McDonald -V- Preston Debate – McDonald’s 3rd Affirmative

Brother Preston, and reading audience, I am once again thankful for the opportunity to be back with you in the affirmative of this proposition; to make further affirmative arguments, and then to respond to what brother Preston has brought up thus far.  This will be the last article in which I will produce new argumentation.  I will reserve my final affirmative strictly for defense.

When we quit last time we were looking at 1 Corinthians chapter 15 and we dealt with Paul showing that baptism is a symbol of dying and being raised (1 Cor. 15:29-34).  In this we saw that since baptism was a symbol of being raised and if the resurrection has already happened, then there is no symbolism in baptism for us today.  To this Don was strangely silent.  So let us go on:

  1. Paul speaks of a literal death and a literal resurrection by showing that some will question how the dead will rise and what body will be raised (1 Cor. 15:35-41).
  2. Some would ask the question:  “How are the dead raised up?”  And also “with what body do they raise up in?”  This shows that they understood the teaching of the resurrection to be literal, but they could not understand how it could be done.
  3. The following argument sets for the thinking of some of the Corinthian brethren regarding the resurrection.


Major Premise:  If it is the case that some, in Corinth, would ask how the dead were raised up and what body they would be raised up in, then it is the case that those who would ask such a question at least would consider the possibility of Paul’s teaching on the resurrection to be a literal, bodily resurrection of a dead body.

Minor Premise:  It is the case that some, in Corinth, would ask how the dead were raised up and what body they would be raised up in (1 Cor. 15:35-36).

Conclusion:  Therefore it is the case that those who would ask such a question at least would consider the possibility of Paul’s teaching on the resurrection to be a literal, bodily resurrection of a dead body.

  1. There is no way that Don can deny either the major premise or the minor premise.  Therefore there is no way that Don can deny the argument, which goes a long way in destroying his argument that Corinth understood the resurrection to be some figurative resurrection of the church from Judaism.

1)      If the resurrection was a symbolical resurrection of the church from Judaism then Judaism (the Law of Moses) died and was raised as Christianity (the law of Christ).

2)     Now, if this is the case then Moses’ death (because he was the law giver of the Law of Moses) was symbolical of the death of Christ (because he was the law giver of the Law of Christ).  So let’s look at that in syllogistic form:


Major Premise:  If the resurrection was a symbolic, figurative resurrection showing the church being resurrected out of Judaism, then Judaism must have died and was raised as Christianity.

Minor Premise:  The resurrection was a symbolic, figurative resurrection showing the church being resurrected from Judaism (Don Preston’s position).

Conclusion:  Therefore Judaism must have died and was raised as Christianity.

3)     Is Don arguing that the Law of Moses was raised up as Christianity that it was never done away with at all?  Is he arguing that it was never fulfilled, taken away and nailed to the cross never to be a law again in God’s eyes?

Paul’s answer to this question comes in the rest of the chapter.

a.In verses 37-41 he tells about how the seed dies, and the plant springs up from it.  It is the same seed, it just different because it produces a plant.  When the human body dies, and is resurrected it will be the same body, just different like the plant, it produces a spiritual body.

  1. In verses 42-49 he tells about the different types of bodies.  There are celestial bodies, and terrestrial bodies.  There are physical bodies and spiritual bodies.  The physical bodies are corruptible, they age, break down, etc.   There are also in corruptible bodies; bodies that do not age, do not break down.  When we die, we leave our physical body.  In the resurrection that physical body will be raised as an incorruptible body; a body that will never age or break down.
  2. c.  Now Don might want to know what about those who have been cremated or who have died in the wilderness whose bodies have never been found.  Rest assured that any God who could create the universe that we have in six literal 24 hour days out of nothing, or has every star numbered, or knows what happens to every sparrow, will surely be able to keep account of those bodies wherever they might be and bring them together to form an incorruptible body.  To God such would be child’s play.


Major Premise:  If the resurrection is a symbolical resurrection symbolizing Judaism dying and being raised as Christianity, then the death of Moses is symbolic of the death of Christ.

Minor Premise:  The resurrection is a symbolical resurrection symbolizing Judaism dying and being raised as Christianity (the implication of Don’s position).


Conclusion:  Therefore the death of Moses is symbolic of the death of Christ.

The problem with this is that Moses’ death pictured nothing while Christ died for man’s sins.  Moses was not a sacrificial lamb and Christ was, Moses never died for Israel’s sins while Christ did die for all of man (Jno. 3:16).  For Don to try to make the resurrection a symbol of Judaism dying and resurrecting as Christianity is absurd and is foreign to both the Old Testament and the New.

  1. Question:  In heaven what kind of body will we have, or will we have any kind of body at all?  Please give scripture to support your answer.
    1. The problem he is going to have here is that if he says that we will have a spiritual body and he gives 1 Corinthians chapter 15 as evidence, then he is going to have to walk away from his entire position on the matter.
    2. However, if he says we won’t have any kind of body, he will be faced with dealing with John’s statement
  2. He goes back to denying that some in Corinth were denying the resurrection of the dead.
  3. Here is the mantra that I have been repeating ever since this debate started, and it is mantra that Don has yet to answer:  “Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?” (1Co 15:12)”  That is my mantra.
  4. He said that “those in Corinth denied the resurrection of those who had died before Jesus’ death/resurrection.  Please point that verse out to me, I have never read the verse that discusses those who died before Jesus death and/or resurrection in 1 Corinthians chapter 15.  Look at the chart to see what  verses 10 through 15 say.
  5. There is nothing there about those who died before Christ died and was raised.  This is nothing more than something that Don and those like him have made up to get around the obvious.  This clearly shows the lengths that they will go to in order to uphold their false doctrine.  What verse shows that Paul was dealing with those who had died before Christ died and was raised?  Please give scripture!


Paul’s Teaching To The Church In Thessalonica Teaches A Literal Resurrection.

“But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words” (1Th 4:13-18).

Notice that Paul tells them not to sorrow for those who have died in Christ, as they would for those who have no hope (i.e., those who did not die in Christ).  Why?  Because as God raised up Jesus, God will also raise up those who died in Christ with him.

Notice that he says that those who are alive when Christ returns will not precede those who died.  He says that Christ will descend with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first, then those who remain shall be caught up to meet them in the clouds; to meet the Lord in the air and they shall ever be with the Lord.  Then he tells them to comfort one another with these words.

Now let us break this down:

  1. Paul says not to sorrow for those who have died in Christ like you would for one who died outside of Christ.  Why?  Because those who die in Christ will be raised up in the last day to spend eternity in heaven, while those who die outside of Christ will be raised to spend eternity in hell.
  2. Paul says that when Christ returns those who remain will not precede those who have died.  Now if the resurrection refers to the resurrection of the Mosaic Law to the Law of Christ what is meant by Paul’s statement about those who remain not preceding those who are asleep?
  3. Paul says that when Christ returns those who are dead in Christ will rise to meet him in the air and those who remain will then rise to be with them and they shall ever be with the Lord.  Now if the resurrection is the Mosaic Law resurrecting into the Law of Christ what is meant by the dead in Christ shall rise first and the living then will rise?
  4. Paul said to comfort one another with those words.  If the resurrection was the resurrection of the Old Law into the New why how was that to be of comfort to those who were sorrowing over the death of loved ones?

I believe that this shows that Don’s position on the resurrection of the dead being a resurrection of the Old Law to the New is absurd.  I also believe that it shows that Paul was teaching about a literal resurrection of the dead and that is what they were to use to comfort one another with.

The only thing that is MIA is Don’s response to my second affirmative.  He has run out of steam and his rebuttals have degraded into Ad hominem remarks and false accusations charging me with saying “Preston is wrong, because I say he is wrong.”  Tell me Don, where did I ever make such an absurd claim?  Now be sure you point out the specific statement.  You talk about a total misrepresentation!

Don says that I didn’t show where he said that all references to “Day of the Lord” equals AD 70, but notice what I stated:

“Paul preached nothing but the hope of Israel found in the OT. Paul– per Vincent– uses “the precise phrase” from the LXX of Isaiah 2. Yet, Jerry says Paul was not quoting Isaiah!  (McD-LXX-Ths) (

Now Don never showed that Paul was quoting Isaiah, he just said he was.  So where does Paul even hint to the idea that he is quoting anyone much less Isaiah the Prophet?  Because he used the exact words that Isaiah used does not mean that he was quoting from Isaiah any more than the words “Day of the Lord” in Obadiah 15 are are direct quote from Isaiah 2:2-4 or that they refer to the same event.  No, when it comes to the words “Day of the Lord” Don seems to understand that you have to allow the words to be interpreted according to the context, but he won’t allow such to take place on 2 Thess. 1:9 and Isa. 2:19.

Now where did Don say that the words “Day of the Lord” must always refer to the destruction of Jerusalem?  He says it by implication when he insists that the words found in 2 Thess. 1:9 which are also found in Isa. 2:19 are a direct quote when Paul does not even hint to the idea that he is quoting anyone.

Don can’t have it both ways:  Either he is forced to take the position that “Day of the Lord” always refers to Jerusalem’s destruction in A.D. 70, or he is forced to allow the same rule of interpretation used on the words “Day of the Lord” (which allows each instance to be interpreted according to the context) to be used on the words found in 2 Thess. 2:19 that are also found in the LXX in Isa. 2:19.

It’s up to him, but he can only take one of the two positions.  If he takes the position that 2 Thess. 1:9 and Isa. 2:19 refer to the same thing, then he has charged me with falsely.  If he has not charged me falsely I will apologize, but he must surrender his position on 2 Thess. 1:9 and Isa. 2:19 in the LXX.  So what’s it going to be?

He says that I took the position that the Christian age would end, but the church age would never end.  Where did I ever take such a position?  There is NO church age; this is “millennial” thinking.  This is exactly what I wrote in my 2nd affirmative:

“He talks about the “church age.”  I don’t read about a “church age” in the Bible, I read of only three ages here on earth:  (1) Patriarchal; (2) Mosaic; and (3) Christian.  The Patriarchal and Mosaic are in the past.  The Christian age is here now.  The Christian age will end when Christ returns to judge the world, but the church will be handed back to the Father, it will be in heaven, so it will never end.  There is NO church age even hinted to in the Bible.”

Where does he get the idea that I take the position that the Christian age would end but the church age will never end?

Isaiah wrote:   “Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this” (Isa 9:7).

Now for the words “no end.”  The Hebrew words used here are:  “ַאִין ’ayin   קץ qêts kates.”  Below are three passages in Ecclesiastes which use the words “no end,” so let’s look at them:

And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh (Ecc 12:12).

There is no end of all the people, even of all that have been before them: they also that come after shall not rejoice in him. Surely this also is vanity and vexation of spirit (Ecc 4:16).

There is one alone, and there is not a second; yea, he hath neither child nor brother: yet is there no end of all his labour; neither is his eye satisfied with riches; neither saith he, For whom do I labour, and bereave my soul of good? This is also vanity, yea, it is a sore travail (Ecc 4:8).

In each of these verses the same words are used for “no end” that  is used in Isa. 9:7 to translate “no end.”  ַאִין ’ayin   קץ qêts kates.  Please notice the chart on the words for NO END. So the question rises, “Does this mean that the things in these other verses also mean that they will go on for ever and ever and that they will never end?”  If not, by what rule of interpretation does Don declare Isaiah 9:7 as eternal?

“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Mat 24:35).  What Jesus says is that heaven and earth are temporary, but his words are not temporary.  They will always be because even in heaven his word will always exist.

In my 2nd affirmative I wrote:  “Eph. 3:21 talks about the glory of Christ in the church, and this glory will never end because as we have seen in the other passages he has brought up, the church will be in existence for ever as it will be handed back to the Father (1 Cor. 15:24).”  In actuality the phrase “World without end” are not in the text, but we find the two words “aion aion” which means “unto the ages of the ages, being an intens. form meaning forever and ever” (The Complete Word Study Dictionary, e-Sword).  It would be properly translated to translate it thusly:  “Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, for ever and ever. Amen.”  When you put it this way you show the true meaning that it is the glory of Christ in the church throughout all ages, forever and ever.  Meaning that Christ’s glory is eternal.  This, in no way proves Don’s Eternal Church Age or Eternal Christian Age Doctrine.

When the gates are opened, and people come inside for healing where God wipes away all tears, where there are no more tears, is in heaven.  John describes heaven, and what it will be like in heaven, but he also makes the appeal to all to live Godly so they can live in heaven.  The Bride and the Spirit invite is the appeal at the time, and still goes.  However, the time will come when that invitation will cease.  The only evangelism is the plea for people to come to Christ while there is still time.

So none of these passages are detrimental to my proposition.  Don hasn’t dealt with my proposition, he has just thrown up things that he says are detrimental to the proposition.           .

Don seems to operate on the assumption that because the words “we receiving a kingdom” are used in Heb. 12:28 and the word “receiving” is in the present active tense that this means that Paul was saying that this receiving was going on at the time he wrote this.  However, the word receiving comes from “paralambonontes” which is a present active participle.  Dana & Mantey wrote about the present active participle which is seen on the following chart.  What this means is that we must allow the time of the context to determine the time of the participle.  This is why real Greek scholars always translate this action as already having taken place when Paul wrote it.

Another thing he bases this on is the word “shaken” in verse 27.  “Shaken” comes from

sαλευομενων which is  a present passive participle.  So again the time with the participle is purely relative.  It must be determined by the context.

When you look at the context you see that the church has already been established.  The Old Testament has already been taken out of the way, and the New has been ushered in.  Paul often uses words in his writing to speak of things that have already happened as though they are at that time happening (example 1 Tim. 1:15 which uses the present indicative verb eimi), but his using the participle rather than present verbs shows that this was not something that was happening at that time.  If Don is going to argue using the Greek, he needs to learn Greek.  I would suggest he take Gil Yoder’s Introduction To New Testament Greek, through OABS, but I doubt he would take it.

The kingdom which cannot be shaken simply means that the kingdom will not be replaced.  The law of Christ will never be replaced.  The church will never be replaced as was the kingdom of Israel and the Law of Moses.  There will never be another age come behind the Christian age.  The only thing that will come behind the Christian age is the judgment which involves ETERNITY which is not an age, because it has neither beginning nor end.  Eternity is going on now and always has been because this is where God is, always has been and always will be.  Time was invented by God when he created the universe.  When he destroys it, that time will stop and all you will have is eternity.  Since it has neither beginning, nor an end it is not spoken of as an age.

His question:  “Jerry, did Paul abdicate his apostolic authority over the gospel when he ‘delivered’ the gospel to the Corinthians? Yes or No?”  No, he didn’t.  However, the word “delivered” which comes from “παραδίδωμι paradidōmi par-ad-id’-o-mee” and has two basic meanings.  One is to intrust, transmit, the other is to deliver up, to surrender.  Notice the following:  “From G3844 and G1325; to surrender, that is, yield up, intrust, transmit: – betray, bring forth, cast, commit, deliver (up), give (over, up), hazard, put in prison, recommend” (Strong’s Greek Dictionary,  e-Sword)   So Paul intrusted or transmitted the gospel to the church at Corinth, and it is translated “delivered.”  However, Christ won’t entrust or transmit the kingdom to God, he will surrender it, or yield it up to the Father.  When Christ delivers the kingdom “back to God” does this mean that he will simply speak of it to the Father as Paul spoke the gospel to the Corinthians?  Yes or No!  Now, you see how silly his analogy was?  Remember, look at the meanings of the word, and let the context determine which one makes the most sense.

Don says:  “At his parousia, Jesus would SIT ON THIS THRONE – NOT QUIT THE THRONE! Jerry says he quits – The Bible says he sits!”   Don might do a much better job if he would quit trying to be witty and simply answer my arguments.  He is sitting on the throne of David at this time.  He is sitting at the right hand of God on his throne.  Which is where Peter put Jesus at the time of his sermon on Pentecost:  “Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne” (Act 2:30).  Has Christ been raised from the dead?  Yes!  So where is he sitting?  Paul answered this:  “Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God” (Heb 12:2).

So what does this do to Don’s interpretation of Mt. 25:31?  It destroys it because these passages have Christ sitting on his throne long before the destruction of Jerusalem.  So what is the meaning of Mt. 25:31?  Notice Barnes on the following chart.  So Mt. 25:31 simply means that on the last day Christ will appear as a king and judge to judge the world.  It does not mean that he is going to be sitting on a throne over a kingdom in the sense that he now sits on the throne.  Isn’t it amazing how close to Premillenialism the Transmillenialists get?  He now reigns over his kingdom, but on that day he will appear as a judge to judge the world.

If the power of the Holy people was the Law of Moses as Don contends, then Jesus was wrong because he said “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill” (Mat 5:17).  The word destroy comes from katakuo and it means:  “To dissolve, demolish, destroy, or throw down as a building or its materials (Mat_24:2; Mat_26:61; Mat_27:40; Mar_13:2; Mar_14:58; Mar_15:29; Luk_21:6; Act_6:14); as the law and the prophets (Mat_5:17)” (The Complete Word Study Dictionary, e-Sword).  Now the problem with this is that Daniel wrote:  “And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished” (Dan 12:7).  The word for “scatter” or “shatter” (which is the word Don uses) comes from ָנַפץ nāp̱a: which means:   “I. A verb meaning to shatter, to break, to smash” (The Complete Word Study Dictionary, e-Sword).  This dictionary goes on to say “of breaking the political and military might of God’s holy people (Dan_12:7)”  (Ibid).  I bring this up because I brought up earlier that “the power of the Holy people” was Israel’s military might, and Don did nothing more than ridicule me.  Well, I didn’t just come up with this on my own.  Here is a standard dictionary that gives the same idea.  So I guess Don is going to refute what this dictionary says.  However, the real problem is in the meaning of “scattered” or “shattered.”  It means to break into pieces, to smash.  Yet Jesus said he was not going to destroy the Law.  Now if “the power of the Holy people” was their covenant with God, it was the Law.  And if Jesus said he did not come to destroy the law, then either he was wrong, or Daniel was wrong.  No, Don is the one who is wrong because Jesus and Daniel were talking about two totally different things.

Did Israel have an army in AD. 70?  Notice the following chart which shows that their only army was nothing more than regular people with zealots.

This shows that the fighting was done by insurgents and zealots, but Israel had no army during those years.  The only real problem the Jews caused for Rome in A.D. 70 was at Masada, but again it was no army.  It was just common people who had fled for their lives, and the only reason they were able to cause Rome any problem is because they were on a mountain which made it hard for Rome to take them down.

I never said that the church was the power of the Holy people.  I said some commentators gave that explanation.  However, the reason for my giving that information is because I wanted Don to know that with all of the explanations given, not one of them gave Don’s position.  As usual Don missed the point.  He says he has effectively falsified all of my positions on what the power of the Holy people was, but I have only given one position.  I have shown what others thought about it, but my position has been, all along, that it was Israel’s military might, and he hasn’t even come close to falsifying that.  The closest thing he has done to doing that is to ridicule me for saying that Israel had no army in A.D. 70.

He continues to bring up Daniel’s prophecy and try to make it applicable to A.D. 70.  In Daniel 12 we see Daniel speaking of a time when Jerusalem would be defeated in war and the temple would be desecrated by Antiochus Epiphanes.   When Jesus speaks, in Mt. 24:15, of the desolation of Daniel, he is talking of an action that is analogous of the event spoken of by Daniel.  That event would be when the Romans came in and over-ran the city and destroyed the temple as Antiochus Epiphanies did.  He wasn’t saying it was the same desolation of abomination, but it was an event that analogous of that abomination.  This kind of language is used throughout scripture, one of which is found in the qualifications given for an elder where Paul told Timothy not to allow a novice “lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil” (1 Tim. 3:6).  He wasn’t saying that the novice would fall into the devil’s own condemnation, nor is he saying that the novice would fall into the condemnation set by the devil, but that he would be lifted up with pride (which is what the devil did) and fall into like condemnation.

He can continue to make Daniel’s prophecy about A.D. 70, but when he does he destroys any and all application to the destruction in the day of Antiochus Epiphanes.  Don has re-written the complete Bible to deal solely with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.  His applications do away with the prophecies to the people of the day in which they were issued, and make them applicable to an event several centuries down the road, something that none of these people would ever suffer or benefit from.

He ridicules my argument on Acts 1:11.  He has never dealt with that, and all he has done is to show that sometimes the words “coming in clouds” is symbolic, something I have never denied.  However, I have shown at least once that “coming in clouds” was literal.  I pointed out that God came to Mt. Zion in a cloud, and asked if that was a literal cloud or not, but got no answer.

I pointed out that the angels said that Jesus could come again in like manner, or in the same manner.  The words “in like manner” come from the words “hós trópos” which mean:  “Acc. as an adv. hón trópon (hón, acc. relative pron. of hós [G3739], in which, with trópon) in which manner, as, even as (Mat_23:37; Luk_13:34; Act_1:11; Act_7:28; 2Ti_3:8; Jud_1:7 tón hómoion trópon [hómoios {G3664}” (The Complete Word Study Dictionary, e-Sword).

He goes back to the Olivet Discourse rather than to honestly deal with my arguments, and we have answered these arguments time and again.

He says my argument on the thief in the night is wrong:

“Jerry says that Jesus’ coming as a thief means no one could know the time, there would be no signs

•Yet, that Day would also be as the days of Noah

•Jerry were there signs of the coming day of the Flood?”

What signs were there of the coming day of the flood?  Noah was preaching!  Is that a sign?  Get real!  If that is the best Don can do he might as well stay in bed and sleep late.  According to this theory, if we preach that Christ is going to return that is a sign of when he will return.

•That “thief coming” Day would also be “as a woman in travail” (1 Thes. 5)

•Jerry, does a pregnant woman know (aren’t there ‘signs?’) that the “end is near” although she does not know the “day or the hour”

But now look at what 1 Thess. 5:2,3 actually says:  “5:2  For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.

1Th 5:3  For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.”  Now I don’t know how Don’s wife’s pregnancies went, but when my wife went into labor it was rather sudden.  She was doing fine and I went to the store and when I returned her water had broken.  That was rather sudden, because the store was just down the road.  When a woman goes into labor it is usually rather sudden just like the thief hits suddenly without warning.  This is what Paul was saying to the Thessalonians.

Jesus’ statement to Sardis was not talking about the general judgment, but his coming upon them in judgment for their wickedness.  His judgment would come, as it always does, suddenly.

Don says:  “In v. 36f he gave no additional signs, but, he told them to ‘Watch’

If there was nothing to watch for, why did Jesus tell them to watch? •They were to watch for the signs Jesus had given!”  You’ve got to be kidding me!  Did he really say that?  Look at the chart again, and you will see that this is exactly what he said.  Is that what Jesus said?  I don’t think so!  In verse 42 he said “Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come” (Mat 24:42).  What were they to watch for?  The word “watch” comes from:  “grēgoreuō gray-gor-yoo’-o” which means:  “From G1453; to keep awake, that is, watch (literally or figuratively): – be vigilant, wake, (be) watch (-ful)” (Strong’s Greek Dictionary, e-Sword).  Watch doesn’t mean look for some sign, but to be in a state of vigilance or watchfulness.  This is exactly what Jesus meant in Mt. 25:13:  “Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.”  They weren’t to look for some sign, they were to be vigilant like the wise virgins were, not like the foolish virgins.  Don has shown in his argument here that he will take any position to force the square peg of transmillenialism into the round hole of truth.  This ought to be a wake up call to all who follow Don Preston and those who teach the transmillenial doctrine.

The problem is that Jesus, while he was on earth, did not even know the year in which he would return to the earth.  He did know when Jerusalem would be destroyed, but of the day and hour of his return in judgment upon the earth he knew not the year, nor the day, nor the hour.  The Father had not given him this knowledge, and Jesus said that only the Father had that knowledge.

Don wrote:  “If physical death is simply a part of the human experience (and it is) and is not the “wages of sin” then this is prima facie demonstration that 1 Corinthians 15:21 is not about a physical resurrection!”  I don’t know how he made this leap of logic for it certainly is not sound.  In a syllogism it would look like this:

Major Premise:  If physical death is simply a part of the human experience, and is not the wages of sin, then 1 Corinthians 15:21 is not about a physical resurrection.

Minor Premise:  Physical death is simply a part of the human experience, and is not about the wages of sin.

Conclusion:  Therefore 1 Cor. 15:21 is not about a physical resurrection.

Now to look at the problems here:

  1. Physical death is not simply a part of the human experience.  Physical death came into existence after Adam and Eve committed that first sin, “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die”  (Gen 2:16,17).  There were two deaths involved here:  (A) physical and (B) spiritual.  Upon their disobedience, they died spiritually, and they began to die physically.  Don  is making the same assumption that the atheist makes when they say that because Adam and Eve didn’t drop dead at that point that God lied.  Don doesn’t say God lied, he just says that physical death had nothing to do with what God told Adam and Eve.

Also notice that physical death is not the wages of sin, but is rather the consequence of Adam’s sin.  Paul said “For as in Adam all die” (1 Cor. 15:22).  Now what kind of death do all men suffer because of Adam?  This is saying that all men die because of Adam, but if this is spiritual death, then we sin because Adam sinned and that teaches Original Sin or Calvinism.  No, we all die (physically) because Adam sinned and unleashed phyiscal death upon the world.

2.  How was physical death man’s enemy?  Before Christ died on the cross, physical death was a threat because man had no salvation.  Had Christ not died on the cross, then all would have been lost who were accountable to God because there would have been nothing to go back and cleanse the sins of the past.  God would have continued to remember their sins against them (Heb. 10:3).  Since Christ died on the cross, all who lived faithfully to God were covered by his blood (Heb. 9:15), and those who lived after and lived according to his will would be covered.  Now, because death has no more dominion over us, we can be like Paul and look forward to death (Phil. 1:21-23).

3. Now, Paul is not discussing the death that is the wages of sin in 1 Corinthians 15, he is talking about the death that is the consequence of Adam’s sin.  The death that all men face as a result of Adam’s sins.  We don’t sin because of Adam, we sin because we are tempted and fall to the temptation (Jas. 1:13-15).  Spiritual death is something we have control over, but physical death is not.  We will all die as a direct result of Adam’s actions.  However, thanks to the blood of Christ, we don’t have to look at death as an enemy.  Satan cannot use it to have dominion over us.  Now we can look forward to it and welcome it.

Now deal with my syllogisms.  They are relevant and you know it.

Eph. 5:25,26 does not show that Christ will be married to the church on the day of judgment.  Was the church not the bride of Christ when Paul wrote this?  If you look at verses 26-27 you see that they say that Christ died on the cross so that he might sanctify the church with the washing of water by the word so he could present it to himself a glorious church.  When did he sanctify it?  He sanctified it at the same time that he presented it to himself a glorious church.  For Don to say that his presenting it to himself had to wait until A.D. 70 means that the sanctification had to wait until A.D. 70, and if that is the case then baptism had no meaning until A.D. 70.  Is this what Don believes?  Does he believe that the church was NOT the bride of Christ when Paul wrote?

He wants me to show where the Patriarchal ended when the Mosaic came into existence.  It didn’t end for the Gentiles until the gospel was given to Cornelius in Acts chapter 10.  Notice the chart on two systems.

Don says that Paul uses the present active indicative to speak of that which is passing as though that means that the Old Law had not been done away at this time.  Notice the context of Paul’s statement.  He is not saying that the Old Law was still passing away, but that there were those who were reading the Law and obeying the Law, and when they did that same vail was upon their heart.  But in Christ that vail is taken away.  The word is not active, but passive.  It is the word καταργειται which is “3 person plural, singular, present, indicative, passive of katargew.  However, this is beside the point.  The point is that the context shows that Paul is showing that there were those who were reading the law, following the law, and as long as they followed the law that vail was in their hearts.  The only way that vail could be taken away was in Christ.

How does one get into Christ?  He is baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:26).  If the Old Law was actually still in effect, how could one get into Christ?  Gal. 5:4 shows that those who were trying to be justified by the law “ye are fallen from Grace.”  The words “ye are fallen” come from the greek word “εξεπεσατε” “2 person plural, 1 aorist, indicative” (The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised, p.145).  This word being aorist shows that it “deals with action in past time” (Essentials Of New Testament Greek, p. 66).  Thus we see that Paul was saying that those who were trying to be justified by the law they were fallen from grace.  Thus we see that men could not live under the law of Moses after Christ died on the cross.

I notice that Don said nothing about the two arguments that followed the argument on 2 Cor. 3:14:

Major Premise:  If the New Testament is Christ’s Covenant (will) with man, then it had to become enforceable after he died (Heb. 9:16,17).

Minor Premise:  The New Testament is Christ’s Covenant (will) with man.

Conclusion:  Therefore it had to become enforceable after he died (Heb. 9:16,17).

Major Premise:  If the New Testament became enforceable after the death of Christ, then the Old Testament had to be taken away when the New became enforceable.

Minor Premise:  The New Testament became enforceable after the death of Christ.

Conclusion:  Therefore, the Old Testament had to be taken away when the new became enforceable.

All of his quibbling on the present tense is useless because he cannot deal with these arguments together.  He has to separate them and try to deal with the first one alone, but he can’t even do that.

Notice the chart on the thief.  Now notice the chart on signs.  Now notice the chart on Jesus knowing the time of the coming in judgment in AD 70, but not the second coming.  Now notice the chart on the day and hour.  Notice the chart on blessings and cursings.  Notice the next chart on blessings and cursings.  Notice the list of charts on the transfiguration.

He claims that Jesus died spiritually.  How can that be when Ezekiel says “The soul that sinneth it shall die” (Ezk. 18:20).  The only way one can die spiritually is to sin, and Heb. 4:15 tells us that Jesus was tempted as we are yet without sin.  This new doctrine being taught in the brotherhood is a dangerous one because it means that Jesus sinned. His example of one dying a substitutionary death is not the same as dying spiritually.  Dying spiritually is being guilty of sin, being separated from God (Isa. 59:1,2).  Christ died on the cross, but he never died spiritually because he was never separated from God.

Notice the first chart then the second chart on John 20:30,31.  Notice the chart on my “flipflop.”  Notice the chart on the Sons of the Kingdom.  Notice my chart on the anaphoric article.  Now notice the chart on 2 Pet. 3:13.  Then notice the chart on Isa. 66.  Here is my chart on Rom. 9:28.  Here is the rest of Rom. 9:28.  Here is the chart on the New Name.   Look at the chart on the Same Manner of the Day of the Lord.  Now notice the chart on These Days.  Now notice the chart on Personal Pronouns.

I cannot open his chart on Domitian so if he will fix it I will answer it later.  As far as his chart on inspiration is concerned, I have offered Pliney, etc., and he offered scripture, but even he admits that if Revelation was written in the 90’s his application of Revelation is useless.  I referred to Rev. 1:11 where John was on the Isle of Patmos and asked him to show where John was ever there other than in the 90’s.  Did I get an answer?  No, and I never will.  Even Foy E. Wallace Jr. could not answer that and could only say that perhaps John had been there previously.  Well perhaps he hadn’t, please show where he was.  Now for the chart on distance.  The place of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus is not a matter of salvation, and it would not affect the 7 churches in Asia.  All that would affect them is the fact that he did die, he did rise, and he did ascend.  The place is unimportant.  However, Don cannot plead such because he must hold to the idea that the place of the destruction was important.  So again, I ask how is it important to those Gentile Christians?

Don has not answered all of my arguments, as a matter of fact he has hedged around my arguments and treated them like a smorgasbord where he can accept what he wants and reject what he wants.  But he can’t do that because he is in the negative and his responsibility is to answer each of my arguments.  He does not have follow me if I am repetitious, but he has to answer them when they are given the first time.  Hopefully Don will take the time to carry out his obligation rather than just rushing through.

In Christ Jesus, Jerry McDonald