martyrdom. Jesus said that would be at the fall of Jerusalem in his generation– Matthew 23.
Hebrews 9:28
I noted that in Hebrews 10:35-39 the writer, anticipating that coming for salvation of 9:28, said, “in a very, very little while, the one who is coming will come and will not delay.” The language is explicit, but, Olan says Christ has delayed his coming for 2000 years! Why did Olan ignore this? Well, we know why!
Note:
The coming of Acts 1:9f is the coming of Hebrews 9:28.
But, the coming of Hebrews 9:28 was to be “in a very, very little while” WITH NO DELAY (10:37).
Therefore, the coming of Acts 1:9 was to be in a very, very little while” WITH NO DELAY.
THE RESURRECTION AND JUDGMENT WILL OCCUR AT THE TIME OF HIS SECOND COMING.
John 5:28-29– The resurrection of John 5 is the resurrection of Daniel 12:2– when the power of the holy people was shattered– AD 70.
The resurrection of John 5:28-29 is likewise the resurrection of Isaiah 25-27, which was to be when the Lord came in vindication of the martyrs, when Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed, and YHVH would no longer have mercy on the people He had created. Totally ignored.
Olan points out that the resurrection would be at the last hour. Well, John said: “Little children, it is the last hour! As you have heard that anti-Christ should come, even now there are many anti-Christs, thereby you know that it is the last hour” (1 John 2:18).
The time for the resurrection at the “last hour” had undeniably come (cf. 1 Peter 4:5, 17). Olan rejects John’s inspired statement.
AVENGING OF THE BLOOD
Olan’s desperation to avoid the issue of the LAST DAYS avenging of the martyrs is palpable. I noted that the OT foretold CHRIST’S COMING, to avenge the martyrs– AT THE END OF THE MILLENNIUM.
I asked: How many LAST DAYS comings of the Lord, at the end of the millennium resurrection and destruction of Satan, when the martyrs would be avenged, are there in scripture? Olan’s answer? Unbelievably, he said: “Christ does not come at the end of the thousand years”! He added, “Avenging the blood of martyrs was done often.”
Consider again the following:
The time of the resurrection when Satan would be destroyed is the resurrection of Isaiah 25-27.
But, the resurrection, when Satan would be destroyed, in Isaiah 25-27 would be when the Lord came IN VINDICATION OF THE MARTYRS, when Jerusalem and the Temple was destroyed, and YHVH would no longer have mercy on the people He had created (27:10-12).
Therefore, the end of the millennium coming of the Lord at the resurrection, when Satan would be destroyed, would be WHEN THE LORD CAME IN VINDICATION OF THE MARTYRS, when Jerusalem and the Temple was destroyed, and YHVH would no longer have mercy on the people He had created. WHEN WAS THAT OLAN?
OLAN HAS NOT TOUCHED ISAIAH 25-27. HE CAN’T BECAUSE IT DEFINITIVELY DESTROYS HIS ESCHATOLOGY.
HERMENEUTICS
The basic rules of hermeneutic (interpretation) are being ignored and perverted by Olan. To determine the meaning of any literature, we must ask some fundamental questions:
Who was it written to and about, and who wrote it?
What does it say, what does it not say?
When was it written, and when does it speak of?
Where was it written, and where does it apply?
Why was it written?
Olan goes to 2 Thessalonians 1, and says: “Don theorizes that Paul was promising the Thessalonians a personal deliverance from their local persecuters (sic) and he wants me to identify when and how that was accomplished. What a mixed up, confused person!”
Olan, if Paul wanted to promise the Thessalonians relief from their then on-going persecution at the hands of the Jews, at Christ’s coming, what words would have better expressed that promise? He said, “it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation, THOSE WHO ARE TROUBLING YOU and to give TO YOU WHO ARE BEING TROUBLED, REST, WHEN THE LORD JESUS IS REVEALED.”
Olan, what words told the Thessalonians that Paul was not writing to THEM, about THEIR persecution at the hands of the Jews, informing THEM that THEY would NOT receive relief from that persecution?
No, words could not be clearer, or more emphatic. There is no theory here: Olan is WRONG.
Olan denies that Paul was truly writing to the first century Thessalonians (“Who”). He applies it strictly to the distant future from the Thessalonians.
He DENIES that Paul was speaking about their Jewish persecutors (“Who”).
He DENIES that Paul was writing of events taking place at that time (“What”).
He DENIES that the then present persecution was the reason for Paul’s letter and Jesus’ coming (“Why”). This in spite of the fact that he agrees Jesus came in AD 70 in vindication of the martyrs!
He DENIES that Paul made a promise to those people, about events to take place in their time (“When”).
He DENIES that Christ was going to come to give those Thessalonians relief from that persecution (“Why”).
Olan violates every known rule of hermeneutic to sustain his tradition.
Olan refuses to answer the question: DID CHRIST COME, AND GIVE THE THESSALONIANS RELIEF FROM THEIR PERSECUTION AT THE HANDS OF THE JEWS AND CAST THEIR PERSECUTORS OUT OF HIS PRESENCE? YES OR NO?
He cannot answer this question based on solid hermeneutic– AND HE KNOWS IT.
Look again at my argument on Revelation 20 and Malachi 3:16f.
Revelation 20 speaks of the judgment / salvation of those written in the Book of Life– at the end of the millennium.
Revelation 20 is the Day of the Lord foretold by Malachi 3:15f the Day when the Lord would judge and reward those in the Book of Remembrance.
But that Day foretold by Malachi (Elijah) was to be in application of Mosaic Covenant Wrath in fulfillment of Exodus and Deuteronomy – AND OLAN ADMITTED THIS WAS IN AD 70!
John- as Elijah- foretold that Day. But, John said the time of rewarding was near- “the kingdom has drawn near”; “the axe is already at the root…” Therefore, the time END OF THE MILLENNIUM WAS NEAR!.