Seal Up Vision and Prophecy: The Manifest Desperation of Sam Frost #2
Before I get into the body of this installment, it is necessary and helpful to note Mr. Frost’s response to what I wrote in the first article. His comments appeared on the FaceBook page Preterist Perspectives Debate and Discussion. Let me summarize a few of his comments:
I brought forth numerous quotations from some of the world’s greatest Hebraists, all of whom attest and testify that “seal up vision and prophecy” means the cessation of the prophetic office through the fulfillment of all prophecy. I noted that there are a few dissenting voices, but, by and large, the huge majority of scholars agree with this definition. In response, Frost said that he had studied this subject and that “Apparently, Preston may need to read more.”
Now, did Frost list as many scholarly quotes as I did? Not even one. Did he give us documentation from at least a few scholars who take a dissenting view? No, not even one. One would think that if he had been studying this subject as he claimed, and discovered that Preston needs to study more, that he would at least grace us with some of the vast scholarly attestation he might be referring to. But no, he simply says that Preston may need to read more. Well, as I posted in response to Frost’s claim: “I have and continue to read more. As a matter of fact, I looked into my Logos Platinum program, and every commentator there, with one exception, agreed with the “fulfill” definition.” And Frost’s response to that? Not a word. Not a syllable. Not a keystroke. The silence is thunderous.
Let me make a few observations:
1. The scholars I cited undeniably say, clearly, explicitly and undoubtedly that “seal up vision and prophecy” means the fulfillment of all prophecy, and the subsequent closing of the prophetic office through that fulfillment. Just go back and read article #1 again, and, get a copy of my book Seal Up Vision and Prophecy for even fuller documentation. Thus, for Frost to say that the scholars do not say that the term means to fulfill all prophecy is, well,. “manipulative”– and specious. It is denying the undeniable. It truly is a misuse of the sources.
2. Frost’s claim that “IF NONE of these commentaries see the fulfillment of ALL prophecy in AD 70 (and NONE of them do), then, it is OBVIOUS that the “vision and prophet” that Daniel is referring (sic) to are LIMITED and SPECIFIC to the prophecy itself.”
This is just awful! The utter lack of lucid thinking should be manifest to all. This kind of “logic” would result in a failing grade in any class on logic. (By the way, don’t forget, the several scholars I cited are but a small fraction of the ones that could be cited).
First of all, Frost’s claim that Daniel 9 must refer to “LIMITED and SPECIFIC” prophecies, i.e. strictly to the prophecy of Daniel 9 itself, is falsified by the fact that there is no definite article in the Hebrew text, and many, many scholars, (e.g. Hengstenberg and Lange to name just two) noting this, say the absence of the definite article demands that the prophecy cannot be limited to the “LIMITED and SPECIFIC” prophecy of Daniel 9. Frost conveniently failed to tell his readers this critical linguistic bit of evidence.
It is hardly uncommon for men to make comments and not see the implications of those comments. As I proceed in this examination of Frost’s claims, that will be manifestly clear, as I show that (evidently) Frost did not think through the implications of the things that he says! The point is that it is entirely “human” for men, such as Adam Clark for instance, to affirm: “To seal up (ולחתם velachtom, “to finish or complete”) the vision and prophecy; that is, to put an end to the necessity of any further revelations, by completing the canon of Scripture, and fulfilling the prophecies which related to his person, sacrifice, and the glory that should follow.” (Adam Clark, on Daniel 9:24; Again, for ease of access, I have drawn the citation from the website: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cmt/clarke/dan009.htm). Yet, in spite of that he said this, he also said that the seventy weeks ended in AD 34-35.
So, Clark patently said that the Hebrew of Daniel 9 meant to fulfill all prophecy. Yet, Frost says I misused Clark. No, what I did was to show how Clark patently defined the term seal up vision and prophecy, and then, I showed that he was grossly inconsistent in his beliefs to then posit the end of the seventy weeks by AD 34-35! Frost said: “And, Don K. Preston (sic) misuse of Clarke and others, who ALSO do not see EVERY prophecy fulfilled in the 70 Weeks (else they would be Full Preterists, right?), shows a bit of manipulation.” My challenge to Mr. Frost is: Prove that I misrepresented Adam Clark in any way whatsoever. Prove that I misrepresented any scholars! Just prove it! The reader needs to know that while Frost accused me of misusing Clark and the scholars, that he never offered a keystroke of proof, other than his manipulative abuse of logic.
Read Clark’s words carefully. He unequivocally did say that seal up vision and prophecy meant to fulfill all prophecy. No “manipulation” there. He did say the seventy weeks ended circa AD 34-35. No “manipulation” there. Clark was simply inconsistent. I provided Clark’s own quotes and noted how his own comments revealed his inconsistency.
Contra Frost’s false claim, I never said that those scholars were full preterists. Frost is guilty of a great deal of misdirection here. I proved that the scholars say that “seal up vision and prophecy” means to fulfill all prophecy. Frost is saying that if they had said and taught that “seal up vision and prophecy” actually meant to fulfill all prophecy, that they would have to have been full preterists. Again, not so. They were merely men who said some inconsistent things. What they said is undeniable however.
Speaking of the scholars, I shared the words of a world class Hebrew scholar that I knew. He said that to “seal vision and prophecy” means, without doubt, the fulfillment of all prophecy. I will not dignify Frost’s totally inappropriate and off-color “response” except to note that it just proves, once again, that Frost knows he cannot deal with the facts, so he stoops to a crass, offensive response. And, I would point out, once again, that Frost has not offered up so much as one scholar that has attempted to show, linguistically, why seal vision and prophecy does not mean to fulfill all prophecy.
4. Frost’s horrible hermeneutic is revealed in full bloom in another comment: “I do not see the word “all” and “every” there, either. “To seal up EVERY vision and EVERY prophecy EVER uttered, Daniel.”
Irony of ironies!
Frost says because the words “every” and “every prophecy ever uttered” do not appear in Daniel 9:24, that one cannot say that this is what he meant. And yet, catch the power of this, when I noted that Frost was throwing out endless speculative proposals for the meaning of “seal up vison and prophecy” hoping that something, anything might stick, he claimed that I called him a liar! Do you catch that?
I never used the word liar, yet, Frost says I called him a liar, BUT, because Daniel 9 did not use the words “every prophecy” then Daniel could not be referring to every prophecy! The double speak here is astounding! See what I mean by men not seeing the implications of their own statements? Per Frost, missing words in Daniel exclude a referent, but, missing words in Preston demand a referent! Wow!
But notice this in addition: Frost keeps insisting that there will be a future physical resurrection. Human bodies of “flesh and blood” will come out of the ground. However, the words “physical resurrection” or, “resurrection of the flesh” do not appear anywhere in the Bible! Thus, according to Frost’s manipulative hermeneutic, his doctrine of a fleshly, physical resurrection is falsified.
Okay, enough of that, for now at least. Let me now proceed to show how Frost’s new found position on Daniel 9:24 and the definition of “seal up vision and prophecy” entraps him (as usual) and flies in the explicit testimony of scripture.
Remember, Frost now believes that “seal up vision and prophecy” essentially means to put under lock and key so as to be not understandable, or not understood. His newly developed, but not well thought through doctrine in regard to this is expressed in the following quote:
“In Daniel, he is told, 2300 days….but seal up the vision…the prophecy…etc. This lets us know the extent, I believe, of what “seal up” means, AND the nature of WHAT is sealed up. Here, Daniel is TOLD times and seasons, down to the tee. 70 Weeks. Very specific. THIS aspect, then, of KNOWING through revelation exact “times and seasons” the Father has set (how many times are there? We don’t know. How many seasons? Not a clue. How long until? Not a peep. whereas, what USED to be a very specific function of vision and prophecy (announcing times and seasons) has CEASED…they will come….they are set…what the seven thunders uttered will happen….heaven and earth will pass…all things will be restored….but, no dates, no times, no limits have been “given” – they are sealed, known only to God.”
The irony of Frost’s appeal to Daniel 12 cannot be over-emphasized. It would literally take a book to chronicle all of Frost’s vacillations – his roaming around – and false comments about Daniel 12, but that lies beyond the scope of what we are doing here. Just one example will suffice.
Frost went on record as denying that Daniel 12 is the general resurrection because it refers to the resurrection of “many.” That therefore cannot be the resurrection of “all.” (This in spite of the fact that he has been on record as acknowledging that the term “many” in Daniel is a Hebraism, that would have been understood as meaning “all.” Many leading Hebraists take note of this). But then, Frost turned around and said that Daniel 12 is in fact the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15. And but wait! He now, he has once again returned to a denial that Daniel 12 is the general resurrection. Just more “roaming around” I guess!
But take a look now at a few undeniable facts:
1. Even Frost believes that the resurrection is when ALL PROPHECY, not just some, not even most, but when ALL PROPHECY is finally fulfilled!
2. Daniel 12 foretold the resurrection of the just and the unjust (v. 2) which is the resurrection of John 5:28-29 and Acts 24:14f. In other words, the time of the fulfillment of all prophecy!
3. Daniel 9 and 12:7 posits that resurrection– i.e. the time of the fulfillment of all prophecy (and thus, the sealing up of vision and prophecy of Daniel 9) when “the power of the holy people is completely shattered! Make no mistake, Daniel 9 does predict the resurrection as I prove in my book, Seventy Weeks Are Determined…For the Resurrection.
Thus, Frost’s misguided appeal to Daniel 12 entraps him, and there is even more here.
Notice that Daniel foresaw the Great Tribulation, the resurrection, the end of the age, the righteous shining in the kingdom, the Abomination of Desolation. All of this within the span of the 1335 days, culminating in the resurrection. Frost tells us that Daniel 9 and Daniel 12 were given and thus knew “times and seasons, “right down to the tee. 70 Weeks. Very specific. THIS aspect, then, of KNOWING through revelation exact “times and seasons” the Father has set (how many times are there)?”
Do you see what Frost is doing here? He is saying that Daniel was given to know the times and the seasons, very specifically. After all the seventy weeks and the 1335 days are specific times and seasons! So, once again, Daniel, and the other OT prophets, knew the times and the seasons, but, when Jesus came, the meaning and the timing of the fulfillment of those OT prophecies was sealed up! They became unknowable! They were put under lock and key and New Testament saints– and even Jesus! – are given no insights, no indication of when the end will come! According to Frost, the Old Covenant prophets knew more than the New Covenant prophets, yea, more than Jesus himself! Talk about a hermeneutic of desperation! But, notice how Daniel 12 entraps Frost:
The resurrection of the just and the unjust of Daniel 12 is when ALL PROPHECY is finally fulfilled and the prophetic office comes to a close.
The vision of Daniel 12 would be sealed up until the time of the end, the time of the resurrection, when ALL PROPHECY is finally fulfilled and the prophetic office comes to a close.
But, the resurrection of the just and the unjust of Daniel 12 would be (was) fulfilled “when the power of the holy people is (was) completely shattered” (i.e. in AD 70).
Therefore, ALL PROPHECY was finally fulfilled and the prophetic office came to a close in AD 70!
But, this is not all.
The vision of Daniel 12 would be sealed up until the time of the end, the time of the resurrection, when ALL PROPHECY is finally fulfilled and the prophet office comes to a close.
Daniel 12 would be sealed up until the time of the end when, “many shall run to and fro and knowledge shall increase”…. “none of the wicked shall understand: but the wise shall understand” (v. 4, 10). In other words, Daniel’s vision would be “unsealed” revealed and understood, in the time of the end!
(Daniel actually saw the vision and did not understand (v. 8) contra Frost’s contention that his prophecy was so specific and clear about the times and the seasons)!
In Matthew 24:15, Jesus told his living apostles “when you see the Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet (whoso reads, LET HIM UNDERSTAND…..”
So, Daniel’s vision of the end extended no later than AD 70.
Daniel’s vision was to be sealed up until the time of the end.
Daniel’s vision would not be understood until the time of the end when knowledge would increase and the wise would understand.
Jesus told his living apostles that by watching the signs- the key sign being the Abomination of Desolation- they would understand Daniel’s prophecy! It would no longer be sealed up, no longer not understood! It would not then be- per Frost – sealed up. It would be “un-sealed” and understood and because it would be understood, they could understand and they could flee!
Notice Matthew 24:32 where Jesus told those same apostles: “So you also, when you see these things come to pass, know that it (that is the kingdom and parousia of v. 29-31) is nigh, even at the door.”
So, Jesus told his disciples that by observing the signs, they could know the time of the end! They could understand Daniel 12! If however, Frost’s claim is true,, the disciples would not have known what or when or the where of the Abomination of Desolation and they would have been doomed – the exact opposite of what Jesus taught. It would only be because Daniel’s vision of the end would be “un-sealed” that they could (and did) escape the coming Great Tribulation.
Jesus’ teaching is clear. The disciples could see the Abomination of Desolation, and understand Daniel’s prophecy was being fulfilled. The end was therefore near! But, Sam Frost says, no, this can’t be! The times and the seasons, the time of the end would be put under a seal and NOTHING about it could be known! This is Jesus versus Frost.
Nor is this all:
Frost admitted that the Great Tribulation and the resurrection are tied together in Daniel 12. Of course that is undeniable, unless Frost wants to adopt the Dispensational Gap Doctrine, as I have noted in another exchange, then the Tribulation and the Resurrection are temporally linked. But, what does Frost do? He says the resurrection simply has not occurred. He says this because of his presuppositional idea of a physical resurrection. This is hugely problematic.
Jesus undeniably posited the Great Tribulation for his generation, tied directly to the Jewish War of AD 66-70 (Matthew 24:15-34). Now, up to this point, Frost has admitted this irrefutable truth. We shall see if he “roams” away from this bedrock truth, however.
The resurrection and the Great Tribulation, are temporally linked.
The Great Tribulation would be in the first century generation.
Therefore, the resurrection, being temporally linked to the resurrection, did occur in the first century.
Frost denies that the resurrection occurred, but, admits that the Great Tribulation did occur. (Again, will Frost not deny the first century Great Tribulation, like the Dispensationalists do?) Now, with his “new” position that Daniel 12 is not, after all, the general resurrection, it is distinctly possible that he would admit, after all, that Daniel 12 was fulfilled in AD 70 after all!
If Frost says the Great Tribulation did occur but the resurrection did not occur, he has Daniel’s prophecy partially failing! But, if any of Daniel 12 failed, then it is all uninspired. Frost thus implicitly rejects the inspiration of Daniel 12, if he says the Tribulation did occur but the resurrection did not. Unfortunately, Frost’s theological “roaming” has landed him in a very tenuous spot. We shall see where he roams to now!
The indisputable fact is that Daniel’s vision of the end of the age was to be sealed up until the time of the end. In the time of the end, it would be unsealed and the wise would understand it. Frost reverses this and denies it. And yet, Jesus himself said that Daniel’s prophecy would be understood by his first century apostles. This is a total repudiation of Frost’s claim.
But this is not all.
Notice now Revelation 22. Keep in mind that Revelation is about the fulfillment of, among other prophetic books, the book of Daniel. That prophet’s prediction of the Abomination, the Tribulation the resurrection and the kingdom are undeniably reflected and echoed in the Apocalypse.
Daniel was told to seal the vision of his book, because it was not near. It would be sealed until the time of the end, when knowledge would be increased, the wise would understand. So, what do we find in Revelation? Read Revelation 22:10:
“And he said to me, “Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand.”
Do you catch the power of that?
Here is John, being instructed by the Spirit, sent from the Father, who knew the “day and the hour” informing John NOT to seal the vision of the Apocalypse. Why? Because “the time is at hand.”
Notice that it was “the time” (ho kairos) that was near (eggus). Note the use of the definite article with the word kairos, (time) which means divinely appointed time. Where did John get the idea of a divinely appointed time, in regard to the events of the end? Well, seventy weeks were determined for those things, and 1335 days were appointed for the fulfillment of the Abomination, the Tribulation, the end of the age, the resurrection! This is the divinely appointed schema of the end!
Whereas Daniel was informed that the fulfillment of those things was NOT NEAR, and subsequently was to be sealed up until the time of the end when they would be understood and fulfilled, the God of heaven, who knew the time of the end, told John, “Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand.” And yet, sadly, we have Sam Frost coming along and telling us, in stark rejection of the Father’s words, that in reality, the meaning of Revelation is now sealed, unknown and unknowable until the seven thunders sound! In Frost’s new paradigm, evidently not even the Father knows the time of the fulfillment of the time that He himself appointed!
In our next installment, we will continue to demonstrate that the passages Frost appeals to in his attempt to negate the NT language of imminence do not at all prove his case. This article alone is actually sufficient to expose his desperation and abuse of logic and exegesis, but there is much, much more!
Let me close this installment with a key New Testament passage that nullifies and exposes Frost’s claims. That passage is 1 Peter 1:10-12. I will not expound on it here, but, will simply leave it for the reader to examine and to ponder in light of Frost’s claims that the Old Testament prophets knew the times and the seasons more than the NT writers:
“Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things which angels desire to look into.”
According to this text, the New Testament writers knew more about the time and manner than the OT prophets. This is the exact opposite of what Sam Frost is telling us. To say that this passage is the total falsification of Frost’s new doctrine is a huge understatement. It teaches the exact opposite of what Sam Frost is now teaching. In all of his theological roaming around, he has landed in quicksand.
More to come. In the meantime, get a copy of my book, The Resurrection of Daniel 12:2: Future or Fulfilled. It thoroughly refutes Frost’s new and ever evolving eschatology, and is one of the most comprehensive examinations of Daniel 12 to be found.